Here, we determine which articles are to be
featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the
FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the
review FAQ.
Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at
Peer review and adding the review to the
FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to
seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not
significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or
Good article nominations at the same time.
The FAC coordinators—
Ian Rose,
Gog the Mild,
David Fuchs and
FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be
promoted to FA status,
consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and
archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
actionable objections have not been resolved;
consensus for promotion has not been reached;
insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
a nomination is unprepared.
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.
Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.
An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.
Nominations in urgent need of review are listed
here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the
FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}}notification template elsewhere.
A
bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.
Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the
FA criteria and that
peer reviews are closed and archived.
Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to
the FAC talk page for assistance.
Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will
transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.
To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see
the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates
accessibility problems.
If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per
talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
This article is about a fictional species in the Pokémon media franchise, the evolution of mascot
Pikachu. The article discusses the character's design and appearances, as well as reception in the context of it as its own species and in relation to Pikachu from both audience perception and company handling of the character.
The article passed GAN in January of this year, and underwent a peer review in April, with feedback from both worked into the article. Additional discussions to refine sections have also taken place on
the video game character task force to help get consensus on how to approach commonly used terminology and help a reader unfamiliar with the franchise or gaming understand them. One point of issue may be the use of a ScreenRant source in the reception section, however this source is being used strictly for the author Niki Fakhoori's opinion, and they have a long history in gaming journalism for outlets such as Prima Games and RPGFan as illustrated
here (the latter of which recognized as a reliable source by
the Wikipdia Video Game project).
I don't normally look at FANs but given that this is within my main subject area, I thought I'd stop by and leave some comments.
-"Sugimori asked Nishida to design the form, who gave it a "soft and fluffy" appearance. Nishida felt that Raichu's original design was far cuter than people gave it credit for, and wanted to express this in the Alolan form" The wording feels a bit informal here, and I feel this could be better worded.
Reworded for better flow.
-What are Types? (Electric and Psychic) and what do they do? For those unfamiliar with Pokémon this aspect isn't very well-defined.
Added a definition to the opening paragraph explaining this.
-I'd define what an ability is (Clarify it with something like "an in-battle special ability or something like that) for those unaware of in-game terminology
Fixed.
-I'd also clarify what Electric Terrain is, given it isn't clarified what that is.
Fixed,
-"First found in Pokémon Red and Blue, they have appeared in most Pokémon titles since, including every major game." This statement seems to be unsourced.
Reused the Ode to Raichu reference here as he mentions capturing it in every game.
-"and another Pikachu must be obtained instead." I'd reword this to also mention "...must be obtained instead in order to obtain Raichu" or something like that
Reworded
-I'd clarify "the games" Pokémon Sun and Moon in the prose in the Appearances section
Fixed
-I'm not sure how necessary "due to the latter evolving his as quickly as possible" is in the article's context.
Reworded
-I'd utilize a source that isn't Comicbook.com for cite 27 (Verifying Goh's Raichu) given that site is inconclusive in terms of reliability and tends to have low quality articles.
Sadly this is the best source for that matter, as all others omit details. The anime at this point is not heavily discussed in sources and ComicBook.com offered the best material for this matter.
-How reliable are "Visual Entertainment Plandas" and "Gung Ho Bookings"?
Both are the booking companies of their respective talents, and while still primary sources the alternative would have been to cite episode credits directly for Japan or Ms. Mongillo's Twitter, which per the previous FAC attempt was frowned upon. Most voice work in the anime are often either difficult to find secondary credits for or uncredited entirely in the English end.
-"or ending up not using them at all" I'd just change this to "end" for grammatical reasons
Fixed
-"and expressing his confusion at the reaction." I'm very confused as to what this is supposed to mean.
Reworded
-I feel the Comicbook.com source in the Reception isn't really adding much. I know there's other small sources used, but these at least have a reason to be used. The Comicbook.com source just feels unnecessary.
While it's lighter it's used as a glue for that whole paragraph as it helps offer another reaction to how the fandom and company have treated the character. I feel removing this would undermine that paragraph and an idea of how the character was received in that regard overall as the series progressed.
-" to Ash's idealized childlike state instead of maturing in Pikachu's refusal to evolve into Raichu and how this displayed that they drew power from their younger states respectively." I'd cut the "instead of maturing" here because this sentence is very hard to comprehend otherwise.
Fixed.
-The LGBTQ+ source is honestly really cool, but it only mentions Raichu once and is a small part of the article. I'm not sure if this counts as significant coverage in the scope of a FA.
I feel strongly it helps bring a different enough viewpoint to the relation between the two and is significant enough to keep. While smaller sources on their own may not be ideal, they can help cement larger opinions and give the reader a more thorough perspective on how a relationship between two fictional characters can be seen.
-I think this article has potential but does need some work. Fantastic job overall, but do let me know your thoughts on the above or if you need any clarification, since this article still needs some improvements before I'll give my Support vote. (I believe that's how this works? Do correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not as familiar with FA voting.)
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
01:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm traveling right now but I think I'll be able to get some comments up within the next week or so. Haven't looked at Pokémon in a long while but this might be a good start.
The Night Watch(talk)08:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about the strongest tornado to occur during 2022. Injuries, a death, and $17 million in damages were left in the aftermath of this deadly and violent tornado.
This article
passed a GA review back in late-June 2024, with only a small amount of sentence/grammatical changes and no changes or issues with the content. This is my second ever FAC, with my first one (for a different article) failing surprsingly due to a split support/oppose consensus. Hopefully this one holds up to FA standards and we don’t end up with another split support/oppose consensus. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
File:Photo_of_the_2022_Pembroke–Black_Creek_tornado.png: the unique historic images tag is intended for situations where the image itself, rather than what is pictured, is the subject of commentary - that doesn't appear to be the case here. The hidden comment on the image is also confusing, since AFAIK this is a
perennially rejected proposal and not a NFC requirement.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That sounds like something that needs to be brought up at
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, given it passed GA with it being present. For the hidden comment, I presume you mean in regards to the caption: "A photograph of the tornado by Jason Manchester<!--Name should be kept due to it being non-free image.-->" That comment was just associated with "Jason Manchester" being kept in the caption, given it is a non-free image. WP:Weather has very few non-free images and as far as I think, that is the standard practice for them. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)18:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Given it passed peer-review at the GAN and the automatic text addition for
WP:NFCC#8 in the non-free rational states, "For visual identification of the object of the article", you haven't provided a valid reason to object to this image and it appears to me to have no issues. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)18:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Passing GAN doesn't guarantee that something will pass FAC. I don't think this image is correctly tagged or correctly captioned.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
00:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image-related issue discussed above by Nikkimaria has been fixed, with the complete removal of the NFC. I do not agree with this change. Nikkimaria, given this issue has been fixed, would you feel comfortable supporting this for FA? The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)00:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well thank you for the image review. I appreciate you for taking the time! (Personal note: Sad time. All of that to not get a support. :( On the bright side, at least I didn't get an oppose. :D !) The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)00:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ever wonder why Greek and Sanskrit cognates involving gutturals don't always match up like you expect and usually before an /r/ sound? Yeah, me either. But in 1881, a German linguist commented on this oddity and proposed a sound law to explain it. "Largely forgotten by the scholarly world", the law developed newfound interest when Dutch linguist Alwin Kloekhorst gave the law a full defense in 2011, giving Dr. Weise a high honor: naming it after him. As of now, there are no Proto-Indo-European FAs and only one other GA, which is
something I'm hoping to fix. This article may be of interest to you if you speak a language affected by the law, including a Balto-Slavic language, Albanian, Armenian, or any of the Indo-Iranian languages, such as Farsi or Hindi. I would like to extend my thanks, first and foremost, to
UndercoverClassicist who beat this article into shape during its GA nomination, swung by to help out during PR, and overall just gave great feedback. Also thanks to
RoySmith and
Matarisvan, both of whom gave me great feedback at PR as well.
ThaesOfereode (
talk)
01:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Presented at a conference in 2008". Who or what was presented?
Rephrased.
"several different sources on the topic, both referencing Weise and not". This would work better as 'several different sources on the topic, some referencing Weise and some not' or similar.
"while the palatovelar stops generally were made into alveolar sibilants in most cases". You don't need to say both "generally" and "in most cases".
Good catch. Fixed.
"Sanskrit words contain many potential violations of the rule occurring". I am not sure this is grammatical. Try deleting "occurring".
Fixed.
"However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family such as in Sanskrit"> I am a little confused; "such as in Sanskrit", as opposed to what?
In short, there appear to be violations of the law which are explainable by sound changes that took place after the law. In Sanskrit, as an example, /l/ becomes /r/ in many circumstances. Because of this, śr clusters appear to be violations of the law – since ś is largely, if not only, derived from PIE *ḱ – because *ḱ cannot precede *r according to the law. But because these words may be the result of a PIE *ḱl cluster, there is no violation. The examples serve to demonstrate such cases.
In which case I suggest that a bit much is being asked of this sentence. Perhaps something like 'However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family. Examples can be found in Sanskrit, where ...'
Fixed.
Non-actionable comment: I like your two uses of "In other words". Is this deliberate minor humour?
I'd love to say yes, but this is the template phrase of someone used to reading and writing technical jargon trying to make it more accessible. In other words, sadly no. :-)
"The law must have occurred by". I know what you mean, but I am unsure that it works as prose. Perhaps unpack "The law" to say just what it was that "must have occurred by"? Similarly with references to "the law" in the last sentence of the paragraph.
I've changed a few of these up; I think I'm understanding you right. If not, could you offer a suggestion?
Yep, that's fixed it.
And in "there is positive evidence that the law never occurred in Armenian" and similar uses. I am not sure that "the law occurred" etc communicates well to a reader.
Ibid. above
Likewise.
"linguists suggest that this sound change occurred before the centum–satem split." All linguists, most, or some?
Now that I'm looking at it again, I think it's really just Kloekhorst saying that. I've changed it to reflect that.
"Although, because the results of Weise's law seem more extensive outside the Indo-Iranian languages, Kloekhorst notes that it is likely that a secondary wave of depalatalization law took place at a later date in each of those language families." ' Kloekhorst notes that it is likely that a secondary wave of depalatalization law took place at a later date in each of those language families, because the results of Weise's law seem more extensive outside the Indo-Iranian languages' seems easier to parse.
Done.
"See Centum and satem languages § Satem languages for more." Maybe '... for further information' [or 'detail', or discussion']?
I like "further discussion". Fixed.
"Larry Trask also categorizes both". Categorizes both as what?
I am leaning support, but as it is early days for a technical topic I am going to hold off formalising this until I see what other reviewers think. In particular their view of
WP:TECHNICAL "Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience." I think that it passes this, but only just, and would like to see others' opinions.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
12:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Borsoka
Before starting a detailed review, I think the article needs some expansion:
the main text could explain that the sound change is assumed to have occurred in Proto-Indoeuropean;
Proto-Indoeuropean could very shortly be introduced;
Edith Roosevelt was a lifelong companion to President Theodore Roosevelt, from childhood until Theodore's death. Shying from the spotlight as her husband became increasingly famous, she found herself thrown into the role of first lady over a matter of days when Theodore unexpectedly became president of the United States. As first lady, she ruled Washington's social life with an iron fist, holding meetings with the wives of Theodore's cabinetmembers to determine when and how they were to hold events—and who they weren't allowed to invite. Edith took charge of the White House's first major renovation, and she was the first of the first ladies to hire her own employee.
File:Edith_Kermit_Carow_Roosevelt_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Edith_Roosevelt.jpg, File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family,_1903.jpg, File:Edith_and_Ethel_Roosevelt_cph.3b42358.jpg
File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family._"From_a_father_of_five_to_a_father_of_five"_-_Gilbert_Studios._LCCN2015650317.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631530_(cropped).jpg, File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631491_(cropped).jpg
File:Edith_Kermit_Carow_Roosevelt_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.jpg, File:Edith_Roosevelt.jpg, File:Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt LCCN2009631491 (cropped).jpg – These are all from the same source, which doesn't provide that info, and a Google search for each image didn't turn anything up.
File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family._"From_a_father_of_five_to_a_father_of_five"_-_Gilbert_Studios._LCCN2015650317.jpg – Same as the others, but it's from Gilbert Studios, which was apparently owned by
commons:Category:C. M. Gilbert. I don't know whether that's enough to call him the author though.
File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631530_(cropped).jpg – Figured out the author and added to the Commons page
File:Mrs._Roosevelt,_Quentin.jpg – Yeah, that wasn't ideal. I switched the description to the standard format used by the other images, and I swapped the CC tag with a standard PD tag.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
So for all the images with tagging indicating a publication date prior to 1929, is it actually possible to demonstrate that? Or should the tagging be changed?
Nikkimaria (
talk)
00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, they're all from Library of Congress which doesn't provide the publication info, and I haven't been able to verify them separately. Is there an alternative tag to use in this case, or should I just remove the tags (and would the images need to be removed from the article in that case)?
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
03:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about Poverty in ancient Rome. It mostly focuses on defining Roman poverty, philanthropic efforts to help the poor, the social stigma regarding poverty, and Christian perspectives on the Roman poor. Although, there is still information on the lives and material conditions of poor people in ancient Rome. I recently had the article reviewed for GA and the reviewer said they hoped to see the article at FA. Perhaps I am overconfident regarding the quality of this article, but I figured I might as well nominate it.
Graearms (
talk)
20:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
Don't use fixed px size
Suggest adding alt text
File:Mähmaschine.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Duble_herma_of_Socrates_and_Seneca_Antikensammlung_Berlin_07.jpg.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
04:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Brochfael was king of Gwent in south-east Wales in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. He is chiefly known for having been one of the Welsh kings who submitted to the lordship of
Alfred the Great in order to get protection from the oppression of
Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians. Brochfael was involved in a number of disputes with Bishop
Cyfeilliog, who is an FAC below, and was once threatened with excommunication for insulting the bishop.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
19:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
Is there no image of the subject that could be included?
I have previously made alt text a short summary and this has always passed FAC, but recently an editor has been deleting alt texts in my FACs on the ground that it duplicates the label, and another editor commented that the alt text should be a place marker as it only prevents readers from seeing the file name instead of the label. I see from
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images that this is incorrect, so I have gone back to make alt text a short summary. OK now?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
06:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Medieval_south-east_Wales_map_Lloyd.jpg is tagged as life+100, but gives an author date of death less than 100 years ago.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
04:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
in the publishing location, the cities don't need ", UK" (or NY, for Ithaca) after them - there's no ambiguity about which London or Cardiff is being referred to. also, for Oxford University Press, having the location is a bit redundant as it's right in the name. not really a big deal though. overall, citation formatting & consistency is great.
no concerns about reliability; Iolo is nowhere to be found, and all of the sources are from solid academic publishers and authors. i see only three old sources, Haddan & Stubbs 1869, Evans & Rhys 1893, and Lloyd 1911, which are used perfectly reasonably.
in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians: is oppression the right NPOV word here, or are we unwittingly parroting their/Alfred's spin on the situation? From what comes later, it sounds like the Ur-source here is Asser, who isn't exactly a neutral.
That is true, although as a monk of St David's Asser was more concerned with its oppression by the king of Dyfed. However, Asser's description is accepted by historians, and it is hard to see why the kings should have voluntarily submitted to Alfred if Æthelred was not oppressive.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Given the chronological discussions about Gwent vs Glywysing in the body, I'd suggest putting a more concrete date on the map than just "early medieval".
Right, but we have In the seventh century, south-east Wales was one kingdom called Gwent, but by the ninth century it was divided between Glywysing (later Morgannwg and Glamorgan) in the west and Gwent in the east. If we stand by the text of our article, we can therefore say that the map (with Gwent and Glwysing undivided) shows the borders of those kingdoms as they were before the ninth century, at the very least. However, on closer inspection, I have some bigger worries about the map. It has
White Castle, which was built after the Norman Conquest, and
Grace Dieu Abbey, which wasn't founded until 1226. How certain can we be that the other toponyms and, in particular, the borders are accurate for the time we're discussing? UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have changed the label from Early medieval Wales to Medieval Wales in the light of your comments (also in the Cyfeilliog article). The map shows the area of the kingdoms. There is no better map which we can use which I am aware of, and I think it is much better than having no map.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
defeated the Vikings: "the Vikings" weren't (and aren't seen in scholarship) as a single group of people under that name -- we do, however, have the term "Great Heathen Army" for the force that Alfred defeated. Better to use that with some explanation?
I was doubtful about putting in the battle at all as it is only peripherally relevant. I do not think we need to worry about using a term which is widely used by reliable sources.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ceolwulf's successor as ruler of Mercia, Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians at the Battle of the Conwy: needs a comma after Mercians, but consider reworking to streamline the syntax a bit.
Comma corrected, syntax much the same, but perfectly grammatical and readable. I suppose you could argue that the "Lord of the Mercians" epithet is superfluous in a sentence that says he was, well, lord of the Mercians, and just give his name as Æthelred. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ceolwulf was the last king of Mercia. Giving Æthelred's title is intended to signal that he had a lower rank without going into details which are irrelevant to the article.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Can we give any indication of the reasoning and the whys behind the different dates for Brochfael's accession?
I do not think that I can find citations for a more detailed explanation. As so often, historians assume knowledge of basic points. There is only one fixed point for Brochfael's dates, Asser's mention of him in the late 880s. Apart from that, it is a matter of historians' judgements on the dates of charters which mention him, and maybe in some cases who is being referred to. Bartrum dates him 830, which is obviously wrong as he is recorded into the tenth century. Davies dates him c.872-910. Sims-Wiliams does not give an accession date (so far as I know) and says that Owain probably became king of both territitories by 893. As this looks too early and it is ambiguous whether it means he replaced Brochfael or his father as over-king I have left it out.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would give a brief introduction, at least by approximate date, to the Book of Llandaff and the Life of King Alfred.
It is successive sentences. Changed to "several show Brochfael as a royal grantor and witness, so Ffernfael may have been subordinate to Brochfael".
Dudley Miles (
talk)
16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Brochfael's father Meurig gave grants in both territories, and Charles-Edwards and Davies think that he ruled them both as king of Glywysing: we've demoted the dissenting view into a footnote. I know it's two against one, but
WP:DUEWEIGHT is not a vote -- do we have a separate good reason to think Sims-Williams is wrong? If not, I think we need to give the two sides equal billing.
Brochfael and Ffernfael were joint kings of Gwent, and their cousin Hywel ap Rhys was King of Glywysing: this isn't wrong, per the MoS, but the capital on the second king reads oddly, and is inconsistent with how we've approached the same problem in the first sentence (Brochfael ap Meurig was king of Gwent in south-east Wales.. Would suggest decapitalising.
three modii (about 120 acres (50 hectares)) of land: you can avoid the awkward double brackets by replacing the outer set with dashes. This comes up twice.
Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle : this sounds as if we expect readers to know it already. Suggest "One [date?] manuscript of the ASC, known as Manuscript D, states..." Do the others omit this bit, though? That might be cause for concern?
I think Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is self-explanatory, and there is a link for readers who want more information. D is thought to be a northern version dating to the mid-eleventh century, and there is probably a good deal to say on this, but I do not have a source.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a style point rather than a clarity one. I think it's certainly relevant that the source is perhaps over a century later than the events it describes. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
he may have been the father of Gwriad ap Brochfael: and who was he?
This is a difficult one. It is based on Bartrum, whose dictionary covers a vast number of Welsh people in fact and legend up to 1000. It is published by the National Library of Wales and cited by historians, but there are signs of carelessness in some entries. I have changed the comment to a footnote covering Bartrum's speculations.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Davies seems to argue with herself, and give two different dates (and levels of confidence) on Meurig's reign. Why have we given one of those in the body text (implicitly endorsing it) and the other as a footnote?
One is a statement in the text and the other an entry in a table. I have given greater weight to the text, but I am happy to change it if you disagree.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Personally, I'm not sure we can really do that, unless it's clear from context that one is definitely not the author's intent. I don't think we can definitely say that authors or editors stand more strongly by data presented in prose than data presented in tables. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I should have said that the table dating looks more vague. Would you prefer deleting the footnote and having "
Wendy Davies thinks that 874 is more likely and dates his reign as
c. 848 – c. 874 or
c. 850 – c. 870"?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As with the last one, I enjoyed reading this -- a great job of reconstructing a life where the sources clearly make it difficult to know much for certain. UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In the second sentence of the lead I'd lose "while" if I were you, as although the context makes it clear that it just means "and", I feel it safer as a general rule not to use "while" unless you mean it in the temporal sense. There's no real danger here of "the Bishop preached the sermon while the Dean read the lesson" but you might like to consider an "and" or a semicolon instead of the "while".
In the Kingship section "Æthelred's defeat at the Conwy in 881" reads a little strangely to my eye. Somehow without the "Battle of…" before it – as at earlier mention – it looks odd, like saying "the Allies' victory at the River Plate" or "Nelson's victory at the Nile" or "the Allies and Axis forces at the Atlantic". Not wrong, but strikes an odd note, though I most definitely do not press the point, or indeed the one above it.
Well illustrated (a pity about the lack of a mug shot, but I see from the above that one is not to be had) and a good range of mostly modern sources. Meets all the FA criteria in my view and I'm glad to support. I always enjoy reviewing Dudley's articles, but this time I had an uncovenanted bonus when my spell-checker announced that Brochfael should be either Rochdale or Bronchial. –Tim riley talk11:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about an Afro-Cuban religion revolving around spirits that are housed in cauldrons and fed with blood. Much of the tradition derives from the Kongo religion of Central Africa, so there is much here to interest Africanists as well as those intrigued by religions of the Americas. This has been a Good Article since August 2023 and I am now hoping to bring it to FA status, having already done so for two other Afro-Caribbean religion articles,
Santería and
Rastafari.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:WLA_metmuseum_Power_Figure_Male_Nkisi.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured?
In this case, the creator of the original nkisi being photographed will probably never be known; nor will the exact date when it was made, although it is dated to between 1800 and 1950. The object is nevertheless on display in a public museum and the photograph has been issued under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
10:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Goetia_seals.jpg: are these taken directly from the Lesser Key, or are they original works?
The explanation given by the original uploader claims that they are their own original illustrations, but looking closely, the fact that there are numbers right by them suggests that this is actually a scan from a printed edition of the Lesser Key, which will probably be late 19th or early-to-mid 20th-century in date. I think the safest bet is just to get rid of this image from the article.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
10:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Fétiche_du_Bas-Congo.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
I've changed the licensing on this one; as it was published in Belgium in the first decade of the 20th century, we should be able to use the following: "This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1929."
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
09:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've removed this image from the article; while the photograph is late 19th-century in origin, I am unsure when it was first published, which raises issues when trying to determine its copyright status.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
09:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about a
causewayed enclosure near Cambridge, in England. It was excavated briefly in 1975 and 1976, but the project was derailed by a tragedy: David Clarke, who was the director of the excavation, died suddenly in his 30s in the summer of 1976. The project archive lay untouched for three decades; in 2006 what could be found of it was written up, but no new excavation was undertaken -- by that time the location had become a
scheduled monument.
The "Background" section, and a couple of sentences in the lead, are taken verbatim from other articles on causewayed enclosures, as the background information is identical for all of them. See
Offham Hill or
Barkhale Camp for examples. I don't think this should be an issue, but wanted to mention in it as an FYI.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
16:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have a whole lot of comments here - I read some archaeological literature for fun but wouldn't consider myself to have a whole lot of knowledge in this subject base; I wouldn't say my poking around in old farm fields with a metal detector has enhanced my knowledge of archaelogy much either.
"and a single bone each from red deer, dog and horse" - is this the dog remains here the same as the wolf remains noted to have been found in the site?
Hadn't noticed that; good catch. The later review doesn't say so explicitly, but it's clear the case. I've worded it carefully to avoid saying that the review found this to be an error, but I think it'll be clear to the reader.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"and that the dig had not found evidence of a bank associated with the ditch[60]" - misssing a period after this sentence
"Overall the site was found to be "spectacularly" rich in finds, " - as this is a direct quote it should probably have inline attribution to the author who is being quoted
"The site was listed as a scheduled monument in 1976." - is it known if this is due to St Joseph's aerial work, or Clarke's field excavations?
I haven't found anything about it and I don't see anything on the HE website giving the background. I suspect that once the 1975 excavation proved it was a causewayed enclosure the wheels were set in motion, but I don't have anything I can cite.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Unless I am missing something (I don't think I am, because I read it through twice to make sure) Clarke's death, mentioned in the lead, is not covered anywhere in the body...... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
18:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Will give this a look -- very much up my street. A small drive-by for now: the article has
WP:TIES to the UK, so BrE should be used (and so analysed, not analyzed), and the St in J. K. St Joseph isn't followed by a dot. UndercoverClassicistT·
C19:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Glad to hear you're going to review it. I've fixed the full stop after "St". I think "analyzed" is allowed as
Oxford spelling, though I have to confess I came to use that spelling sideways -- decades in the US have corrupted my native British English, and I probably switched from -ise endings without even realizing it.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
19:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I must admit to finding Oxford English bizarre -- it is a perfectly good variety of English, though I'd advise putting up tags to be clear that you're using it rather than "normal" BrE. However, as
User:Tim riley explained it to me, OxE uses -ize when the etymology of the word is from a Greek '-izein suffix (so Hellenize); analysed is from analusis, so I don't think that would apply here anyway? UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We seem to be a bit coy about dating the enclosure: we talk about the dates in which these enclosures were built, but don't at any point try to pin one on Great Wilbraham. Has anyone done so?
Not as far as I can tell. Gathering Time (GT) is the most recent coverage, and they conclude with "The enclosure remains undated. It was not possible to locate any further suitable samples."
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Same point on functions: we talk about what enclosures in general might have been used for, but don't say e.g. it may have been a settlement, meeting place, or ritual site.
I think you mean that it would seem natural to talk specifically about what Great Wilbraham might have been used for, rather than in general times about what causewayed enclosures might have been used for? This is the seventh of these that I've brought to FAC, and I think I've been writing them this way (both the lead and the background section) because I've been imagining them as a unified topic. If you were reading a book with chapters about each enclosure, you wouldn't expect a statement to be repeated in each chapter th at this enclosure might have been a camp, or a ritual site, and so on -- there would be an introductory chapter giving that overview, since the statements would apply to more than just one enclosure. I think it makes sense to take the same approach here -- speak generally about the class of site, then specifically about this site when we're talking about the archaeological or antiquarian investigations.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Personally, I think the situation is reversed when we've got an article about a specific enclosure -- there, I think we would normally be expected to keep the focus on the Great Wilbraham enclosure, and widen the picture only when necessary to add important context. However, this is a matter of taste -- your approach is entirely reasonable. I do think, as currently framed, we've introduced a strong element of doubt as to which, if any, of these functions could reasonably have been filled by Great Wilbraham, though I can also see why that would be intentional. UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
One of the reasons I'd like to keep it as is is that I don't believe there's any consensus on what these enclosures were used for -- it's not as if the function of some has been determined, but not of others. Nobody knows what any of them were used for, so there's nothing that's specific to an individual enclosure that can be said. I have seen a couple of references while looking at Freston causewayed enclosure, which I may tackle next, that imply there are some recent theories, and I'll follow those up in case there's something to be added.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
02:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We do have Clarke (via Evans et al, too) going out and saying that the site was a settlement, or at least a camp, but as far as I can tell largely doing so by assertion rather than argument. How about something like "the site's excavator, David Clarke, considered that it was probably a settlement. The function of causewayed enclosures in general is debated..." and then go into the discussion we already have about military vs civilian, domestic vs ritual (and, if I may, allow for those functions to overlap?) UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Done; I joined it with a "but" as I think (and Evans doesn't quite say) that Clarke was being much too confident in his assertion, and I want the reader to be aware that the excavator's opinion is not definitive here.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
On the dating issue: Historic England has They were constructed over a period of some 500 years during the middle part of the Neolithic period (c.3000-2400 BC). That's quite a way off what we've said -- I can't get to most of the sources, but are we sure that HE have simply made a mistake and there's no debate here?
I can send you any of the sources you're interested in, if you like -- particularly if this is an area of expertise for you I'd be very glad to have another pair of eyes on interpreting the material. I am really surprised by the dates given there. GT (p. 897) has "...probably began ... in the late 38th century cal BC ... The pace began to quicken in the second quarter of the 37th century cal BC ... construction of new enclosures in southern Britain was on the wane from the middle of the 36th century cal BC". GT is authoritative, but earlier sources give similar dates. For example, The Creation of Monuments (Oswald et al., 2001) has a chart showing 3800-3200 BC as the date range, with the core period being 3600-3300 BC.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
including Neolithic flint, and pottery from periods stretching from the Neolithic to the present day, and animal bone—mostly cattle, but with some sheep and pig: the first and here is
a bit poetic/rhetorical, I think.
they would have provided multiple ways for attackers to pass through the ditches to the inside of the camp: if we just said that we don't know what these are, on what basis do we now call them "camps"? Suggest cutting this last bit.
They do get called that in the literature. It sounds like you have access to Evans (2006); you can see from that that Clarke's own notes describe it as a "causeway camp". A friend of mine who is a professor of archaeology, whom I contacted for help with interpreting some of Evans' wording (and who, it turns out, knew David Clarke and was at Cambridge when Clarke died) referred to them as camps in his emails to me (though he's not a specialist in that period). I just did a Google Scholar search and found a 2020 source using the term, though it does seem to be falling out of fashion. Both usages in the article currently are in hypotheticals where there are people in the enclosure, so I probably unconsciously put them in on the basis that these were camp-like situations. Having said all that, I can remove it if you think it's misleading.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
After thinking about it some more I've changed the two instances of "camp" to "enclosure". The article now mentions Clarke's assertion that the site was a settlement, as you suggest, but I don't think that interpretation should be accidentally reinforced by the language (which was your original point). The "causeway camp" usage does seem to be dying out, and Evans, for example, never uses the word camp except when quoting others, so I think the article should follow suit.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The construction of these enclosures took only a short time: can we put a vague number on that -- a few minutes?
The source says "Causewayed enclosures ... were very large and often highly visible sites. They were built in one operation, involving the investment of many days' work by a large number of people." I could make this "a short time (weeks or months, but not years)" if you agree that doesn't go too far past the specifics in the source.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Has there not been any more specific energetics research done here? There's loads of it into Neolithic monuments, where people have attempted to quantify the amount of worker-days involved in constructing the things. "Many days" could be expressed as "in a matter of days", but I'm conscious that the source phrasing is emphasising the large amount of effort, whereas we've turned that around to assert that they were relatively easy to build. UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I haven't seen anything on the energetics but agree that would be worth adding if it exists. (I should probably have a go at the
causewayed enclosure article itself, where that would most naturally belong.) I take your point that Andersn stresses the labour, but the article does currently say "since substantial labour would have been required for ..." -- is more needed?
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think, as Femke says below, we're currently blowing hot and cold -- simultaneously arguing that it was a quick job, and a very big one. Perhaps the missing link is that it was a lot of work, but also that it was done very quickly and efficiently? Maybe spelling that out would be helpful UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Looks good. We might quibble "must have been planned in advance" (emphasis mine) -- people could otherwise have been very efficient because they did it a lot, were very well-organised, or simply had a huge amount of labour power. Perhaps something a little softer like "was probably/almost certainly planned well in advance"? UndercoverClassicistT·
C17:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm OK with weakening it if you want to, but "must" is in the source -- "Before their construction the work must have been planned for some years, the area being cleared of vegetation and big stones, with trees for the posts and palisades selected, prepared and transported".
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
21:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sounds a bit woolly to me (they really think it takes years to shift the rocks and choose some good trees?), but if it’s in a good source, that’s all the justification you need. One could make an unkind comment about academics and their sense of a reasonable speed at which to work… UndercoverClassicistT·
C22:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
On reflection I agree with you. I changed it to "would probably". Incidentally, on one of your other points, I found a mention of causewayed enclosures in the British Handbook of Archaeology as "mid-third millennium BC", which is the same mistake that HE made. The author is John Pouncett, who is a Neolithic specialist as far as I can tell, so it's just odd.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
23:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Any reason not to push the map up into the "Site" section? I found myself looking down at it as I followed the text description.
On my screen it would cause a sandwiching problem with the infobox, which is rather long. It would only overlap by a few lines, but I think any sort of sandwiching is frowned on. I agree it would be more useful a little higher.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
13:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I made the map 20% smaller -- how does that look? Unfortunately that's not going to help the sandwiching since it's the top of the image that will sandwich with the infobox. I moved it up anyway; see what you think.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
included on a list of 16 possible causewayed enclosures: not a major problem, but we had Over seventy causewayed enclosures have been identified in the British Isles: why the figures now?
We're inconsistent about whether to introduce new people: J. K. St Joseph gets no introduction, and while he needs none among British archaeologists, he probably does for the general public. On the other hand,
Christopher Evans (worth a redlink?) gets the small and slightly ambiguous "Cambridge archaeologist".
Added an intro for St Joseph; he was a geologist and I gather never could be fairly described as primarily an archaeologist, so I went with the CUCAP credit for his description. I haven't found much in the way of independent sources for Evans so didn't redlink him but can if you think it's justified. Would just "archaeologist" be better for him? I included "Cambridge" as a nod towards the academic continuity -- I'm no expert on the history here, but I understand Evans has worked a lot with
Ian Hodder, also at Cambridge, who was a pioneer in post-processual archaeology and so a sort of academic descendant of Clarke's. That in turn made me wonder if there is some academic controversy or debate hiding behind Evans' criticism of Clarke and his methods, and again made me want to draw the connection.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
13:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know Evans, really, but a lot of his early work from the 1980s looks very post-processual, and as you say there are a few co-publications with Ian Hodder (who has been at Stanford since the nineties). I think that's a good reason to introduce him, but I might be clear that Cambridge means the university, not just the city (Evans has long had a foot in both camps). UndercoverClassicistT·
C14:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The enclosures in southern Britain began to appear: more natural, I think, as the enclosures began to appear in southern Britain -- current phrasing sounds like they popped out of the ground.
Yes, fair. Done. I'll have to remember to make that change in the other articles that use this text. I see you've been replying above; I'm off for
second breakfast now and will get back to this later today. Thanks for the detailed comments; by the way. I've pushed back on several above but I don't want to give the impression that I'm resistant to your input -- just trying to communicate the details so we can agree on what's needed.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
14:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would generally convert between metric and imperial units -- did Clarke use metric?
New Archaeology, a movement to revise and expand the foundations of the discipline: I think it's worth setting out briefly how New/processual archaeology hoped to change things -- in particular, that New Archaeologists wanted excavations to be run like scientific experiments, explicitly theoretical in their conception, carried out to test hypotheses and with the collaboration of lots of scientific specialists. I think it would be worth name-checking his 1973 "Loss of innocence" paper as well -- he talked a lot there about why a New Archaeology was needed and how "traditional" excavators would push back against it. In a sense, was this excavation a bit like the
University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition or, for a later movement, Hodder's work at
Çatalhöyük, in that it served as a way of taking abstract ideas that had been discussed in theory and proving that they could make a difference in the field?
I looked into this a little while working on the article, but gave up on this for lack of sources. If I find something on New Archaeology, I'm concerned it would be SYNTH to apply the language in whatever I find to Clarke's work here. I think I would need someone talking about Great Wilbraham specifically, so I've made do with Evans' comments. For your second point, yes, I think in Clarke's mind it was exactly that. Evans says "Great Wilbraham also offered the potential to put specific ideas into practice; the chance of taking a systematic approach to data retrieval, analysis, and modelling at site, landscape, and broader scales." I turned that into "it was planned as a way to put into practice some of the theoretical ideas he had propounded over the previous decade". Are you suggesting I should name those ideas in that sentence, for example? I didn't because Evans doesn't and for these abstract discipline theories I am very hesitant to write something that might put words into the source's mouth.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Is there anything in the grant proposal that would be relevant here -- "the value of this excavation is that it will allow us to field-test the methodology of using X, Y and Z" or similar? I do think it's useful to define what New Archaeology was, beyond that it was, well, new, but agreed that it's dangerous to say exactly which aspects of it C. hoped to implement here. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure it does: I still think our definition of New Archaeology is too vague, and putting all the concrete detail into Clarke's proposal makes it sound almost as if he came up with the idea of treating archaeology as a physical science, when in fact most of the theoretical groundwork had been done in the United States by people like
Lewis Binford and
Kent Flannery a decade or so earlier. Clarke was important as an evangelist for the movement, but I'm not sure he did as much to invent it. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Clarke has a contemporary status as a disciplinary 'ancestor', cited in claims of intellectual descent and in accounts that sometimes border on hagiography", according to Evans; combining that with
this obituary in Nature, which explicitly denies that his work is "in the manner of the American New Archaeology", I think you're right. I'm afraid I'm not clear how you think I should fix this. I had left the references to New Archaeology linked and unexplained in the version I brought to FAC because I didn't see clear statements in the sources I had. I can see why you suggested adding more about New Archaeology, but I don't see where to get it from -- particuarly if Sherratt's obituary is right and Clarke shouldn't be seen as only or strictly in that mould.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
22:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We can keep it loose -- try
Johnson's Archaeological Theory here (frustratingly, no page numbers in Google Books, but search "New Archaeology"), which does so and explicitly uses Clarke. I would cite it to amend something like David Clarke was one of the leading figures in New Archaeology, a hetreogenous movement to revise and expand the foundations of the disciplinebring archaeology closer to the natural sciences, and conduct archaeological excavations in a scientific manner. We don't need to get into the weeds of exactly what that meant in practice to each individual archaeologist, but Johnson is clear that everyone in NA agreed on that much. 06:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
because the plan included using it as a training ground for students: this is pretty universal for digs led by university academics, particularly in Cambridge, but I'm not sure we can do much with that fact. Was Alexander not also brought along because, well, he would know which end of the shovel was which? Evans et al refer us to Hammond's biographical sketch for Clarke's fieldwork experience, which I can't immediately get hold of, but as I know it he was certainly more of a thinker and a writer than a digger. More pedantically, Evans et al say that Alexander got involved after the project became a training dig, not strictly because it did.
My read of that was that the operation was getting bigger, and so would need two people, rather than Alexander being specifically brought on because of his expertise with training archaeologists, as our framing implies. Alternatively, since the general point was that Clarke was the driving force behind the operation, the decision to become a training dig might have been intended mostly as a chronological marker, to be clear that Alexander joined at a relatively late stage of the planning process. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
it was planned as a way to put into practice some of the theoretical ideas he had propounded over the previous decade: as above, I think it would be helpful to set out what some of those were.
Great Wilbraham was the only known causewayed enclosure to include peat deposits: this presumably implies that someone had been and surveyed it before this point?
Yes, but as far as I can see Evans doesn't mention it. My own guess would be that it was so close to Cambridge that Clarke probably went there several times while working up the original grant proposal to the BM, and would have noticed the peat (and probably spotted some of the worked flints). That's just a guess though; I don't have anything I can source.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Clarke planned to include interdisciplinary analyses and an evaluation of the surrounding landscape and environment in the project: I would be explicit that this is a definition of "total archaeology".
Sorry if I'm being too timid about this sort of wording, but Evans doesn't say that so as above I'm uncomfortable using a term he doesn't. Again, can you point me at a source that would let me say something like this?
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a funny phrase -- lots of people use it, usually to bash it as ill-defined or impossible, but few people actually go out and say what it means! See
Godja here, p. 216: "total archaeology (an approach to understanding in which all of the disciplines capable of bringing understanding relevant to settlement history are applied)". Alternatively and more critically,
here p. 68: "the ... integration of diverse perspectives ... [and] disparate data generated by an interdisciplinary team of specialists".
Applying this to Great Wilbraham, Evans et al, cited, p. 118: This was intended to be an experiment in what Clarke called total archaeology. Predicated on the excavation of the entire enclosure, it was to involve a full array of interdisciplinary scientific/environmental analyses and intensive sample recovery. The site's proximity to Cambridge and its laboratories is also stressed as a major advantage for rapid response and systematic information retrieval - feedback, of course, being a major tenet of 'new' procedures. Based essentially on the quantity of its finds, Clarke is unambiguous in his assignation of the enclosure as a settlement given its 'heavy domestic occupation', and there is no mention of 'ritual' whatsoever. He is no less clear that one of the keys to understanding the site would come from exploring its situation at the interface of chalk and fen.
The three bolded bits are all key "New Archaeology" tenets (lots of STEM-y specialists, a feedback loop between hypothesis, method and results, and a strongly landscape-based approach to the study of a site). I think it's also important here that Clarke said that the site was definitely a settlement -- we might not want to throw all of our weight behind that in Wikivoice, but we should at least talk about it when we talk about the site's functions. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Looks good, but I realised I missed the obvious earlier on -- the more current term is "
landscape archaeology", and while that isn't quite the same thing (part of the reason for changing the terminology is to be a little more specific and concrete), a link or nod might be helpful. UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would do "total archaeology, a precursor to landscape archaeology", or even just link "total archaeology" to landscape archaeology (come to think of it, I might create a redirect and put a little explanation in the landscape archaeology article). UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
allocated for purchasing collections: purchasing artefacts for its collections, surely -- unless it specifically had this money put aside for buying some aristocrat's entire hoard?
Clarke and Alexander never published their work: this might be a little uncharitable -- we haven't yet, in the body at least, given Clarke's rather good excuse.
but the grant proposal for the following year records some of the details of the two weeks: can we put a date on it?
Unfortunately not -- frustatingly Evans gives no dates at all except to say "three weeks in the summer" for both years. I think Hammond mentions the dig in The Times and I could get a terminus ante quem, so to speak, from that, but it didn't seem worth it.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
15:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I meant for when the grant proposal was written/submitted?
Clarke mentions the September 1975 excavation as in the past in the proposal. The only other date Evans mentions is that the Fortran contour 3D plot is dated January 1976, but I don't think we can assume that was before the grant proposal.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
11:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Finds included animal bone including cattle, sheep, pig, deer and wolf: neater as bones of cattle... to avoid included ... including? OK, presumably there were at least some unidentified bone fragments as well, but I'm not sure they're going to be particularly important.
A pollen column was taken, which covered 5000 years of the peat: I can visualise this, but I need a lot of "help" from having seen something similar done -- most readers will, I think, need a bit more explanation of what's actually going on here.
demonstrated changes in the environment over the life of the site, such as the clearance of the site in Neolithic times and later pasture development: might do a footnote to explain how this works -- presumably, they noted a sharp drop in the proportion of tree pollen in the Neolithic, then certain other changes characteristic of grazing?
I imagine so, but unfortunately this is from Clarke's notes, reproduced by Evans: "Dr. Birks (Dept Botany Cambridge) took a complete pollen column which showed that the peat ran from c. 5000-0 BC recording the neolithic clearance of the site, pasture development and many other interesting features contemporary with, as well as earlier and later than the neolithic occupation." The cite I just added is from a general archaeology reference which goes into a bit more detail about pollen analysis, so I could add a footnote explaining how this works in general.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
15:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Two more trenches were dug the following year, directed by Alexander and Ian Kinnes: Was Clarke hospitalised or dead at this point? I think it would almost be worth bringing Clarke's death to the front of this whole discussion, as a kind of apology and explanation for why we're reconstructing everything out of scraps and plans.
I've moved mention of his death up in response to another of your comments so perhaps this is now addressed? Clarke died at the end of June, but since Evans doesn't give the dig dates for 1976 I can't see if Kinnes was added while Clarke was ill or after he died. Clarke died at the end of the Tripos and the dig was probably in the summer holiday so I would guess everything was planned and ready to go when he died, and Kinnes stepped in. No source for that though.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
16:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Have you got Renfrew and Bahn? Would have thought that any introductory textbook/glossary would do the trick. I can probably dig it out (stratigraphically) if you don't. UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I do, but I discovered in trying to find a definition that modern books don't even use the term any more, so I couldn't use that for the definition. I found a condemnation of spit-digging in Drewett's Field Archaeology and cited that, but had to use the online Oxford Reference for the plain definition.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
11:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
rather than the more modern method of stratigraphic excavation (removing the material in each identifiable layer of soil as a unit).: I am surprised by this -- doing stratigraphy "properly" was a big deal for would-be "scientific" excavators. You might also be being slightly too kind in saying "more modern", implying that it was cutting-edge in the seventies -- back in the twenties,
John Pendlebury is on record as moaning that
his director wasn't paying enough attention to the stratigraphy. In the UK, good stratigraphic methods had been standard for
most of Clarke's life, since at least the 50s, and since the 30s to those who were paying attention.
I completely agree that it's surprising; there are a couple of paragraphs in Evans that can be translated as "Clarke's fieldwork was very poor", though he's polite about it. I've written a couple of articles about pre-war excavations and the question of stratigraphy vs. spits was clearly coming down on the side of the former back then, so to my lay eyes it's astonishing that Great Wilbraham was excavated like this. Particularly since I gather Alexander was very experienced indeed; that has to imply Clarke designed the methodology. But do you think a change in the text was warranted? The only judgemental (as opposed to specific) comment that Evans makes is "Though not wishing to dwell on matters of hindsight, Clarke's approach to the monument, while undoubtedly pioneering, was also (at least in part) inappropriate."
Especially given Evans' comment there (bearing in mind nil nisi bonum), I think we've been too kind. I think Evans elsewhere is explicit that the conception and command of the excavation were very much Clarke's? I would certainly reword "more modern" to something stronger like "generally accepted", "the standard method of stratigraphic excavation" or similar -- we make it sound like there was a genuine choice between a new-fangled approach and a traditional one, when in fact very few archaeologists of the time would have defended Clarke's methods. UndercoverClassicistT·
C16:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I used Drewett to say "unsound" (his word); is that strong enough? I'd like to be able to say "considered unsound even at the time", but I'd need an old source for that. I tried Crawford's Archaeology in the Field (I have the 1960 printing) but he doesn't get that specific about excavation technique.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
11:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe something like Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought, or again Renfrew and Bahn on the history of archaeological methods? We don't necessarily need a source from the time, only one that looks back on when stratigraphic excavation became the norm. Something reflecting on Wheeler and his legacy might also do the trick. UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's a bit in
here (1989), chapters 2 and 3, that makes clear that stratigraphic excavation was a Thing from the 20s and 30s, and that non-stratigraphic excavation was a definite oddity after the 50s at least, but I'm struggling to find a slam-dunk one-liner that can pin it to a single page. Personally, I think there's enough there to cite "the then-preferred method" and reference "for the growing acceptance of the stratigraphic method over the first half of the twentieth century, see Harris 2014, ch. 2 and 3", but that might be a bit loose for some people's tastes. UndercoverClassicistT·
C14:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I just read those two chapters, and at the moment I'd rather not add anything more -- as you say there's no slam-dunk statement that in 1975 it would have been considered poor technique. Also it seems that there was a phase in which digs were conducted by spit but recorded by spit and stratigraphic layer, and Evans seems to say that that's what Clarke intended -- if I'm reading that correctly it's the execution that is bad, as the layer numbers are not clearly identified or correlated across trenches. If so, spit-digging is not the only or even the main criticism.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
14:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Recording of finds below this level was inconsistent between the trenches: can we explain exactly what this meant? Was one trench simply not very good at it, or did different trench supervisors adopt different recording strategies?
The full answer to this is presumably lost in the missing part of the archive. Evans says "Unfortunately, descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous. However, cross-referencing the record sheets with surviving sections and artefact densities suggests that any material given a layer number of five or greater is probably derived from features cut into the chalk marl substrate." Evans says at one point that "Having removed the topsoil, the trenches were essentially spit-dug by 'layers' in metre squares", and there's a photo to support this, but later "These individual squares were then hand-dug in 10 cm spits, with layer numbers given to different soils and feature fills as they were encountered", implying that the layer numbers were stratigraphic. And "buried soils were identified (usually as Layer 3) in several trenches". So it seems to be spit-digging, for spatial control, but stratigraphic layer numbering, without a clear way of connecting the notation from one trench to the others.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As I read descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous, it's more than "different trenches did it differently", as we imply, it's that no trench seems to have done a usable job. I take Evans as saying that no trench recorded finds consistently (with itself) or clearly. UndercoverClassicistT·
C17:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would agree with that. Changed to "Recording of finds below this level was poor within the trenches and inconsistent between them, so it was not always possible for the later analysis to be sure of the original stratigraphic position of the finds."
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
a sample of the peat itself to 7000 BC: no error bars on that?
A few artefacts not made from local stone were identified: suggest made from non-local stone; we currently imply that not many artefacts were made of e.g. bone or pottery.
fragments of stone axes from from Cornwall and Cumberland: not Pike of Stickle, by any chance? Has anyone commented on what they were doing there? Lots has been written about Cumbrian axes, in particular, as having some kind of special status.
All we have is "In addtion to flint, work in 1975 resulted in the recovery of a small number of artefacts made on non-local stone. These have now been lost, but were identified at the time by Professor Forbes of the Department of Geology and included fragments of Group I (Cornish) and Group VI (Cumbrian) stone axes." That's from Evans p. 131.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Done, using another source to cite "greenstone" for the Cornish axes. That source (Schauer) refers to Group VI axes from the Langdale source as if there were other possible sources for Group VI. Taylor (the source you linked) seems unambiguous that they're Langdale axes though, so I've worded it that way.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
15:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Mildenhall ware, a form of Neolithic pottery found in southern England: as ever -- can we put a date on when it was made, other than "Neolithic"? "Made in southern England between 3700 and 3400 BC"?
The names and classification of Neolithic pottery are nightmarish for a layperson like me. I have two references I use for them: Gibson & Woods, cited in the article, which is from 1990, and a 2002 book by Gibson, Prehistoric Pottery in Britain and Ireland. The former is structured as a dictionary; the Mildenhall entry gives no dates but refers to another entry that calls it middle Neolithic. The 2002 book mentions Mildenhall as the eastern version of a set of Neolithic forms that began to appear around 3600 BC. I think I could reasonably combine these to say "mid-fourth-millennium BC", if you think that's worth doing? I emailed Gibson a couple of years ago asking if there were more recent references, and he said no, and proceeded to give me a very helpful explanation of why the evolution of the terminology for Neolithic pottery is so complicated. It stems partly from changes in the understanding of the chronology, and partly from incorporating what were once regional style names into an overall chronological picture. I can't really cite his email though! He had not at that time interested the publisher in an updated version of his book.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
since the excavation was by spits: you might be able to solve this with a better explanation further up, but at the moment it's not obvious why this would ruin the stratigraphy. Technically speaking, this wouldn't be a crisis if Clarke and Alexander had also recorded the stratigraphic context in which it was found (you can, after all, have more than one in a trench without a real problem), but it sounds like they didn't do that or, indeed, establish a system of context recording at all.
See my comments above about this and the quotes from Evans. I will see if I can address this when I find something I can use to define spits -- it does seem as if there was some attempt at stratigraphic labelling.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not a problem, but I might add, "with no record of stratigraphic divisions" just to be extra-clear. It's possible to dig spits and still record stratigraphy properly, if you have the right systems in place. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Isn't this covered by "Recording of finds below this level was poor within the trenches and inconsistent between them, so it was not always possible for the later analysis to be sure of the original stratigraphic position of the finds"?
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strictly, yes, but that's in a previous section. Also, again strictly speaking, our sentence is still a slight non sequitur: it does not follow that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer from the excavation was by spits. In fact, as we've said The sherds were stored in the 1970s in labeled envelopes, identified by layer, trench, and grid square, I think something may be awry: either layer doesn't mean "stratigraphic context" or there's another piece to this puzzle. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The upper four layers included some Mildenhall material, but also pottery from the Late Bronze Age through to the present-day. All layers below this, which were all probably from within the various prehistoric ditches, contained Neolithic pieces, with a few Iron Age and Roman fragments. The outermost ditch found in trench GW II contained Roman material in all layers, indicating that this ditch dated from the Romano-British era: lots of dates would help here. Most people know the Romans were about 2000 years ago, but a bit of precision would be better.
though there was some inconsistency between the data from Great Wilbraham and a trend from the Neolithic to the Iron Age at other sites of the woodland form predominating in earlier sites.: I think this could do with a bit more explanation as to what it means and why it's important.
I've had a go at this. Strictly speaking John Evans doesn't support the "implying ..." part of what I've added, but I think it's a logically obvious statement to make given what he does say about grassland and woodland forms. I think what I've added also addresses your comment above.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Cepea nemoralis shells, most of which had visible bands. This form: The banded form of this species? Just want to be clear that "this form" doesn't mean Cepea nemoralis (incidentally, nemoralis means who lives in woodland groves). UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't apologize -- there's not much on Wikipedia that's more rewarding than having someone who knows what they're talking about engage with one's work. I really appreciate the detailed review.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
02:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think I am now caught up on all your comments. Will go and recaffeinate and take a look at the comments from others below. ~~`~~
Another one, sorry -- I think having Evans et al. 2006 as a subhead to "Archaeological investigations" implies that Evans et al made an archaeological investigation of the site in 2006, which they didn't. Why don't we subordinate that heading to Clarke et al, since it's really a continuation/reassessment of their work rather than a new study? UndercoverClassicistT·
C14:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And another one -- I don't think we actually say in the body that it's near the village of Great Wilbraham.
Fixed. I saw your other points but have to pause till this evening as I'm off to work shortly, but I'll just say I suspect "layer" of being used for both stratigraphy and spit level, either in Evans' description or Clarke's or both. I'll see if I can sort that out this evening.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
11:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Layers
Starting a new section for the layers discussion since I want to quote a couple of things from Evans, which would make a mess of the bullet list above. From Evans:
"Having removed the topsoil, the trenches were essentially spit-dug by 'layers' in metre squares (Fig. 7). Whilst potentially maximising the spatial control of finds, discrete fills were not distinguished, nor - breaking with convention - was any kind of feature numbering system systematically applied." (p. 122)
"Recording was undertaken by dividing each trench into 1 m2 units, each given a unique letter and number. These individual squares were then hand-dug in 10 cm spits, with layer numbers given to different soils and feature fills as they were encountered. In several trenches, alternate squares were dug as a first priority to establish the nature of deposits, quantify artefact densities, and 'record stratigraphy'". A photo of a context sheet from the dig is included. (p. 124)
"... buried soils were identified (usually as Layer 3) in several trenches, and provided the first horizon at which artefacts were collected and recorded systematically. So far as can be established, no cut features were identified above the chalk marl. Unfortunately, descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous. However, cross-referencing the record sheets with surviving sections and artefact densities suggests that any material given a layer number of five or greater is probably derived from features cut into the chalk marl substrate". (p. 125)
A grid diagram is captioned "Trench artefact densities shown by spit/layer depth and metre square". (p. 128) It seems spit/layer only makes sense if they are different indications of depth, so this use of "layer" seems to refer to stratigraphic layer, but there's only one depth dimension given. That dimension is labelled "layer" not "spit", so this seems to be a stratigraphy diagram.
"The material was contained in 499 individual envelopes separated by trench, grid square, and layer. The majority of the envelopes held mixed assemblages reflecting the spit method of excavation." Surely "layer" here refers to spit depth? Otherwise the second sentence makes no sense.
Given the above I think the sentence at the end of the "Reanalysis" section is OK -- it doesn't make any direct assertion about the stratigraphy and just reports Evans' criticism of the recording. You comment above that "it does not follow that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer from the excavation was by spits", but I think the last quote from Evans above says that it was the case. My interpretation would be that the envelopes were separated by trench, grid square, and spit depth, and that layer does not mean stratigraphic layer in that sentence of Evans'.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed -- they've clearly done the vertical divisions arbitrarily (at 10cm increments) rather than stratigraphically. How about in labeled envelopes, identified by layerspit depth, trench, and grid square? I do think, at the moment, the word layer is going to cause confusion with the upcoming since the excavation was by spits this meant that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer, since we need the reader to understand that what we're calling layer and stratigraphic layer are completely different things. UndercoverClassicistT·
C06:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support: that's my last quibble sorted, and on re-read I have nothing but praise for the article. I've certainly prodded and poked it over the course of this review, but I hope it's been beneficial: at least from my perspective, I think we've beaten out some really tricky issues and made it even closer to watertight. Very impressive work. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"The site was rich in finds, including Neolithic flint, and pottery from periods stretching from the Neolithic to the present day, and animal bone..." Two ands in a row?
The third paragraph is really short, which makes the lead unbalanced. Perhaps that sentence could be tacked onto the end of the first paragraph, behind "The Great Wilbraham enclosure was first identified from aerial photographs in 1972."
Done, but I'm not sure it isn't a little misleading -- the linked article is about tracks on embankments above wet places, whereas in "causewayed enclosure" it's a figurative use, more or less.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would link
Cambridgeshire in the body as its only linked in the infobox. Also, just to clarify, are you not linking terms already linked in the lead? I believe that is fine, although I would typically link those terms in the body as well.
Yes, there is
Cambridge. There is also
David L. Clarke, who is linked upon his second mention in the body but not first. Its also inconsistent as to whether he is mentioned with his middle initial or not.
No conversions to imperial units? Either way, the unabbreviated measurement should be given first. "20 m" should be changed to "20metres" and "2 ha" should be changed to "2 hectares".A non-breaking space should be put between each figure and its units as well.
"The site is slightly tilted towards the old river course, with the upper edge of the site at the edge of the higher ground." This is unclear to me. What is the higher ground referring to? In what way is the site tilted? Is that just a way of saying the site is sloped? If so, saying the site is sloped towards the old river course is a clearer way of putting it.
"Great Wilbraham was the only known causewayed enclosure to include peat deposits..." How did they know this. Was the Clarke investigation not the first investigation?
This is not stated in the sources. Most likely Clarke visited the site (it was very close to Cambridge), saw the peat area at the north of the site, and knew that no other causewayed enclosure was in a peat landscape. I can't source that though.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Clarke died unexpectedly in the summer of 1976,[23]and he and Alexander never published their work, but the British Museum grant proposal records some of the details of the two weeks." I think this would be better as two sentences. "Clarke died unexpectedly in the summer of 1976.[23] He and Alexander never published their work, but the British Museum grant proposal records some of the details of the two weeks."
"A magnetometer survey was done, and fieldwalking to recover surface finds, and a trench 80 by 2 m (262 by 7 ft) (GW I in the diagram) was excavated." Two ands in the same sentence.
"...which was stored partly in Cambridge and partly in London." Could be simplified to "which was stored in Cambridge and London." Partly is implied here.
"The cropmark plot used by Clarke to locate the trenches..." Is this referring to the trenches the archaeologists dug or the ditches that are part of the causewayed enclosure?
The section relies quite heavily on older sources. For most of the material, that's no problem, but for two instances, I wonder if newer sourcing exist:
The debate on the purpose of the enclosures. Has there been any development in that debate since 2011? Or in terms of military analysis, since 1930.
I'm not aware of anything more recent, though I have a couple of papers to read that may have more ideas. I think "military analysis" is probably too dignified a term for some pre-war archaeologists guessing at the defensibility of the site! But I think the military possibility has to be mentioned because of the evidence that at least a couple of these sites were attacked.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Over seventy causewayed enclosures have been identified in the British Isles --> Is this number still roughly the same since 2011? I can imagine that satellite techniques may be increased this number.
I don't quite understand the sentence " The construction of these enclosures took only a short time, which implies significant organization since substantial labour would have been required for clearing the land, preparing trees for use as posts or palisades, and digging the ditches". The first couple of times I read this sentence, it seemed contradictory (I read the first bit as implying it was easy to make, the second bit as difficult). Can you reorganise / split the sentence so that this becomes clearer? For instance, by first talking about how much and what work is needed, and then a second sentence about the findings of low constructions times / organisation.
Consider explaining cropmarks the first time it's mentioned. (I assume you've looked into adding an image of the cropmarks of the find, and there weren't any suitably licensed ones available. Would be cool if we could have one).
The Great Wilbraham enclosure was first identified from aerial photographs in 1972. keeping this in the first paragraph of the lede seems somewhat awkward, suggest making it the first sentence of the second paragraph.
Excavation by spits is considered an unsound approach, but in other ways the work was advanced for its time: for example, a computer program was written to render the contour topography of the site in 3D perspective. the phrasing seems a bit odd to me, perhaps While excavation by spits is considered an unsound approach, the work was in other ways advanced for its time: for example, a computer program was written to render the contour topography of the site in 3D perspective.
Ten years ago, geneticist
Ron Davis called
ME/CFS "probably the last major disease that we don't know anything about". A lot has changed since, most notably a global pandemic that led to millions more contracting the illness (15% to 50% of those with
long COVID) and the start of research programmes in many countries. A lot still remains to be discovered. ME/CFS has a long and contested history, making it an interesting but difficult article to write. Comments most welcome :).
Back from vacation and ready to review! I like what you did with the prevalence estimate, it seems to reflect the inherent uncertainties while remaining comprehensible.
Classification looks good to me.
Signs and symptoms
or other symptoms - I'd prefer for this to be either more specific or omitted. Could we for example call these "physical symtoms"?
Symptoms significantly reduce the ability to function compared to before the illness started - since this is not about diagnostics could we let this be implicit?
and 19% have a full-time job - I'm concerned about this for the same reason as the old prevalence estimate.
Causes
but there is not a single gene responsible for increased risk. - is this trying to say that it is likely polygenic or that no candidate genes have been reliably identified?
Glad to see this here at last, and looking forward to reviewing in the next few days. Feel free to bother me if I'm not back by midweek.
Ajpolino (
talk)
23:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Just getting started, but need to step away for a moment. Enjoying the article so far. Some little things:
Lead - I am uninspired by the first sentence. I assume you wanted to keep it short and sweet, rather than merging it with the second sentence? Anything else we can say here? The word "serious" seems unnecessary since you show us it's serious with your description in the following sentences.
My intention was to keep it short and without using big words. The main reason I didn't merge with the second sentence is that is misses the key symptom (PEM), which is best explained after the other symptoms are introduced. As the first sentence can feel definitional to readers, it may be misinterpreted. For comparison, this is what other sources use:
Lead - Similar note for "They are able to do much less than before they became ill." Seems generic; is that not true for many diseases? I think it could be cut, as it's implied much more colorfully by the rest of the paragraph.
Lead - "less than a day to several months." momentarily confusing as it reads like "less than" could also be applied to "several months" (which I suppose it can be). Is "hours to several months" acceptable?
That was my initial wording. It felt a bit too vague to me, and a big jump from hours to months. I've now put in hours or days to severals months to emphasize the more typical crash duration (which is >14hours as I understand).
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Lead - "avoid flare-ups and counseling..." I've never had the strongest grasp of English grammar, but
Sammi Brie has instructed me that a comma belongs here (
her essay on the topic in case it's helpful). Ditto "healthcare settings and care is complicated".
Lead - "severely affected and unable to leave their bed or home" seems redundant? Sentence means the same with "severely affected and" cut out.
That was my failed attempt to introduce a part of the severity classification. That classification is a bit unintuitive anyway, so better to not mention in lead.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Classification - "classified under other disorders of the nervous system". I don't feel strongly about this, but "other" is not very meaningful unless you look at the ICD-11 to see what it's "other" relative to. Would it be more meaningful to the reader to skip a level and just say "classified under diseases of the nervous system"?
Classification - "The cause of the illness is unknown and the classification is based on symptoms which indicate a central role of the nervous system." (1) another spot for the Sammi Brie comma. (2) I had to read this twice to understand. I'd suggest cutting the first clause (we know the cause is unknown because you told us four paragraphs earlier) and maybe tweaking to something like "ME/CFS is classified as a neurological disease as many of its symptoms indicate a central role of the nervous system."
Classification - "may better fit" reads as editorializing (I know it's the source's wording, but it's a short "Perspective" piece from an immunologist. A perspective piece is a good place for her to editorialize; the wording fits less well in an encyclopedia article). Is it fair to replace with "is sometimes labelled a neuroimmune condition"?
Signs & symptoms - "The illness..." I assume you're trying to limit the number of sentences starting with "ME/CFS..." but since the prior paragraph described several illnesses, I think this is a time to specify the subject of your sentence clearly.
I'll do a full review later, but I'd recommend merging the sections "Early political career", down to ""Premier (1971–1974)" into one section titled "Political career".
750h+00:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's 1998. Fresh off of the watery theatrics of Untitled, Alexander McQueen decides he's going to rein it in a bit with Joan. Just a long straight runway, black ashes on it, moody industrial lighting – oh, and a masked woman writhing in a giant ring of fire to cap it all off, of course. Based on McQueen's obsession with Joan of Arc, the collection featured a stark red black and grey palette and androgynous clothing based on priestly garments and armour. Just about everybody loved it, except The Sun columnist Jane Moore, who wrote an irate column after McQueen denied her entry to the show. The strange, ambiguous finale has been variously interpreted as violent, sensual, redemptive, and triumphant. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)03:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review by Generalissima
File:Mcqueen joan finale.gif oooh, a fair use gif! Rare case here, but checks out.
File:Paris-statue-J d'arc 02.jpg - CC-BY-SA
File:Melun-diptychon-detail.gif - PD
File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 45.jpg - CC-BY-SA
File:Daguerreotype of three girls, Carl Gustav Oehme, 1845 (cropped).jpg - PD
File:Joan Look 42 from Alexander McQueen Savage Beauty.jpg - CC-BY
When I first read the lead, I was unsure about this sentence: (Several celebrities attended, including actress
Kate Winslet and model
Kate Moss.) I was not sure if it is notable enough to highlight in the lead and the selection of Winslet seemed a tad random. I would think that McQueen banned several news outlets from the show would be more notable than the celebrity guests.
Yes, good point. Swapped.
The pronoun usage in this part,(Particularly in his early career, journalists often framed McQueen as something of a
working-class trespasser), seems off to me. I would think that the "his" would need to reference the subject of the sentence, which in this case is the journalists and not McQueen. Maybe changing it to "Particularly in McQueen's early career ... often framed him as".
Reworded
For the second paragraph of the "Background" section, the placement of the sentence on menswear in McQueen's collection feels a bit random. The paragraph is mostly about the theatricality of his collections so this does not really seem to fit there.
I think that for this part, (causing his friend Simon Costin to resign), it would be helpful to have some additional context on who Costin is outside of his friendship with McQueen as it is unclear what position he is resigning from.
I don't really think we need to spend much time on Costin, the point is really more that McQueen was being a total ass around this time because of pressure
For this part, (McQueen had worked with Garland before), could you provide a clearer timeline or examples of other things that they have worked on? I only asked because in previous sentences, examples are given, like with Sarah Harmarnee for instance.
I'm not sure much context is needed, as she solely does makeup. I think the reader can infer from the second clause which says it's Palau's first show. If they had worked together on something different absolutely I would put that in there, but that's it.
I think you can cut this part, (one of the last in the show), as it does not add much. The reader already knows that there are 91 looks so they would know that Look 78 would be toward the end of the show.
Removed
Maybe I am just being dense, and if I am, sorry in advance, but I am not fully sure what the quote means in this sentence: (Menkes felt the photo-printed items were "less assured".)
"Assured" in this context means "confident", so basically she's saying she thinks McQueen kinda doesn't seem like he knew what he was doing with them, compared to other stuff which is strong and on-theme.
I am not sure the following sentence really adds much: (Writer Chloe Fox called the finale "spectacular".) The one-word quote does not really clarify or illustrate anything further to the reader, and unless more could be added from this particular reviewer, I think it would be best to keep the focus on the other comments.
Mainly it's just more evidence that the collection is well-regarded by retrospective writers
From what I remember,
Lady Gaga wearing the outfit at the VMAs was quite iconic. Would it be possible to briefly mention the reception to that? I was debating on whether or not that would be outside of the scope of this article. However, I think something brief would help to further illustrate the legacy and impact these looks had outside of the show itself.
Let me see what I can find
Okay, I wasn't able to find a ton of reception, but I was able to find Gaga talking about the meaning of the look, which I liked just as much
Nina Bo'nina Brown wore a modified version of the red lace dress on
season nine of
RuPaul's Drag Race (for
an episode where the contestants wore outfits inspired by Lady Gaga's looks). Do you think that would be notable enough to briefly mention here as part of the show's legacy?
Ah, I didn't know this! I'll have a look and see what I can find.
Now this, I could not find anything for. It's possible my google fu is just weak, but I didn't find anything that really discussed it in any detail, so I'm going to leave it out for now. (But if you have any knowledge of a useful source, please!)
I could only find these two sources, (
this one from
W (magazine) and
this one from
The A.V. Club), which only briefly mention that Nina Bo'nina Brown wore a modified version of the McQueen dress. Since they are only brief mentions, I will leave it up to you on whether or not that would be notable enough to mention in this article.
Aoba47 (
talk)
15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wonderful work as always. I really enjoyed reading through this article. My comments are rather minor and mostly nitpick-y. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I did not miss anything, although I imagine that I will not find anything further. Best of luck with this FAC and I hope you have a great rest of your week.
Aoba47 (
talk)
01:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the kind words! I really do appreciate that, and it is always a joy to work with you. I have added some potential references for the Nina Bo'nina Brown version of the red dress, and I trust your judgement on whether or not that would be enough to warrant a mention in this article. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Great job!
Aoba47 (
talk)
15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What I didn't mention in the PR was that the reason I noticed it at all was that the NY Times crossword had just had THEIRONLADY as an answer. I wonder how many kids these days would even recognize the reference? I'll try to take a look, but I'm trying to get a bunch of other stuff done so can't commit.
RoySmith(talk)15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Negotiations between the British and Irish governments that had begun in 1980 continued, despite the bombing" rm the comma I think
"and the republicans minority" this may be a region-specific grammatical difference, but shouldn't it be "republican minority"?
"...imprisoned at the Maze prison, Northern Ireland, went on hunger strike. The strike was to have Special Category Status (SCS) returned to prisoners" suggest combining into one sentence and tweaking the wording, maybe something like "...imprisoned at the Maze prison, Northern Ireland, went on hunger strike to demand/request/something Special Category Status (SCS) be returned to prisoners" (or maybe "to protest the removal of Special Category Status from prisoners")
Very judicious use of quotes from Mr. English
This article says ASUs were 4 volunteers, the ASU article says 4-10 (and later 5-8). Was it flexible or was it rigidly 4?
The article’s citation doesn’t support the claim, but I’ve been slightly too exact when the source gave some flexibility, so I’ve added ‘normally’, which is more in line with it. -
SchroCat (
talk)
20:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
" the England Department, the IRA's ASU that operated in England" - so (building on above), the IRA only had 4 guys operating in England? (my knowledge of the Troubles is limited, so forgive me if this is on its face a stupid question)
"He was given room 629..." this sentence feels a bit knotted up in itself, and repeats "high level" twice.
"A ball was being held in Top Rank ballroom, a nearby venue," could simplify to "being held in nearby Top Rank ballroom", I don't think you need to clarify that a ballroom is a venue
taoiseach is italicised the first time but not the second time it turns up
"IRA cache found..." I immediately stopped to question how all this was known. I see that it's in the footnote, but I wonder if it might be better in the main text, as stopping to wonder quite took me out of the narrative. (Also, again, possibly a foreigners' question, but why would the ATB leave the cache in place?)
They didn't leave it in place (or at least the sources don't say they did). Does it give that impression? If so, I'll reword slightly. -
SchroCat (
talk)
07:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, I somehow missed that it was found with the timer already absent and made an unwarranted assumption about the chronology. It makes sense now that I read it again properly (I also think having it in the main text instead of the footnote helps that fact be more prominent)
"A decision was made..." followed by "It was decided that..." is a bit repetitive. Can it be written around?
I suggest reordering the paragraph about Magee meeting Jo Berry a bit. Sentence 1 could be combined with sentence 3, possibly something like "...met at Berry's request; she wanted to understand the conflict from Magee's perspective."
Reading over Roy's comments about the background, and having had similar thoughts in my first pass, I agree that it could be reduced slightly. Some of the details of the other attacks could be trimmed. The location of Mountbatten's death isn't important for the narrative of this bombing. "...was killed by an IRA bomb on his fishing boat" gets us where we need to go. Similarly, the Warrenpoint ambush doesn't really need the detail of "with two bombs: the first aimed at a convoy, the second at reinforcements arriving to deal with the incident". You could trim those details and probably merge the paragraph with the one about about Neave. The Sands paragraph I think should stand as-is, because it directly underpins the motive behind this bombing.
I suspect some of the quotes relating to Thatcher's approach could be reduced or paraphrased without losing much. Finally, some of Magee's early biographical details could be trimmed - the petty crime and childhood moves don't really contribute to the bombing narrative.
All that being said, overall, this is a good summary of a difficult topic that I - as someone with only very basic knowledge of the Troubles - found clear and understandable. As usual, this is a fine piece of work and you should be proud of it. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)21:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks
PMC. I've done the immediately actionable ones (although there is a question above) and I'll go over again with an eye to trimming. However, I don't think we're doing the best we can for the reader when we cut too much. I think we need to know Mountbatten was off the coast of Ireland when blown up (otherwise people may assume he was in England and ask IRA activity here, rather than on the island of Ireland). Similarly, the two bombs of Warrenpoint point towards a level of sophistication in IRA planning and execution that a reader wouldn't otherwise grasp. The Troubles was a complex series of events, and by cutting too much we run the risk of ending up with a "Catholics and Protestants killing each other" narrative, which is the all-too-common viewpoint of people. That said, I will go over it again to see what I can do. -
SchroCat (
talk)
07:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Mmm...I still think you could trim to "off the coast of Ireland". Similarly, I think the IRA's technical expertise is well established by the time we get to Warrenpoint - they've already bombed two prominent people to death at that point in the narrative, and now they've managed to kill 18 British soldiers in one go. I won't insist though. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
File:Grand-Hotel-Following-Bomb-Attack-1984-10-12.jpg: I'm confused by the licensing here - is this PD or CC? If PD, what is the source?
Sorry,
Nikkimaria, I missed this yesterday, but was reading up this morning and see you're entirely correct. I've removed it - there are several hundred murals in NI and the rest of the UK resident on Commons, which is going to be fun for someone to tag to get rid of. -
SchroCat (
talk)
08:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oops, my bad. This was a placeholder only as someone on Commons is doing a free version, but it may take a while. Now removed until the free one is available. -
SchroCat (
talk)
06:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. My main worry at the beginning of the PR was that the reasons behind the
hunger strikes were fairly described, even though the bombing itself was a horrific tragedy, and a shameful incident. The article is delicately balanced and fair and am happy to support.
Ceoil (
talk)
04:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
John
OpposeMOS:OVERLINK concerns and I'm not happy with the balance of the article. Why, for example, was Infobox civilian attack chosen? Other similar articles use a different one. The event was part of a war and the infobox should reflect that. Happy of course to discuss further. As it stands it does not represent our best work. "Feet" is the plural of "foot" last I heard!
John (
talk)
14:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) Oh joy. What overlink concerns (you can't just waive around a term without examples of where and why); ditto the "balance"? The IB pre-dated me and the same one is used on other IRA-related events, although there is no consistency in the choice over numerous similar articles. You last point is a straw man. Discuss if you must, but you need to provide examples, not vague generalisations. -
SchroCat (
talk)
14:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think John's comment on the infobox is a good point but maybe more for the talk page than here, as it could get emotive as we hash through. I have thoughts but will post them there.
Ceoil (
talk)
14:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not so sure: there are a couple of possible ones that could be used, but as there is no consistency in other IRA-related articles, there are multiple arguments for and against any of them. It's certainly not really a valid point on which to oppose, but nor is overlinking - particularly as the MoS is flexible on the point nowadays. Any oppose that does vague hand-waving, rather than raising specific points is invalid, but that would spoil the point of his stirring, I suppose. -
SchroCat (
talk)
15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
While I agree on the current infobox choice, I'd like to trash it out on talk anyways as it might become an issue down the line. Overlinking, if an issue, is easily fixed. An oppose at this stage is only a position, its not final.
Ceoil (
talk)
15:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Of course Ceoil, my intention is to help bring it up to standard, and that's an iterative process. Overlinking as you say is easy to fix, and we can discuss the infobox issue in talk as you suggest. The 'foot/feet' issue is really one for primary education and I think that's a deal breaker for me, but we can even discuss that if the willingness is there. See you in article talk.
John (
talk)
17:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It’s already ‘up to standard’ and the lack of actionable points is notable. OVERLINKING isn’t an issue at all (again, if you want to try pushing that false line of argument, then you need to highlight examples after you’ve got up to speed with the guidelines). You’re still pushing a false straw man with the feet/foot point. -
SchroCat (
talk)
17:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I note, without necessarily rejoicing,
User:John's return to WP to dispense his/her wisdom on the rest of us. I think we can ignore specious objections. Suggest we move on to some more constructive suggestions. Tim riley talk17:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments by Dudley
"The Troubles were the conflict in Northern Ireland lasting from the late 1960s until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, between the then majority population of unionists and the republicans minority." I would delete "then". It is clumsy and superfluous as any majority/minority can change over time.
"The strike was to have Special Category Status (SCS) returned to prisoners." The wording implies that you have previously mentioned SCS. I would say when it had been introduced and withdrawn - by Thatcher?
"she wanted a military victory over the IRA and for "integration"". "wanted...for integration" does not seem grammatical to me.
You should explain ASU at first mention.
"He was given room 629, on the sixth floor facing the sea, chosen a high-level room as he thought that would be where Thatcher would stay; a high level for additional security, given striking miners might also occupy rooms in the hotel." This seems clumsy and unclear. You first imply that the hotel chose the room, then that he did. "chosen" grammatically appears to refer to the hotel. What is the relevance of striking miners? Would they have been allowed in but only in lower rooms?
Reworked to clarify. He asked for a high room and was given 629; they thought the miners might invade the hotel and occupy it, so thought Thatcher may have taken a higher level room to avoid it. Hopefully that's all clearer now. -
SchroCat (
talk)
09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"He was given room 629, on the sixth floor facing the sea, he asked for a high-level room". I think there should be a semi-colon or full stop after "sea".
Dudley Miles (
talk)
10:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"That is the way we must respond such vile acts in this democracy". to such vile acts?
"unless a majority of its citizens agreed to join the Republic" "voted to join the Republic"?
"These were the successful assassinations on Mustafa Mohammed Ramadan, a Libyan journalist and Mahmoud Abbu Nafa, a Libyan lawyer. There were then assassination attempts on the British general Steuart Pringle; Michael Havers, the Attorney General for England and Wales and Attorney General for Northern Ireland; Shlomo Argov the Israeli ambassador to the UK; and Rahmi Gumrukcuoglu [tr], the Turkish ambassador to the UK." Were these assassinations all by the IRA? Why did they target foreigners? Also, for clarity I would specify "unsuccessful assassination attempts".
Not IRA assassinations, but the police and security forces were examining a rise in such attempts in general, regardless of perpetrators (although some of these were by the IRA too). -
SchroCat (
talk)
09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you
Dudley, that's very kind. I think I've covered them all in
these edits, but happy to go back over them if you think it needs some more attention. Cheers -
SchroCat (
talk)
09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That much blue makes it hard to read. Do you really need to link both
Margaret Thatcher and
leader of the Opposition? Likewise with the pairs of links for Airey Neave and for Lord Montbatten; each of those have a section in their articles called "assassination", so anybody who wanted to learn more about that would not have a difficult search. And again with
Narrow Water Castle and
Warrenpoint; the first article links to the second. Another example is
I would keep the links for the various people but drop the links for the positions they held. This is not an exhausitve list; I would encourage you to look over all your links and winnow out those which don't substantially add to the reader's understanding of the bombing.
RoySmith(talk)14:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think all those links are valid, which is why I added them in the first place. I'm fairly sure that if this article sits around for a year, or goes onto the main page without many of the links, people would add them. These individuals and events may be well-enough known to many reviewers, but they won't be to the majority of our readers. There will be people from outside the UK who don't understand what "leader of the Opposition" is, so we have to help them. I tend to underlink articles I work on, so it's an odd call to be accused of overlinking, and I think the ones we have here are justified. -
SchroCat (
talk)
14:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The Troubles ... lasting from the late 1960s until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The cited source talks about both the start and end of The Troubles being hard to pin down precisely. Your "late 1960s" wording accurately summarizes the source, but your assertion of a specific end date is at odds with how your source describes it.
Later in that same sentence republicans minority. That looks odd to me; should it be "republican's" (possessive), or just plain "republican" (singular)? Or maybe this is just a British/American usage thing?
On 27 August 1979—less than four months after Thatcher became prime minister—Mountbatten was killed by a 50-pound (23 kg) gelignite bomb on his fishing boat, off the cost of Mullaghmore, County Sligo, in the Irish Republic, which was near his summer home of Classiebawn Castle. This is an overly complicated sentence. Do we need to know this was near his summer home? Do we need to know how much the bomb weighted or what it was made of?
Ive trimmed them off a couple of details, but I don’t think it’s a beneficial move. Different readers want different information from an article without needing to click away to a different article. -
SchroCat (
talk)
20:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
not having to wear prison uniform "a prison uniform"? Or British/American again?
In 1971 he returned to Belfast,[22] and joined the IRA in 1972 after attending a shebeen—an illicit drinking den—in the Unity Flats area of Belfast, raided by British soldiers. If I understand it correctly, his decision to join the IRA was driven not by his attending the shebeen per-se, but by his mistreatment from the soldiers who raided it. The current wording makes that unclear.
Directly after that, He was beaten and detained for thirty-six hours without charge,[29] and in 2001 said ... I think I'd make that a full stop (or at least a semicolon) after "without charge", then pick up with "In 2001 he said..."
Somewhere around the middle of "Patrick Magee" when you talk about how the ASUs came into being, I started thinking, "OK, this is a lot of background, when are we finally going to get to something about the bombing". And then looking down to the next major section head ("Build-up") and thinking, "I guess not for a while". My point being that, for sure, some background is essential. As an American who grew up while most of these events were going on, my understanding of the background is not much deeper than "Catholics and Protestants killing each other". A lot of what you're going over really helps me have a deeper understanding of history, but I think you could trim a lot of this and concentrate on the things that are essential to understanding the bombing itself.
Actually much of the background is essential to understanding the bombing. Sure, I could gut the much of the background section, but readers wouldn’t actually get the full picture of why and how it happened. There are lots of people who think the Troubles were "Catholics and Protestants killing each other", but that would only be a tiny part of the picture, and they’d walk away not actually understanding the circumstances properly.Thanks for the comments which are very helpful: I’ll go through them thoroughly shortly. -
SchroCat (
talk)
15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Magee and his comrade realised they were under surveillance and returned to Dublin it's not clear from this if they had a general suspicion that somebody was watching them, or if they specifically believed O'Connor was an informer.
I remember saying as much to a comrade, who agreed. was this the same comrade who was going to share the flat with Magee?
428 Roberta Wakeham, the wife of John, the chief whip, was killed I had to read this a couple of times to figure out that it was Roberta, not John, who was killed.
she, her husband and Butler were all uninjured. At first, I thought she had brought her own
Butler with her, and it took a while for me to work out this meant
Robin Butler, Baron Butler of Brockwell who was previously mentioned several paragraphs earlier.
cut to ribbons, perhaps fatally one has to wonder how one can be non-fatally cut to ribbons, but that's not something you can fix :-)
Casualties were lighter than expected whose expectations? The IRA's or the rescue personnel's?
Injuries included broken and fractured bones aren't "broken" and "fractured" the same thing?
Magee was staying with republican sympathisers in Cork, I would move this up to the last sentence of "Build-up": " He spent the third night in the room and checked out at around 9:00 AM the following day, traveling to Cork to stay with republican sympathizers there".
But we don't know he did that. There was over three weeks between the two events and all we know is that he was in Cork when the bomb went off. -
SchroCat (
talk)
07:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(I'll pick up with "Reactions" next time).
The attack was condemned by world leaders.[90][h] This included denunciation from Garret FitzGerald ... -> "The attack was condemned by world leaders[90][h] including Garret FitzGerald ..."
was supported by her domestic political opponents, I'd drop "domestic"; it implies that her international political opponents did not support it.
Actually, reading further, it looks like that is indeed the case, so scratch that.
The Washington Post highlighted the possibility that the funds for the bombing may have come from the US This makes it sound like it came from the US Government. I suspect it was really from private organizations in the US sympathetic to the IRA; this should be clarified. Also, do you have a better citation than "The Brighton Bombing". The Washington Post. 14 October 1984. p. D6. I'm a WaPo subscriber and can't find anything in the archives that looks like it could be that.
Republican prisoners in the H Block celebrated the news I don't know what "the H block" is; this is the first time it's mentioned.
police and security services decided to wait until Magee returned to the UK. The British government decided not to tell their Irish counterparts Rephrase; the repetition of "decided to" sounds stilted.
Jumping way back to "Patrick Magee", it says He was soon assigned to be one of the IRA's "engineering officers", the organisation's term for a bomb maker. I'm curious what his qualifications were. Did he have some previous experience in explosives, or some related engineering field? Did the IRA just teach their members everything they needed to know from scratch?
No details were mentioned in the source to say he has any, but I'll go over his autobiography again to see if he highlights why. -
SchroCat (
talk)
He had no experience at all. It wasn't a popular role to hold, given how many IRA members died at the hands of their own bomb. -
SchroCat (
talk)
08:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I remember the bombing and this is a superb account. I was particularly impressed with the section on the explosion, the subsequent devastation and fate of the victims. I timidly made one tiny edit, which is a humble suggestion. I have two more. I think John Wakeham's name should be given in full and perhaps say "almonds" instead of "marzipan"? I am pleased to add my Support.
Graham Beards (
talk)
10:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have only now twigged that I haven't commented here. (Sorry to be late on parade.) I have previously reviewed the article twice, the first time informally and the second time at PR. Such comments – very minor – as I had were expeditiously dealt with, and after a final read-through now I have no further suggestions. Happy to add my support to all the other supports, above. A fine and balanced account of a dreadful story. Tim riley talk10:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about a character from the
Resident Evil game and
film series; who is known for her red dress. This was originally written by
Niemti before I and
HopalongCasualty rewrote it. The article was further copyedited by
JokEobard, which I feel like I should push through.
I set out at peer review that I don't think the treatment of this character's sexuality/sexualisation is where it needs to be -- we have a lot of comments at the start of "Reception" as to her being a sex symbol, a feminist icon, a "bitch" and so on -- but nothing really set out to say where this comes from, other than that she's a woman and wears a (fairly unremarkable-looking, at least in the lead image) dress. There are also quite a few remaining grammar and prose errors. PR is advice rather than commandments, but it seems odd to bring the article here having left a lot of that feedback unactioned. UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi. I already removed and replaced it about their relationship with Leon since I found another source. I felt like the peer review was stagnant already. But I already attempted to resolve everyone's concerns at the peer review and got no reply back. Can you be specific what are the other few prose errors so we can figure it where is it? Thanks. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔)
08:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You did make some small scale changes at PR, mostly to remove individual examples of e.g. "revealing" or "sexualised", but I didn't see a real response to the broader point about how the issue of sexualisation is framed across the article. It's more than a matter of taking out a few words: it's about the overall structure and flow of information, and making sure that we actually have good evidence for one of the article's most prominent arguments.
A few examples of the prose issues, but not an exhaustive list:
Game publications described Ada Wong as among the most popular and best female video game.
Magazines also praised her as one of the best female villain
Although digital media scholar Esther MacCallum-Stewart said that Resident Evil's female characters possess unique qualities making them viable choices for players to select over their male counterparts, and said their combat attire helped them avoid criticism of adhering to the male gaze.
Play editor Gavin Mackenzie criticized her perceived "bitch" personality in Resident Evil 4 in retrospective from the events of Resident Evil 2
correspond to the submissivewoman–femme fatale character couple
In themselves, these are fairly easy to fix, but the reason for bringing them up is that I think they illustrate that the article really needs a bit more looking-over, including but not only for the matters brought up at PR, before it comes here. UndercoverClassicistT·
C09:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I apologize if I was a bit rushed. But yeah, I can admit that writing in the reception section can be hard. Anyway, I made some changes to the prose issues you mentioned
[1], though I couldn't change/remove the last part "submissive" since it's part of the author's quote. But I reworded the next sentence after that. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔)
11:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And I apologise for repeating myself, but I don't think this is a matter of tweaking a few sentences: I think the evidence base of the article needs a good look, and then the article itself needs to be reworked so that either a) the commentary about sexualisation, feminism and so on has some evidence from the games to support it, or b) the article is reworked to ensure that
what it says is proportioned according to what it can demonstrate. UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Done and replaced into Behind the voice actor (the only source that confirms every voice actors)
Ref 61 and 62 are missing pages.
I don't think they need book pages since the book itself contains almost everything about the RE plot. There are a lot of Ada mentions because she appeared in that RE novelization, which just retells the story of Resident Evil: Retribution. Meanwhile, I already replaced the 2nd novel source. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔)
04:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Add ISSN to ref 76.
Done
If there are any, unsourced categories should be removed. I'll have a look at them when I finish the review.
Done I have removed some of them that don't fit the character.
I did not find any issues in the first two sections of the article. To me, it reads well and explains those parts well.
I will go through the Reception later and do a source spotcheck considering that the GA review took place in 2023 and the article has been slightly revamped since then.
This is a rather short article (less than 1500 words) about the 1973 FA Charity Shield, the curtain-raiser to the 1973–74 season. It is arguably Burnley's most recent major honour, although many will argue it is just a meaningless match to kick off the new season. All comments are appreciated!
Eem dik doun in toene (
talk)
13:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think maybe instead of a 'pre-match' section maybe title it 'background.' Also, a little elaboration to the blurb about Burnley winning the second division (how they earned qualification to the match) could be a nice touch, but what do you think?
Another idea I had would be to totally rip off the style/format of the
1974 FA Charity Shield article due to its classification as a
good article.
@
HYTEN CREW: Thanks for the comments. I altered the heading to include "Background". I think the current information about Burnley's previous season's success is sufficient (only 4 losses, clinching the title after a draw at PNE), but if you think that's not enough, please let me know. Thanks,
Eem dik doun in toene (
talk)
22:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"It was the third consecutive year neither the Football League First Division winners nor the FA Cup champions chose to compete" - might be worth mentioning that normally they did/do, otherwise readers not familiar with the CS might wonder why this is noteworthy
"after Alan Oakes hit the Burnley crossbar" => "after a shot from Alan Oakes hit the Burnley crossbar" (he didn't personally hit the crossbar....I presume :-))
" Doug Collins pretended to take the free-kick, left it for Frank Casper whose cross was headed" => " Doug Collins pretended to take the free-kick but left it for Frank Casper whose cross was headed"
"The FA Charity Shield was founded in 1908 as a successor to the Sheriff of London Charity Shield" - if you have a source, it would be worth mentioning why the SLCS ended (dispute between professionals and amateurs)
"in 1921, the fixture was played by the Football League champions and FA Cup winners for the first time" - mention that this then became the standard format, otherwise it sounds like it could have been just another one-off like the other ones earlier in the sentence
"The 1973 FA Charity Shield was the third consecutive edition neither the Football League First Division winners (Liverpool) nor the FA Cup champions (Sunderland) chose to compete." => "The 1973 FA Charity Shield was the third consecutive edition in which neither the Football League First Division winners (Liverpool) nor the FA Cup champions (Sunderland) chose to compete."
"explained that his preparation was geared to have his squad ready for the first league match of the season" => "explained that his preparation was geared towards having his squad ready for the first league match of the season"
"Burnley fielded the same team which had won the Second Division title the previous season" - I presume you mean the same team as the final game of the previous season specifically? Rather than that the same team had played for literally the whole season......
"City started the second half well and dominated the game. [....] Around the 60th minute, Burnley began to dominate the match" - hint of repetition here, anyway to reword?
"Collins pretended to take the free-kick but left it for Casper whose cross was headed in powerfully by defender Waldron to put Burnley 1–0 in front" => "Collins pretended to take the free-kick, left it for Casper whose cross was headed in powerfully by defender Waldron to put Burnley 1–0 in front"
"Waldron ran in unmarked from the edge of the box." => "Waldron had run in unmarked from the edge of the box."
"Adamson also noted that Docherty helped Burnley grew back into" => "Adamson also noted that Docherty helped Burnley grow back into"
"In 1971, double winners Arsenal withdrew from the competition due to previously arranged pre-season friendlies, with Leicester City replacing them." If the norm was FAC Cup winners vs. Football League champions, then it doesn't really make sense to just say Leicester replaced them. How about "with Second Division champions Leicester City and FA Cup runners-up Liverpool replacing them"?
"Burnley fielded the same team which had won the Second Division title during the final game of the previous season." Saying "previous season" is correct because the Charity Shield is generally regarded as the first match of a season, not the last, but it's a bit confusing because it feels like a culmination of the season, so "previous" seems to refer to the season before that. How about "Burnley fielded the same team which had won the Second Division title against Preston North end in May" (or whenever that match was)?
I assume the footnotes for Man City and Burnley in the "Details" section cite the teams, but don't we also need citations for the date, time, score, goals, location and referee, at the start of that section?
"Todd criticised City's ineffective style of play, to add:": suggest "adding" rather than "to add".
"was more praiseful of Burnley": suggest just "praised Burnley" -- the "more" doesn't seem right since the previous comment was not praise for Burnley at all.
Thank you very much for the review,
Mike! I made the changes in the article, and while doing that, also discovered after checking in the Simpson (2007) book that Burnley actually made one change from the team which had won the 2nd Division title at Preston. Cheers,
Eem dik doun in toene (
talk)
08:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh, Letterpress. A shining gem among a sea of cheap, soulless, free-to-play mobile games. A game that touches players with its simplicity, designed entirely from the ingenuity of
Loren Brichter. What better way to spend time than battling it out with words you had no idea existed until you pulled up the dictionary to cheat?
When I first met this article, it was but a mere
three sentences. Over the course of (nearly) a year, I began to expand the article to its fullest potential. I put it up for peer review (twice), and it
passed GA status in an instant. At that moment, I knew what had to be done.
I brought it to FAC, learned from that review, and requested for a copyedit at
WP:GOCE/R. I even learned Inkscape! (Great tool, by the way.) Now I'm here. To say that I am satisfied that this article is no longer a stub
is an understatement. I hope to make history and achieve my very first featured article. Thank you,
TWOrantulaTM (
enter the web)
01:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments from UC
I must admit that I find the explanation of how the game actually works pretty confusing. I think we need to start with the idea that both players are given the same grid of letters -- if I've got it right, you then have to draw from those letters to make words, and doing so gives you that many points and "locks" any tiles where you've got (two of? all of?) the tiles touching it?
Some quite basic statements seem overcited: do we really need four different sources to say that there are two players and 25 tiles? One is the Manchester Evening News, which is pretty low-grade source, put mildly.
I was unsure how to use the sources Teratix provided me, so I figured, "Why not overcite everything? That's using sources, right?"
Also, most of the sources I found repeated the same information.
The copyright claim on the three images is potentially dubious to me -- I know they are your own work, but they are also pretty clearly
derivative works of the original game. Now, that game itself is only made up of basic shapes, letters and colours, but there's a lot of distinctive combination of those that, at least to my non-expert mind, would seem to pass the threshold of originality. Now, there's a very possible fair-use rationale for including a visual demonstration of how a game's fundamental gameplay loop works, but we'd need to upload the images locally to Wikipedia and write one of those.
On a similar note, we can't claim the icon as the "own work" of the uploader. We could probably claim that it is ineligible for copyright because it only consists of simple geometric shapes: that would need {{PD-textlogo}}.
Added.
I find the lead leaves a few loose ends, or unanswered questions: take, for example, The gameplay gradually evolved during beta testing; in the prototype, players would avoid using unclaimed tiles, leading to excessively long games.. The obvious question raised here is "so what did they do about it?", and that's not answered until the body.
Added information about solution.
it was criticized for not having a single-player mode: later in the body, we talk about it having one, so presumably this was added later? Similarly to the above, I know that we can't include every detail in the lead, but we should avoid giving a misleading impression to readers who only read the lead.
Yes. The bot mode was added at some point after the game's initial release. I'm not sure if removing it is gonna satisfy this point, but I'll do it anyway.
two players compete to claim the most colored tiles on a grid of 25 letters: most colored is ambiguous: the most (coloured tiles) or the (most coloured) tiles?
First option. Removed "colored".
Loren Brichter, the founder of Atebits 2.0: the footnote says a bit about why there was an Atebits 2.0, but I think we probably need to give a bit more context about what Atebits 1.0 was.
Brichter saw Letterpress as a way to experiment with new software: what new software?
According to
this source, Brichter states, "With the Letterpress idea, a whole bunch of things happened to align that made that an obvious thing to pursue: games had taken over the App Store, I wanted to try a free app, and I wanted to test a whole bunch of other technologies." He doesn't really elaborate what he wanted to experiment with, unless I'm missing something here.
Furthermore, he states, "One of my complaints about design of iOS is it’s doing things that aren’t true to the hardware."
players could indiscriminately create long words: indiscriminately is not the right word here (that means "without thinking about it"): try "freely"?
That's the word I was looking for! Changed.
The link on pressing letters to
letterpress printing is a bit of an easter egg: I think we need to spell out that it's a pun with a double meaning.
I'm doubting it's named after that: "[Federico Vitici]: Why the name Letterpress? That evokes some print memories to me. Which is kind of anachronistic. -> [Loren Brichter]: Totally. The name just kind of grew on me. And the whole game is you pressing your letters with your finger. Letterpress. Not sure. Just liked it."
Brichter marketed Letterpress as freemium... why is this paragraph in the past tense?
Changed to "markets".
Letterpress has a "generally favorable" Metacritic rating based on eight critics: advise putting an as of on this statement (and checking it fairly regularly!)
I don't think that's necessary. Most video game articles I've seen don't add that + there hasn't been a new review for about a decade.
Reviewers found the strategic elements of Letterpress engaging, comparing it to Scrabble, Reversi, Connect Four, Go, SpellTower, Words With Friends, and chess.: that's a lot of different comparisons. Can we say anything about how they compared it with each of these games?
Game Center, Apple's multiplayer network service: I would explain what this is on first mention, rather than second. Does it still use Game Center when it's on Google Play, for example?
Changed.
Despite Wiskus acknowledging the negative impact on user experience, he mitigated it with iMessage. He also highlighted the friction in initiating rematches, which led to simultaneous matches between players: I don't really understand what either of these sentences mean.
Simplified.
Letterpress was among a list of minimalist apps provided to inspire Jony Ive, a designer for Apple's iOS 7: provided by whom?
Doesn't say (unless I'm overlooking something here): "Along with music app Rdio, word game Letterpress, and competing task app Clear, Any.do was among the apps that Apple looked to for inspiration as it redesigned iOS, according to people familiar with the matter. When Jony Ive took over as the company’s head of design, he was given a list of forward-looking apps that suggested how iOS could evolve..."
Looking at the last FAC, I'm not sure the sources provided by
User:Teratix have been fully incorporated -- in such a short article, we have the luxury of space to talk about how the game has been studied, for example.
Shoot! I was hoping that would get solved.
I suspect I'm at a bit of a disadvantage knowing very little about the topic, but in other ways that makes me the target audience -- I don't really get the feeling, at the moment, that I fully know what's going on, whereas there are plenty of current FAs that manage to hold your hand, even as a complete newcomer, so that you at last feel comfortable that you are getting the information with the context you need to understand it. It's a short article at the moment, and perhaps a bit more could go into padding out the explanations and context? UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello there! I'll try what I can to bring up all of the article's possible issues after partial reviewing the article (Also, can you review my
Ada Wong's FAC if you're able to? =) ).
There are a lot of ref bombs in the article currently. Pls, bundle the citations that have been cited from more than 3 sources.
Will examine the sources I have been provided with (if time pertains).
Remove ScreenRant source as low-quality source
That's the only source I could find that covers the single-player bot mode, plus
WP:VG/S states that Screen Rant is "deemed reliable enough" for any non-controversial statements.
At ref 15, pls italicize the publication
Done.
"Matthew Panzarino of The Next Web and Federico Viticci" Who is Federico Viticci? Add the publication/website
Whoops. Added.
Unsure about the Macstories reliability.
MacStories follows their guidelines listed
here ("What Guides Us"). Additionally, they have an experienced editor team, and they don't do paid reviews.
What makes 9to5Mac reliable?
Zac Hall has written for the Clarion-Ledger newspaper (USA Today), and they even
state that they have been cited by NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, the Financial Times, and others. Also, they don't do sponsored reviews.
Situational sources like Screen Rant and The Next Web can stay in the article because they're not used in controversial statements. I do not see any other issues with referencing.
Noted. (nice)
I think that you could specify which colours in the Gameplay section.
There are multiple themes in the game, so the game can be in various colors other than red and blue.
If there's a source for that, you could add it to the article.
(Unsolicited comment) Per
WP:NOTCITE, a work can be used as a source for its own contents, without an explicit citation (for example, when summarising the plot of a work of fiction, that work is taken as the implicit citation). UndercoverClassicistT·
C18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Are all three images really needed in the article? I think that one image demonstrating the gameplay is enough in the article. You should also probably re-upload it to Wikipedia as a non-free image, even though it is a recreation and not an actual screenshot of a game... Or you could instead upload an actual screenshot of the game. It's up to you.
I did the second thing, but in the previous FAC review, Teratix (I believe) told me to recreate the game in Inkscape. I will upload the game locally if I have the time.
Do we know which side projects? Software or video games?
Does not say.
This source states that he left Twitter to work on "personal projects", while in
this source, he states: "What happened was after I left Twitter I had this massive backlog of ideas going back five, six years. Stuff I was thinking about in college and I just didn't have time to work on it. When I left, I just plowed through my old to-do list. I ended up making a dozen or so things, most of which will never see the light of day, but Letterpress was one of those things."
I assume new software for iPhone? I think that this should be clarified a bit.
Clarified; added "Apple".
Do we know how was the game advertised, considering that it was downloaded over 60,000 times on the release day.
Nope. I do remember a fragment of an interview saying that he did use plain and simple gameplay screenshots for the App Store, but that's pretty much about as far as marketing goes.
Costello's was a watering hole for journalists, writers, and cartoonists on the east side of Midtown Manhattan.
Ernest Hemingway reportedly broke a cane over
John O'Hara's head on a bet; the bar's owner responded by displaying the broken cane over the bar. I wish I could have dropped in for a whiskey there. As an aside, I've been having trouble finding images that are either in the PD or that would satisfy
WP:NFCCP, particularly photographs of Tim Costello and the bar's exterior and interior.
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You've asked for an image, so I did find
one but the author and the date of the photo are unknown (we know that it was taken between 1949 and 1973 because of 699). Taken from
Classic Chicago magazine.
I can't access that NYT link - is it the case that the image was from Cosmo-Sileo and reproduced with permission, or is it Cosmo-Sileo working for hire?
Nikkimaria (
talk)
18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That might be a complicating factor - NYT has historically been more protective of copyrights and renewals, so we'd want to be sure the rights weren't assigned to them.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
18:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The Overlook website is a primary source and I do not understand what it is supposed to verify. The NYT source confirms 225 East 44th Street and that it is a sports bar, I verify the year, though.
I thought the 2004 year was not mentioned in the NYT source, but it actually is in one of the captions. I had another look at the article, so I'll change my vote towards support now as I believe that the criteria has been met.
Vacant0(
talk •
contribs)15:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I feel like this desperately could use an image of the building/business even if it is NFC. I believe it would be incredibly useful in establishing a visual identity for something we are identifying as notable.
Darkwarriorblake (
talk)
21:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I find the copyright side of things confusing but I believe it would fall under the same rationale as a film poster/album cover/game cover in that it is a primary identifier and it's not possible to describe the subject in words alone. I think basic building photos taken in a public space fall under non-copyright as well.
Darkwarriorblake (
talk)
22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think if you can use both images they both offer something unique, but the second is my preference from an aesthetic POV. I can see you're already speaking to
nikkimaria above, I was going to recommend them since I think they've helped with copyright in the past. Both images would likely have to go under NFC though since I assume the photographer and the NYT are still within the copyright period.
Darkwarriorblake (
talk)
22:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"speakeasy". In the main article could this be briefly explained in line for the benefit of non-US readers.
Is the wikilink not sufficient? I find that trying to explain these things in line leads to unwieldy parentheticals that disrupt the flow.
I am afraid that the MoS requires it.
MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." We are after all building an encyclopedia, we are writing in order to explain things to people who don't already know them. Doing so while maintaining a professional standard of prose is part of the challenge of FAC.
"... a speakeasy in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. The speakeasy was located on Third Avenue ..." "Speakeasy" twice in nine words seems unnecessary. Suggest "The speakeasy" → 'It'.
Done.
"
James Thurber illustrated the walls, depicting the "Battle of the Sexes"." Why the bold?
"during a gut renovation for a new restaurant". What is a "gut renovation"?
Changed wording.
"and during renovations, they preserved the cartoons". I am not sure about this comma.
Changed wording.
"John McNulty wrote about the discussions and happenings at the bar, which he called "this place on third avenue", in the 1940s in a series of short stories that he wrote for The New Yorker." Wrote twice? Perhaps '. John McNulty wrote about the discussions and happenings at the bar, which he called "this place on third avenue", in the 1940s in a series of short stories for The New Yorker.'
This article is about an album by an Asian-american, all girl punk band that I think is pretty awesome. I have been working on the article for quite some time, achieved GA status and DYK, and just closed a peer review. I think it is ready now. I hope y'all agree! – The Sharpest Lives (
💬•
✏️•
ℹ️) (
ping me!)
15:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Heartfox
In the composition section, only half of the songs have any commentary or information about them. I feel like this does not meet
WP:FACR criteria 1b "it neglects no major facts or details". There doesn't have to be a paragraph for each song, but no information for 5/11 of the songs seems like either the article cannot meet FA due to lack of commentary or source material has been overlooked. Based on this alone I would have to oppose at the moment. I would accept 1 or 2 words, (ie 'this song is a ballad', 'this one is uptempo') but to have zero information for so many songs unfortunately doesn't meet the criteria in my opinion.
Heartfox (
talk)
21:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about...
Bruce Springsteen's third studio album Born to Run. A make a break record for the singer-songwriter, it's easy to say he made it (very well). Now regarded by many as his magnum opus (although this editor would argue Darkness on the Edge of Town or Nebraska), I rewrote this article from the ground up and after its GAN it went through a helpful
peer review and I believe it's now ready for the star. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns. – zmbro(
talk) (
cont)14:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nick-D
It's great to see an article on a major popular music album here instead of the more common FACs on modern pop. I'd like to offer the following comments:
" was designed to break him into the mainstream" - bit clunky
"the band and producers spent six months alone working on the title track" - seems like trivia for the lead
I would say otherwise because it displays how "prolonged and grueling" the sessions were; plus, most songs did not take that long to record, especially at the time. – zmbro(
talk) (
cont)23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Springsteen's lack of direction and confidence" - this appears out of the blue after text that stresses that Springsteen was ambitious about the record
Removed confidence
"Springsteen was sent multiple mixes as he was on the road and rejected all of them, approving the final one in early August." - this needs to be tweaked: if he rejected all of them how could he have approved one?
"The success of Born to Run revitalized Springsteen's career" - this is unclear given the article previously stresses that the album led Springsteen to move from relative obscurity into stardom.
Would 'revitalized' not work here? He had a career before this (albeit struggling financially), but this record turned that around and brought him success. – zmbro(
talk) (
cont)23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nick-D The source uses "saved"; although that technically is true (Columbia would have dropped him if it had failed), I'm not sure if that's appropriate for WP. What about "rejuvenate"? – zmbro(
talk) (
cont)17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Same issue with that. 'Saved' seems appropriate if it's what the sources used (though it's hard to believe that Springsteen wouldn't have had a decent chance of making a successful music career given his skills).
Nick-D (
talk)
10:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Had the album been performed live in total before 2008?
Not that I could find. Setlists for the Born to Run tours are hard to find. I know he has performed all the songs from Born to Run quite often since 1975, but the album itself in order front to back I could not find. – zmbro(
talk) (
cont)23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nick-D Sorry I'm just now getting to this. I found
this one and
this one, although both are in German and don't appear accessible (at least for me). I recall in my search during initial expansion, the English one already in the article is the only one I could find, other articles were about Born in the USA. – zmbro(
talk) (
cont)15:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"By 1974 his popularity was limited to United States East Coast" => "By 1974 his popularity was limited to the East Coast of the United States"
"Low morale plagued Springsteen's team, including both his manager, Mike Appel, and the E Street Band" => "Low morale plagued Springsteen's team, including both his manager, Mike Appel, and his backing band the E Street Band"
Changed to "backing group" so we're not saying band twice
"Bittan had a background in symphony orchestra" => "Bittan had a background in symphony orchestras"
"Bittan mostly replaced Federici on the album, whose sole contribution" => "On the album Bittan mostly replaced Federici, whose sole contribution"
"The stunt generated interest the track" => "The stunt generated interest in the track"
"a long saxophone solo from Clemons, which he spent 16 hours replaying to Springsteen's satisfaction;[71] he dictated almost every note played" - it's ambiguous who the "he" is in the last part
Clarified it's the latter
"The seven known outtakes from the album included" - using "included" doesn't really work when you then list all seven. Change "included" to "are"
"The song contains autobiographical elements to Springsteen's youth" - don't think the grammar works here. Maybe "The song contains autobiographical elements related to Springsteen's youth".......?
"Following his demise, death and destruction continues across the streets" => "Following his demise, death and destruction continue across the streets"
"Springsteen's guitar strap dons an Elvis Presley pin" - I don't think an inanimate object can really "don" something. Maybe "On Springsteen's guitar strap is an Elvis Presley pin"
Changed to "An Elvis Presley pin appears on Springsteen's guitar strap,"
"The cover was included in a Rolling Stone readers poll" => "The cover was included in a Rolling Stone readers' poll"
"receiving both critical praiseand from former Columbia Records president Clive Davis" => "receiving praise both from critics and from former Columbia Records president Clive Davis"
"and moved different studios" - should this be "and moved to different studios"? "and moved between different studios"? I doubt he physically moved the studios........
This article is about the 2016 single by
the Weeknd and
Daft Punk. The single is a disco-pop track in which the Weeknd tries to reassure his lover to not be scared of falling in love, despite her own failed relationships. With a Warren Fu-directed music video about a "love story in a cursed land", the song peaked at number four on the Billboard Hot 100.
6 months ago, I checked this article out. I noticed that... it wasn't very detailed, so I decided to add some stuff. After a ton of work, I have finally decided to take this to FAC, to become my first (and likely) my only FA. I spent the time between the DYK nomination and this working on its prose, as the DYK reviewer had some concerns about it, so i started to tighten some unnecessary things. I have heard stuff about FAC's being "harsh" which is why for about a month, I have put off doing this. But after a spark of inspiration, I came back to this article and made some final adjustments. I believe this article is ready. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺,12:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Heartfox
"The track was released for digital download through XO and Republic Records on November 17, 2016" → suggest converting to active voice: "XO and Republic Records released the track for digital download on November 17, 2016"
"XO and Republic Records would send the track to contemporary hit radio in the United Kingdom on November 24" → this doesn't count as a release, see
WP:SINGLE?
Musicnotes is not a good source as there's no indication this is the original composition or a
lead sheet/derivative etc. Keys can change throughout song and go into relative keys, we cant source that just from the key symbol
I don't understand why the critical reception section is organized into reviews of the song and reviews of the song in album reviews. It is hard to follow and there are 16 quotes vs. 7 sources. This doesn't align with
MOS:QUOTE "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style". Harrison alone is quoted six times. "Music journalists complimented the Weeknd's vocals in the song" is used as a summarizing opening sentence, but this is only indicated by one source (Wolfson).
There is no attempt at paraphrasing in the rankings section; every source cited is accompanied by two quotes each.
This is my second attempt at nominating this obscure worm. I believe I've made all changes requested in previous nomination, and peer review and captured all relevant literature (there is not much), but am ready to make any and all suggestions here. Thanks in advance!
Mattximus (
talk)
19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you tell me from which date you made the improvements based on the last FAC? Then I can compare with my notes from back then.
FunkMonk (
talk)
20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sure! I made a large number of edits on May 8th just before the FAC closed, but it was not enough to garner support. I then went through all comments and did some rewrites on June 4th to try and make sure every single comment was addressed. Is that the information you were looking for? Also thank you for taking the time to review such an obscure article.
Mattximus (
talk)
15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've compared my last comments with the current version, and a few points still stand out, listed below. I believe that's all, but it's a bit difficult to figure out after this time.
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Two reviewers have suggested conversions for measurements, which has not been done.
I added this to the lead, but there are so many measurements in the body that it looked like a complete mess with double the measurements. I'm not sure that non-metric measurements are needed in a scientific article, apart from the lead which provides an overview. Is this critical to passing FA? It would make parts of the body almost unreadable.
There is still a good deal of duplinks. They can be highlighted with this script:
[4]
Done. Thanks for sharing that script, I'm going to use it from now on.
Anything on on how the type specimens were collected? From one or more moles?
Unfortunately not, I did my best to relay all information regarding the collection from the original document. It's also the only paper to mention the sampling.
Support - I won't hold it back for lack of measurement conversions, but if a third reviewer brings it up, it's probably time to add them.
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments by Femke
Thanks for working on the article!
Thank you for your review!
I find the first paragraph of the article too difficult. It's an article likely of interest to people how know much more biology than me, but I think some movement can be made towards an easier lead per
WP:EXPLAINLEAD
Both the first and second sentence say the genus only has one species. The first does it with jargon, the second in plain English, right? Can we omit the first?
I think I fixed the wording by merging the first two sentences.
We still have the scary jargon in there. Do we need the Latin name for the mole that prominently? Might be better to omit it from the lead.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Done.
Maybe switch East London and Transkei upon first mention, so that if you skim-read, you're less likely to think it's a part of London, UK (with east london now positioned next to South Africa)
Done.
I would put the size of the creature much earlier, before delving into difficult things with its hooks and rings
Done
Not knowing what proboscis means, I found it really difficult to parse the text after. Perhaps starting with the trunk helps (so that we know the proboscis isn't the trunk).
Here I added a definition of the proboscis which should make this sentence much more clear.
Rewrote this sentence, splitting it. Should be better now?
I find the rings difficult to visualise. From the lead, I hadn't guessed that the ring surrounds (?) the proboscis, as seems to be indicated in
Figure 3 here
A diagram would help immensely but none exist that are free. I did try my best at rewording, does this work?
In the body you explain that insects are an example of an arthropod. I would repeat that in the lead for context.
Done.
There are no known aberrant human infections for H. niekerki species --> What does the word aberrant mean here? Is it necessary?
Well it means that sometimes you can accidentally get an infection even though it evolved to infect something else. I can remove it since it still gets the idea across. Done.
but the life cycle of any thorny-headed worm, or acanthocephalan, unfolds in three distinct stages. --> I think if we say "any", we imply that we know the life cycle of all thorny-headed worms. Instead, can we say "in general".
Done
At this stage, which for H. niekerki measures between 38–60 μm in length and 19–26 μm in width, it burrows into the host's intestinal wall and continues to grow --> which for is weird, as it seems "stage" is the antecedent. During which?
I changed it to when, which seems to flow better, does that make sense?
I've made some minor edits directly to the article.
Thank you!
I would split the first paragraph of Hosts, as it's quite long.
Done.
Although the specific intermediate hosts for the genus Heptamegacanthus remain unidentified, it is generally accepted that, for the broader order Oligacanthorhynchida to which it belongs, insects serve as the primary intermediaries This sentence doesn't flow that well, consider changing it to: Although the specific intermediate hosts for the genus Heptamegacanthus are unidentified, it is generally accepted that insects serve as the primary intermediaries for the broader order Oligacanthorhynchida to which it belongs.
Done, that is much better wording.
Source formatting is not quite consistent: first names are sometimes written full-out, sometimes
Vancouver Style, and sometimes abbreviated with a full stop. Please choose a consistent style. First read done, might add some more comments later.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
11:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I found one that was inconsistent, but all journals use the same citation template, so not sure what else is in error. Found first name error, but could not find full stop error.
one other possibility for simplifying the lead is to omit US-specific units. Per
MOS:CONVERSION, unless there is a good reason to add, they can be omitted in scientific articles. From what I understand, even some in the US use mm in daily life for small sizes like this.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"formally described in 1990 by Mary E. Spencer Jones, curator at the British Museum". Describing it as the British Museum is odd. It is true that it was formally called the British Museum (Natural History) until 1992, even though it had been separated from the BM since 1963, but it has long been generally (and now formally) known as the Natural History Museum. I think you need to either use the common name or the full formal name as of 1990.
"sent from south-east Africa". I think "sent from South Africa" would be clearer.
Done
"these glands produce a substance used in the reproductive process". Is there no information about this substance?
Nothing for this species, but for acanthocephalans in general it's also not much: "a protein with molecular weight of 23 kDa; in fresh glands it is white in colour", not sure this adds anything though.
"Much of the second paragraph of the Taxonomy section appears to belong in the Description section as some comments are purely descriptive rather than explaining why the species is morphologically distinct.
I see what you mean, but many sources put this in the taxonomy section as it's kinda like a dichotomous key for classification purposes. The taxonomy is defined by this key, as there has been no phylogenetic analysis.
"without completing their devoplemented rendering them smaller than normal". Typo?
Oops, nice catch!
"into the copulatory bursa (a fluid filled sac)" "into its copulatory bursa (a fluid filled sac)"? (I assumed that it was the female's until I read on.)
yes that is much more clear. Done.
"found in South-East Africa in the Nqadu Forest, Transkei, South Africa". South-East Africa should not be capitalised and is superfluous. I would delete.
Removed all 3 instances of "south-east" and just kept it South Africa.
"the life cycle of thorny-headed worm" "the thorny-headed worm" or "thorny-headed worms".
Fixed this and made the acanthocephalan -> acanthocephala to match the plural.
Is it known whether the worm harms its host?
Unknown. Most certainly yes, but there exists no source to back up my claim.
This article is about another skyscraper in New York City. This office building, constructed for the Time and Life Company, opened in 1960 as part of an expansion of Rockefeller Center. It's distinctive not so much for its exterior (which resembles any other 1960s office building in NYC), but for its whimsical modern interiors, which include a serpentine pavement, steel-and-marble walls, and burgundy glass ceilings. The building also featured a dining club, stores, and even an auditorium. Perhaps the design of the interiors is why the building was nearly fully occupied a year after it opened.
This page became a Good Article three years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. After some more recent copyedits, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback.
Epicgenius (
talk)
15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Below are some comments on prose, most of which are nits; feel free to refuse with justification:
Lead
"The lobby contains serpentine floors; white-marble and stainless-steel walls; reddish-burgundy glass ceilings; and artwork by Josef Albers, Fritz Glarner, and Francis Brennan." - I think that the semicolons here should be replaced with commas, though I recognize that this is technically proper usage as the last clause itself contains a list with commas. Just a small grammatical nitpick on my part.
The first instance of
Time Inc. should be wikilinked. Premature apologies for further comments on wikilinking - I recognize that it can be a bit of a nuisance to the nominator and that there are certain MOS standards that should be upheld with regards to it, though I will try to keep it to a minimum here.
"Construction started in May 1957; the building was topped out during November 1958; and occupants began moving into their offices in late 1959." - In this case, however, the second semicolon should be a comma, as the last clause is not independent (contains "and").
Site
No glaring issues.
Architecture
I happened to be familiar with
Syska Hennessy for reasons I am not too sure of at the moment; however, to someone who may be unfamiliar, it could appear to be a person with a rather unconventional name. Would mentioning that it's an engineering firm (or just a firm/company) be worth it here, in your opinion?
Wikilink
Limestone in "1271 Avenue of the Americas' facade is made mostly of glass, which at the time of the building's construction cost the same as a wall made mostly of limestone."
Wikilink
Canopy (architecture) in "At ground level, there is a canopy over the 51st Street entrance." I won't include further comments on wikilinking from here, though I would suggest it be done for the more technical terms such as
emissivity,
parapet and
terrazzo. I will leave the determination of what could be considered technical up to you, unless more elaboration is requested. Hoping this isn't too big a bother :( I realize that I'm being rather pedantic here.
"Internally, 1271 Avenue of the Americas was divided into eight zones for air-conditioning." - Is this currently how the building is set up, or has there been further development here (as of right now, I am not sure whether the upgrade in 1957 was done to address this division). I think that "initially" between "was" and "divided" would be a good disambiguation, though if it's set up like this now, perhaps change "was" to "is".
"The ceiling throughout the lobby is 16 ft (4.9 m) high. The ceiling is made of dark maroon glass tiles, finished in a matte covering, with white lighting coves in some tiles." - Perhaps these can be combined into one sentence?
"The interiors were designed by Alexander Girard and furniture by Charles Eames." - In contrast to my previous supplications that other terms be wikilinked, I will suggest that the names of the designers be unlinked to avoid too-close duplicate linking.
"This arrangement was inspired by the PSFS Building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." - In its current location, this sentence feels a bit out of place, as the arrangement hasn't been described other than the footage of the floors and the presence of columns. Perhaps this could go at the end of the paragraph instead, or could be expounded upon with regards to how it was the column arrangement that was inspired by the Philly building.
No further issues with the rest of the section.
History
Apologies, I lied.
David Sarnoff has an article you could wikilink in "NBC ultimately dropped out of the project because its CEO, David Sarnoff, dissented."
"In addition, Major League Baseball moved its headquarters to the building,[162][163] and it leased two stories in the building's base for use as an MLB Store, which opened in 2020." - Should "MLB Store" be in title case here?
Rest of this section is straightforward and well-written.
Impact
No glaring issues.
@
Epicgenius: It was a pleasure to read
Hearst Tower when it was at FAC, and I'm glad to say the same for this article. This is looking to be in great shape already, and once my comments are addressed, I will likely come back to support. Looking forward to your responses, and I hope you're having a wonderful week so far.
joeyquism (
talk)
20:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Joeyquism, thanks again for the comments. I've addressed all of your comments, and I added a few more relevant links (though I'll see if there are any other terms that I can link tomorrow). –
Epicgenius (
talk)
22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Looks great! I won't hold you any longer for further wikilinking; I'm already glad to support this FAC for nomination. Hope you're having a great week so far!
joeyquism (
talk)
00:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In 1858 a mix up over two barrels of white powder led to twenty deaths and over 200 ill with arsenic poisoning. Food purity laws had not been thought of and arsenic was readily available over the counter, which was a recipe for tragedy - and all for a few sweeties. -
SchroCat (
talk)
19:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments by Wehwalt
"The adulteration of food had been practised in the UK since before the middle ages" I might add something like "with chemicals" or some such to state what they were adulterated with.
I've outlined that in the following sentences. It's not always chemicals: leaves were added to tea and flour to mustard, for example. -
SchroCat (
talk)
07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"The extent of the arsenic-related deaths was such ..." I assume we are talking about accidents AND murder here. Why not start with "So many people died of arsenic poisoning ..."?
I'm not keen on chemistry myself (it was one of my lesser-attended subjects), so I will not be able to comment on accuracy. I am, however, keen on good writing and candy, both of which are certainly featured in this article. I've noted a few things below for the sake of being thorough, some being nits - feel free to refuse with justification:
Lead
Should
Middle Ages be in title case (along with other instances)? I may be mistaken here, though I'm noticing that title case seems to be the standard in its respective article.
I believe the following sentences would flow better if merged with a semicolon: "Cost was the reason adulterants were used. Sugar, for example, cost 6½ d per pound; the adulterant cost ½ d per pound."
Same with these: "So many people died of arsenic poisoning that legislation in the form of the Arsenic Act 1851 was introduced. It was the first piece of UK legislation to attempt to control the sale of a poisonous substance."
As a Yankee, I was initially confused by "7½ d" (perhaps I just lack numismatistic knowledge) - I now understand this to mean pence, though I could be wrong and be actively embarrassing myself right now. Would it be worth it to write it out, or include a link to
£sd?
It's linked in the above section (when we discuss "6½ d per pound;")
Investigation, arrests and court case
"On the Sunday morning the local police" - Should this be just "On Sunday morning"/"On the following [Sunday] morning", or is this a grammar variance thing? In America it's usually just "On [day of the week]", but I recognize that this is a British-specific article, so if this is considered proper British English, feel free to chastise me for my ignorance.
"Neal's wife also admitted that she had found other fragments and thrown them on to the fire" - May have missed it in context, but I'm not seeing any prior mention of a fire; in this case would it be clearer to say "thrown them into a fire"?
The definite article is a little more widely used in BrEng than AmEng, and while both are usable here, we'd probably prefer it here as there was one fire in the location. If there were multiple, we'd use "a". -
SchroCat (
talk)
09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"By the end of Wednesday, fifteen people has been reported dead" - "has" should be "had"
"The medical historian James C. Whorton considers the Act 'was next to useless'" - Should this be "considered"? Also not sure of the inclusion of "was" in the quote.
Overall, I very much enjoyed reading this article (though not to say I endorse the subject matter's happening). I do question my own critiques at times here, particularly those related to grammar, so if I've made any faux pas or caused any offense, please let me know. Looking forward to your replies, and I hope you're having a wonderful beginning to your week.
joeyquism (
talk)
08:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh - I realized I actually had one prose question. I have no idea at all what a lozenge is in this context; I'm familiar with
throat lozenges but I doubt that's what these Victorian children were eating. I assume it's a sort of hardy candy?
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she)
15:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately the sources don't make it too clear (although I'll go over them again to check there are no little hints I can include). I think, much like throat lozenges, these were a
boiled sweet, much in the line of
humbugs, but that's a bit of OR. -
SchroCat (
talk)
18:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Did a little googling and according to
this history of candy, lozenges originated as a type of gummy fruit-flavored medicinal candy, and the name mostly referred to their diamond shape. As time went on, they seem to have stopped being gummy and many have lost their traditional shape and medicinal nature, but they remain mostly fruity. So basically - fruit candy, I think. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)01:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Now I've gone back over the sources, I suspect you're probably right, although two sources refer to them being
humbugs, which is a hard-boiled sweet (literally boiling the sugary syrup and letting it dry into a hard sweet. The description we have of the manufacturing process (it's in the article in the last paragraph of the Background section) doesn't mention boiling the sugar at all, which would suggest a more 'gummy'-style sweet. All this is OR, unfortunately, so I think we may be best just leaving the description in place as the only explanation, rather than trying to 'translate' it to a modern type of sweet. -
SchroCat (
talk)
08:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentsSupport by RoySmith
I don't know if I'll do a full review, but one thing jumped out at me. In
File:As4O6-molecule-from-arsenolite-xtal-3D-balls.png, there's six oxygens, not three, as the name "arsenic trioxide" would indicate. Presumably this is a
dimer. I don't think there's any need to do a deep dive into the chemistry, but this obvious (to anybody trained in chemistry) discrepancy needs to be at least be mentioned. Oddly enough (and that's an understatement),
Arsenic trioxide, which is the deep dive, doesn't mention this either, but that's somebody else's problem.
RoySmith(talk)23:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The chemist Arthur Hill Hassall was prominent in the field of food analysis and the first person to systematically study food through a microscope. The source says "Hassall became well known as the first food chemist to make a systematic use of the microscope to detect fraudulent additions to food." That's not quite the same thing. Over at DYK, we've learned to be wary about claims of somebody or something being a "first", since those claims so often turn out not to be true. In this case, there's a couple of issues. One is "being well known as the first" is not the same as actually being the first. The other is that the source talks specifically about food chemists, but you expanded that to all people. For all we know, there was somebody doing this kind of investigation earlier but they weren't a food chemist.
RoySmith(talk)01:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
arsenic trioxide is the common name for the substance and the As4O6 is the molecular form it takes at standard conditions. So the caption was OK to start with.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
04:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
highly poisonous arsenic trioxide I think we need a source for "highly poisonous".
https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/MMG/MMGDetails.aspx?mmgid=1424&toxid=3 says "Arsenic trioxide ... is one of the most toxic and prevalent forms of arsenic" but that's a relative measure. Later on it says "When arsenic trioxide is burned, it releases ... arsine gas ... which is highly toxic" which implies that the unburned substance isn't.
"highly poisonous" is hyperbole. I would just say "poisonous". Substances that kill in milligram quantities could be called "highly poisonous".
harmless additions, such as chicory, I think you want a semicolon after chicory, not a comma? On the other hand, this is a monster sentence; maybe break it into several? Something like "First were harmless additions such as chicory (full stop) Alternatively, adding flour to mustard ... tea leaves (full stop) And finally, toxic additions such as ..."
No, it needs a comma, as it's a list of three things that were the first category of 'harmless additions'. The rest of the sentence (also a list, split by semi-colon) comprises explanation and examples of what is in the other two categories. -
SchroCat (
talk)
08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, I see that now. But I still think breaking this up into multiple sentences would improve readabiltity. I did a little research about commas vs semicolons and found
this bit of advice: "There is no rule limiting the number of independent clauses in a single sentence, however, the reader’s ability to comprehend the sentence will certainly decrease if a compound sentence “rages on and on,” even if the conjunctions and punctuation are correct." I think that applies here.
It's not just the two-level list, there's constructs like introducing alum, gypsum or chalk into white bread or tree or shrub leaves into tea leaves. I had to read that several times to figure out that it needs to be parsed as "introducing [(alum, gypsum or chalk) into white bread] or [(tree or shrub leaves) into tea leaves]"
RoySmith(talk)18:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Those adulterating foodstuff used nicknames to hide the practice it took me a few readings to figure out that "those" refers to "the people doing the adulterating" and not "the foodstuffs". Some rewording might clarify this.
cost 6½ d per pound I see you've already discussed this with
Wehwalt, but the use of "d" can indeed be confusing for those not familiar with historical British coinage. I know you linked "d" to
Penny (British pre-decimal coin), but a single-letter link isn't easy to notice, so I suggest something like "cost 6½ d (pence) per pound" and link "pence".
Let me think on this one - it's a rather non-standard approach and this format hasn't been an issue in other articles I've written, so I want to have a look round at other examples. -
SchroCat (
talk)
08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
it was thought that the cause of the deaths was cholera I would establish context by mentioning that this happened during the
1846–1860 cholera pandemic.
Interestingly none of the sources mention the cholera outbreak, so we'd be possibly guilty of SYNTH or OR if we connect the two, but I'm going back through the sources to see if I can find a connection. -
SchroCat (
talk)
08:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not OR to observe that 1858 is between 1846 and 1860 :-) But, yes, you are right that it is OR to infer that "the reason people suspect this was cholera was because of the ongoing pandemic". Perhaps
"The Halloween sweets that poisoned Bradford". bbc.com. which says Initially, the doctor who saw nine-year-old Elijah Wright in the early hours of Halloween 1858 thought the boy had died from cholera. Surgeon John Roberts thought the symptoms - vomiting and convulsions - were consistent with the disease, which had been rife in England. is what you need to connect them?
RoySmith(talk)18:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, now added. I found some information about the similarity of symptoms between the two as well, so that all looks much stronger now. -
SchroCat (
talk)
07:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It looks like all my concerns have been addressed, so adding my support. As an aside, when I saw this listed, what draw my interest was thinking about the scene in
It's a Wonderful Life where the pharmacist Mr. Gower accidentally mixes poison into some pills he is making, killing a patient. That scene takes place around 1920 or so, 60 years after this event. Apparently such accidents were still commonplace enough that it would be believable to movie audiences.
RoySmith(talk)19:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Many thanks
RoySmith. Funnily enough, even though Wonderful Life is one of my favourite films, I simply hadn't made the connection, but it's a very interesting thought that they happened within a lifetime of each other. Cheers -
SchroCat (
talk)
19:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sodium
I'd like to take a look in a bit. This is a very outside my expertise (which tends to be tech), but it seems like a fun article to read and review.
Sohom (
talk)
03:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Three men were arrested—the chemist who sold the arsenic, the sweet maker and the market seller who sold the sweets - That doesn't line up with the rest of the article, which goes on to tell me that the three people were put on trial, the sweet maker, the chemist and his assistant.
The image shown for arsenic trioxide structure seems like it is the structure of
arsenolite, the crystal mineral (with a formula As4O6) rather than arsenic trioxide. Maybe that be noted somewhere as a footnote since it's somewhat confusing to read "trioxide" and see 6 oxygen atoms.
It was also used as a poison for murder. So many people died of arsenic poisoning that legislation in the form of the Arsenic Act 1851 was introduced; .... I think the phrasing here is confusing, was the arsenic poisoning cases deliberate, accidental or both
Corollary to the above, can the previous statement be more rigorous, "many" seems a bit nebulous, are there numbers of how many peeps died of arsenic poisoning in 1850 that can be cited as a reason, or was it just public opinion ?
There are no figures in the sources to back this up, just an acknowledgement by the authorities that there was a problem that needed dealing with. -
SchroCat (
talk)
07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
and in 1862 three children died at Christmas after eating sweets containing arsenic. That's a specific example the book cites to illustrate the fact that adulteration happened even after the passage of the mentioned act, it's not part of the actual reason why the Act was ineffective which is how it is portrayed in the article.
The map is rather dark. I improved it but the Commons has tightened it's rules regarding overwriting of files: only the original poster can do so. Thoughts?
Graham Beards (
talk)
10:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Loving your current tear through British food history. I read Swindled a few years ago and immediately thought of it when I opened this; delighted to see it in the refs already. Comments within the week, throw popcorn if I don't make it. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)00:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"For the sweets produced in Bradford, powdered gypsum was supposed to be purchased" passive voice here
"firstly were harmless additions, such as chicory, adding flour to mustard and watering down milk." the last two are self-explanatory, but what chicory does or is isn't clear from context.
"cheese with mercury salts" - should be "mercury salts added to cheese", since it's the salt that's the additive not the cheese
It may be too much detail for this article, but it's not clear from the text if all of the things mentioned as adulterants (ex. salts of copper and red lead) were known to be dangerous and were being illicitly mixed in instead of safer ingredients, or were added for their useful effects ignorant of actual danger
"Cost was the reason..." I might move this sentence up to para 1; I think it fits better there logically.
"Sunday, Police Constable Campbell, was sent to investigate" - rm second comma
Why is Police Constable capitalized but chief constable isn't?
"Eventually up to twenty-one people died..." it feels odd that this sentence ends solely with the footnote. Do the refs in the footnote cover the ~200 ill as well? (imo the 20 vs 21 thing could be in-text vs in a footnote but I won't insist)
That's all I've got. Quite an interesting little tragedy - I find myself feeling a little sorry for everyone involved. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)04:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Three minor points, none of which affect my support:
"Sulfuric acid" – seems a work of supererogation to take the stuff all the way to America and back when they could just add sulphuric acid at home.
"Joseph Neal, who made the sweets on Stone Street" – next time we lunch at my flat look out for what I'm slipping into your pudding: "in", not "on" in the King's English, for the umpteenth goddam time!
"Mary Midgley, a seven year old girl" – I'd shove a couple of hyphens in here.
That's my lot. Happy to support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Glad(ish) to see SchroCat following in the beloved
Brian Boulton's footsteps in regaling us with death and destruction on all sides. Be that as it may, I support the elevation of this article to FA, Tim riley talk13:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Many thanks
Tim. I always try to leave in at least one 'on x street' for you. It's all part of an experiment to see what your breaking point is: I sense I may be close! -
SchroCat (
talk)
08:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments from Penitentes
This is a really toothsome article, despite the dire subject matter. Just a few quick comments, the resolution of which—as with PMC above—won't affect my vote to support.
An inquest was opened the following day. - Perhaps link to
inquest?
...the Food Adulteration Act 1860 was passed into law... - Since the Act itself has no article, would it be possible to add just a single sentence about what it did (or purported to do)? Reading that the poisoning helped motivate its passage and then immediately reading that it was considered ineffective makes me curious about what its contents were.
Books are all from reputable publishers and scholarly authors; all nice and modern sources (although of matters of arcane local history, older sources may be OK too: historiographical fashion changes like it's á la Milanese). Why are the ISBNs inconsistently laid out. With Davis Kindle ed., what does 487 denote. The journals are an excellent selection of blind peer-reviewed articles, except for History Today. Contemporaneous newspapers are used sparsely but wisely—always a tricky tightrope!—and are all absolute papers of record. And the BBC :) As for websites, ODNB is generally reliable (joke: just don't tell Iridescent!).
This is a good fun, readable, but educational article of the kind you excel in Schrocat. Just reading it gave me early-onset diabetes, I think! By the way—nothing to do with the source review of course—but when you talk about the uses of Arsenic in Victorian England, it might be worth mentioning the prevalence of
Arsenic eating? (And that's a redlink?!)[1][2][3]——Serial Number 5412921:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Many thanks
SN. I've tweaked the ISBNs, so they should all be consistent. For Davis, it's the location in the e-book (older versions of books had no page numbers, but a location 'address'), so I've used that, which I've done in a few other FAs. I'm a bit surprised that's a red link - German WP has a page on it (Arsenikesser), but I think it may be a possible step too far away from this page. Thanks for the review. Cheers -
SchroCat (
talk)
09:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
One of the most successful cavalry commanders of the First World War, Sir Henry Macandrew would probably be more widely known if he hadn't accidentally killed himself in a pyjama-related explosion a year after the war ended. A British Indian Army officer, he fought in the Tirah campaign and Boer War before making his greatest impact commanding a division on the Western Front and in the Middle East.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
14:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Drive-by comments from SC
This breaches a few parts of the MOS without seemingly good reasons for doing so, and it would be best if you ensured it's MOS compliant before the reviews start rolling in. The points that caught my eye on a very quick look include:
A five para lead (
MOS:LEADLENGTH says four at most and an article of this size, is suggests, should be two or three): Four would be acceptable, but not five.
Shortened.
WP:CITEBUNDLE is probably advisable for the places with four citations, and probably those with three
I couldn't figure out how to bundle, something I haven't done before, without breaking a lot of ref templates. I've split out the groups of 3 and 4 references instead.
There are two block quotes in the Post war section that shouldn't be block quote – they should be inline as they are less than forty words, but ...
Changed.
... they should adhere to
WP:ELLIPSIS in regard to the spacing.
I don't know what to do about the above concerns re publication. I'm rather terrible at copyright. Is there an alternative tag I should be using for these images? Your direction would be welcome.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have changed the tag for File:Henry_John_Milnes_MacAndrew.png. The other two don't have any appropriate tags in that list due to author being unknown and author not dying before 1954 respectively. Unless PDM 1.0 is acceptable (as I believe CC BY-NC 3.0 AU isn't?) I'll remove them.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
16:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Macandrew was awarded the India Medal with two clasps and mentioned in despatches This reads as if the medal was mentioned in despatches, which I don't think is the intention; I think was mentioned in despatches and awarded the India Medal with two clasps. would be more clear
Done.
Macandrew continued in India I know this is technically correct, but it made me think a word was missing. "Continued serving" might be better.
Done.
Serving in Kitchener's Horse, from February he operated in the Orange Free State. This sentence seems like it'd be clearer if the clauses were reversed; Beginning in February, he operated in the Orange Free State with Kitchener's Horse.
"the Inverness College". The link here is something of an easter egg, since I don't see the words "Inverness College" in the article linked.
I have added a sentence in the article to make the connection.
"On 22 November 1889 he was admitted to the Bengal Staff Corps, having completed his probationary period, as a lieutenant and continued with the 5th Bengal Cavalry.[1][4]" I would move "as a lieutenant" to after "Corps", otherwise it seems a bit ambiguous (given he was already a lieutenant).
Done.
"Macandrew served as brigade transport officer to Brigadier-General Alfred Gaselee's 2nd Brigade" Can we cut the first "brigade"
Done.
"when he travelled to South Africa to fight in the Boer War." This implies a choice on his part, that he chose to do this rather than being sent. Is this right?
The sources don't stipulate one way or the other, it is likely this was an order rather than voluntary. I've changed the wording to make it a bit less wishy washy.
I notice time is expressed in this article are given as a.m. and p.m. Given this is a military article, should that be on the 24 hour clock?
Liable to confuse some readers I think; the sources also use this format.
"surrounding of Damascus " Is "surrounding" the proper term, or something like encirclement?
Changed to encirclement, which is what the source actually uses.
Hi
Pickersgill-Cunliffe, my comments:
I was one of the reviewers at A Class and found the article to be very well written. The only issue I have is the presence of a Dates of rank section. The images of the badges of the ranks can cause issues, since the British Army has presumably not released copyright over these. The other problem is that we already mention his promotions in chronological order in the Career section, so adding a Dates of rank section is just a summarization. You already know this, and you included such a section on a trial basis, so you should see what the other reviewers have to say on this. Ian Rose and Zawed can best help out on this, you can tag them and check out what they have to say. The article overall is in a very good condition, and I can support for promotion to FA class after we have comments from other reviewers on the aforementioned issue. Cheers
Matarisvan (
talk)
03:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Matarisvan: Hi, I've removed the offending section; if any other reviewers have opinions on it then I'd be interested to hear them, but this isn't a hill I'm even vaguely interested in dying on!
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
22:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, you need to add a link for the Belfast Newsletter reference. Would this link work fine:
[5]? I think it will. I took it from the discussion with Dumelow you had linked on the A Class review.
Matarisvan (
talk)
05:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Could you check out the text of the URL? I don't think the link for the article given by a BNA subscriber would be any different from the one posted here. You could ask someone with a BNA subscription to open this link and check out if it loads correctly. Otherwise the URL text reveals as much.
Matarisvan (
talk)
17:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Happy to support for promotion to FA class. Congratulations on the great article, once it gets promoted it will be the 3rd FA from the Indian milhist category after a long time.
Matarisvan (
talk)
19:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about an English bishop who was not averse to ecclesiastical fisticuffs. I'm not sure how comfortable he would have been to know personally, but I have much enjoyed reading about him and writing him up here. I have a particular soft spot for the article as ten years ago it was informally reviewed by the late and still painfully missed
Brian Boulton and shortly after that was reviewed for GAN by one of our leading lights on church history,
Ealdgyth. I've added to it since then, and I look forward to comments from anyone kind enough to look in. Tim riley talk12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The MoS, I understand, no longer regards duplicate links as mortal sins, and – without feeling adamant about it – I think the duplication is possibly helpful here. Tim riley talk15:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As you don't begin the article with his full name, both Herbert and Hensley are technically unreferenced!!
"after being ordained deacon" my religious knowledge is very poor, but I was under the impression that one would be ordained a deacon of a particular church/diocese. Is this the case here?
No. An ordinary C of E deacon is a deacon anywhere in the C of E. It's like a lance-vicar, as it were. (I think there are other kinds of deacons, more specialised, but HH wasn't one such.) Tim riley talk15:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What's Salisbury's original connection to Henson? His patronage seems to come out of nowhere!
Salisbury was associated in a lay capacity with St Margaret's, Barking, but I think it would be going into rather too much detail to expand on this, though I'm willing to negotiate. Tim riley talk15:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed, to both but as I say above we are now, I believe, permitted duplicate links where we think them helpful to our readers. I think these are OK. Tim riley talk15:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no requirement, as far as I can see, in the MoS to use a name at first mention in any para. The
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does, in fact, pretty much do so in its article on Henson, but doesn't do so systematically for other subjects, and personally I like to keep the surnames under control and use pronouns whenever they convey the intended meaning.
Good old Commons – you can rely on it to let you down! Image replaced locally on En-Wiki with due data. Thank you, as always, Nikkimaria! Tim riley talk15:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
...; because of this some members of the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England accused him of heresy and sought unsuccessfully to block his appointment as Bishop of Hereford in 1917. Dropped the comma before "and".
He campaigned against prohibition, the exploitation of foreign workers by British companies, and fascist and Nazi aggression. He supported reform of the divorce laws, the controversial 1928 revision of the Book of Common Prayer, and ecumenism. Can these two sentences be strategically combined for a more concise sentence?
In my view it would be cumbersome to attempt to cram three things HH campaigned against and three things he campaigned for into a single sentence. Would you care to suggest a form of words? Tim riley talk08:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Tim riley You can use this- Henson campaigned against prohibition, the exploitation of foreign workers by British companies, and fascist and Nazi aggression, while supporting divorce law reform, the 1928 revision of the Book of Common Prayer, and ecumenism.MSincccc (
talk)
10:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
But that would not be true. He did the six different things at different times, not simultaneously as your wording says. I don't in any case think replacing two sentences of 17 and 19 words with a single long one of 33 words does the reader any favours. Tim riley talk10:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
His father was a zealous evangelical Christian who had renounced the Church of England and joined the Plymouth Brethren, whereas his mother shielded her children from the worst excesses of what biographer Matthew Grimley describes as Thomas's 'bigotry.' However, in 1870, she died, and, in Henson's words, 'with her died our happiness.' Provides for a smoother flow given that we know who his father and mother were from the previous lines.
In my view that is an inferior wording. It is no shorter and gratuitously introduces "whereas" and "however", two words better eschewed as a rule. Tim riley talk11:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
...allowed him either to be baptised or to attend school. Dropped the "a" before "school".
Henson died on 27 September 1947 at Hintlesham at the age of eighty-three. His body was cremated upon his wish; his ashes were interred in Durham Cathedral.
Could the sub-section heading be changed to Final years?
If you glance at the OED you will see that it defines "last" as "finally". The suggested change of preposition seems to me most peculiar. Tim riley talk09:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Tim riley That's fine. Even I prefer Last years in this case. What about the suggestion above it? That one seems fine as it provides a smoother flow (mentioning the date before the place).
MSincccc (
talk)
09:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Tim riley I would like to know the reason for you finding my suggested sentence peculiar. Even this sentence could be rephrased as-Herbert Hensley Henson was born on 8 November 1863 in London,... Looking forward to your response.
MSincccc (
talk)
09:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I referred to your suggestion of changing "at his wish" to "under his wish". The second preposition seems to me very odd, and the first perfectly natural. Tim riley talk11:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Tim riley Most articles in British English, including FACs like that of
Liz Truss,
Elizabeth II and others, mention the birth date prior to the place of birth under their respective early life sections. Looking forward to your response.
There is no prescribed order. Sometimes place is first, sometimes date. Sometimes the date is only in the lead of an FA, sometimes it is in the text. Tim riley talk11:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Tim riley I would not force you to make an edit then. It's fine as it is. Should I make a similar edit to the other articles as well?
I would return with other suggestions later. To be honest, the article has been well written. Do you think, @
Tim riley, that my comments have been constructive? Looking forward to your response. Regards.
I think your suggestions have been well meant, even though I have adopted few of them. If you are seeking to learn about reviewing I recommend studying the contributions of
Wehwalt,
UndercoverClassicist and other editors here, whose suggestions I have been able, and very pleased, to adopt much more widely: they help clarify, avoid ambiguity, correct inaccuracies, and challenge my interpretation of the sources, rather than putting forward tweaks to prose on the grounds that "I wouldn't phrase it like that". Tim riley talk15:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I will let you know of my verdict after I have gone throught the article again. Looking forward to your response. Regards.
MSincccc (
talk)
07:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thomas Henson was against the idea, partly because his financial means had declined, but was talked round by his wife and gave his consent. Do we need to mention his full name here; will either "Thomas" or "Henson" not do?
We discourage the use of forenames alone as too chummy and using the surname alone here would be ambiguous.
Can anything be said of his duties as a Fellow of All Souls? I take it the six-months absence was with their blessing (so to speak) since they appointed him a vicar.
"In doing so he addressed many nonconformist gatherings; the historian Owen Chadwick suggests that this may have commended him to David Lloyd George, who became prime minister in 1916." Perhaps a few words as to way this is so.
"Lloyd George told him that he would have preferred to offer him a see with "a large and industrial population", and hoped to transfer him to one such if he succeeded at Hereford.[59]" Consider cutting "such".
During the time of the debates in parliament in the late 1920s, was Henson in the House of Lords as a bishop?
The Bishop of Durham was and is one of the three bishops who automatically have a seat in the Lords. (The other two are London and Winchester; the rest have to wait their turn till they get in in order of seniority of their consecration, there being 21 other Lords Spiritual seats but 42 dioceses.) I don't know that Hensley's contributions in the Lords need mention, though. Tim riley talk16:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In the same year he was elected as a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford and: needs a comma after Oxford per
MOS:GEOCOMMA (there are one or two other examples).
He was tolerant of a wide range of theological views; because of this some members of the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England accused him of heresy: is this the bit about the right of clergy to express doubts about key points of doctrine? I don't think it's explicitly spelled out in the body that his critics called him a heretic (as opposed to just disagreeing with him, calling him a wimp/wrong 'un or something distinct but equally bad).
The charges of heresy began before WWI and got more vehement before his appointment to Hereford. I've added a short para in the Westminster section. Tim riley talk11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
what the biographer Matthew Grimley describes as Thomas's "bigotry": can we be at all specific about what/whom he was bigoted against? Anglicans? Is there anything in the Plymouth Brethren's doctrine that would point anywhere?
I must tread carefully here. Peart-Binns gives no specific examples of Thomas's bigotry but writes, Their beliefs and structure were a world-denying pietism with the Bible as their supreme rule; an interest in prophecy and the Second Coming; believer's baptism; weekly breaking of bread; no set liturgy; no ordained ministry though many full-time evangelists; a congregational polity with no co-ordinating organization. ... Thomas Henson's bleak outlook on the world ... increased a feeling of urgency to be prepared for the Second Coming. Is it any wonder that the darkness at home become all-pervading? In view of their father’s contempt for the wickedness of the world, life at home for the children was purgatory. They were not to be tarnished by attending the schools where corruption was rife. The undercurrents in Herbert’s early life were never completely expunged.Tim riley talk11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
his father's fundamentalist views were anathema, ... "an enduring hatred of protestant fanaticism: similarly, I think it would help here to identify, at least in broad strokes, what the PB believed that was so upsetting -- we have the word "zealous" further up, but plenty of very committed, zealous believers are unquestionably lovely people.
Emma Parker, widow of a Lutheran pastor, filled the role of stepmother with sympathy and kindness, mitigating the father's grimness: the tone is slipping slightly here, I worry -- a little subjective, a little emotional, a little Dickensian, perhaps. On a more concrete note, isn't "widow of a Lutheran pastor" a false title?
It isn't a false title when used predicatively as here or (random example from the ODNB) "His work as broadcaster mirrored much of his work as author and editor." As to the wording I'm blest if I can remember which source prompted it and I've redrawn based on Chadwick and the ODNB. Tim riley talk11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Henson was fourteen before his father allowed him either to be baptised or to attend a school: this might be clearer as "His father did not allow Henson to be baptised or to attend a school until..." -- in theory, he could have turned fourteen before being baptised, and then turned fifteen, and then turned sixteen...
the young Henson undertook their functions himself: how did that work? Isn't the point of the godparents to guide and advise the baptised person -- how could he advise himself?
This puzzled me and still does. It looks to me as though the rector was bending the rules to breaking point. The
BCP has an order of service for the baptism of – lovely phrase – "such as are of Riper Years and able to answer for themselves", and though the baptisee renounces the devil and all his works on his/her own behalf, the BCP says The person to be baptized shall choose three, or at least two, to be his sponsors, who shall be ready to present him at the Font and afterwards put him in mind of his Christian profession and duties. How it was that this requirement was waived in HH's case I cannot discover. Tim riley talk11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
At Broadstairs Collegiate School he derived little educational benefit: not totally sure about the at here (you derive a benefit from something, but just swapping the words leads to a stilted tone). I'd push back against the idea that being widely read means that there's no value in going to school -- school do more than just put a lot of books in front of children! More seriously, I can't actually find this in the ODNB article.
We can agree to differ about the preposition, which seems fine to me. I've added a citation for the limited educational benefit. Chadwick says: Of this school the boy thought little. But no school is well adapted for boys who have read adult libraries by the time they are fourteen, can recite from memory long chunks of famous sermons from past centuries out of Blair’s Lectures on Rhetoric, and think games a sinful waste of time. The other boys were amused to find that the odd creature knew, in some subjects, more than their headmaster. Henson was shocked to find such adult ignorance and held his headmaster in contempt.Tim riley talk11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I can find no use of "benefit at" in Google Books which means what we want it to (only phrases like "this would benefit at-risk children"). Not a perfect measure, but could you perhaps reassure me by finding it in print somewhere? As I read Chadwick's quotation there, it says clearly that Henson thought he derived no benefit from it, but stops short of endorsing that opinion -- after all, it's predicated on the assumption that games [that is, sports] are "a sinful waste of time", which most educationalists at the time would have quite strongly challenged, and I'd take the "in some subjects" as decidedly double-edged: in other words, C. seems to be saying that Henson had a very narrow range of interests, knew a great deal about them, and was too single-minded, young or naïve to appreciate that there might be value in learning or doing anything else. UndercoverClassicistT·
C18:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You surprise me. He was at the school and derived no benefit from it. Whether he ought to have benefited from games (a num question if ever I heard one) etc is neither here nor there: the fact is that he didn't. Tim riley talk20:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not arguing otherwise, but I don't think that's a defensible reading of what Chadwick says in the quoted passage. Is tehre another source that puts it differently? UndercoverClassicistT·
C20:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Peart-Binns: When he was fourteen his stepmother ... successfully persuaded her husband that Henson should attend Broadstairs Collegiate School. He went there on 18 November 1877 but there were few benefits. Apart from learning Latin and Greek, any formal education was too late. ... He found the school detestable ... Almost to the end of his life he could not bear to mention this school. Henson called the place "a privately run establishment of no great merit" and said that all he learned there was "a smattering of Latin and Greek". He wrote, I have often reflected on the difference which would have been made in my life if I had been so fortunate as to grow up in the neighbourhood of a good school. Had I been within reach of such a school as exists in Westminster, Birmingham, or Manchester it is probable that I should have gained an honourable entrance into the University, and enjoyed the inestimable advantage of what is described as "a regular education".Tim riley talk07:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If it were me, I'd say it was wisest to write something like "Henson saw little benefit in the education he received there", or similar -- the sources are very clear that he thought it was all pointless, and in many ways I think it says something about his character to frame this very much as his view of things. Whether, for example, learning Latin and Greek, or indeed mixing with people from outside his family and community, were of any benefit to him is something of an abstract question -- however, it's absolutely a matter of fact that he thought they were not. UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I wonder if there's room to get Grimley's comment that "Henson's Kentish childhood ... could have come straight out of the pages of Charles Dickens" in somewhere?
I think we do need some mention of Parker's role in Henson's early education -- we've presented her as providing kindness, but Grimley is clear that she was also responsible for introducing him to literature and, in his words, "ensuring that [Henson] received an education".
Well, I think the existing words in the text, "ensured that the children were properly educated" covers this. The sources differ on whether she "persuaded" Henson senior to let HH go to school or whether she "insisted". Tim riley talk11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I more mean what came before: how Parker gave him copies of classical texts and modern literature -- she seems to have been a major part of his education before he actually got a formal one, and therefore, one assumes, a large part of the reason he was in any position to take advantage of going to school. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We're inconsistent about whether "fellow" [of All Souls]" should be capitalised. Generally speaking, my reading of
MOS:CAPS is that the answer is usually "no" when there's any doubt.
the university's post-graduate research college: describing what All Souls is is a challenge, but I'm not sure 'postgraduate college' quite gets the point across -- the key thing is that it has no students, only fellows (normally, a "postgraduate college" is one inhabited by MPhil, DPhil etc candidates). I'm not sure it really needs a detailed introduction here, but some alternative phrasing would be useful.
I'll think on it. It's a tricky one, and I must admit I don't totally understand the position of Examination Fellows, who have to (initially) follow a university course but practically have that as their secondary 'job', as far as All Souls is concerned -- and I'm not sure they lose their initial college affiliation (so, for example, a DPhil student in Archaeology at Exeter College also holds an Examination Fellowship at All Souls). On another note, it's not (any longer) the only college without undergraduates; I'm not sure whether that was true when Henson was there, though. UndercoverClassicistT·
C18:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Henson made substantial contributions to his family as his father's financial affairs deteriorated to the point of bankruptcy: does "as" here mean "because" or "contemporaneously with"?
I formed friendships which have enriched my life.: anyone important later on who could be name-checked here?
Nobody is named in Henson's memoirs. His contemporaries included Lang, but whether he counted as a friend we are not told. Henson wrote, rather movingly I think, "I loved everybody from the Warden to the Scout's boy, and even now, after more than half a century, I never enter the college without emotion". Tim riley talk17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Henson's first paper, on William II of England, marked him out as not only a fine scholar but a gripping speaker when he delivered it to an audience: perhaps getting a bit subjective: we would be on safer ground talking about how it was received, or how somebody or other has assessed it.
Lyttelton–Hart-Davis: the usual form would be "Lyttelton and Hart-Davis", but given that this is presumably a letter by one or the other, can we find out which?
It was GWL to RH-D (letter of 26 February 1958), but I am reluctant to follow the full bibliographical form, as RH-D edited the letters (after GWL's death) as well, of course, as writing half of them, and the conventional bibliographical details would, in my view, be cumbersome. If you haven't read
their letters, permit me to recommend them. Desert Island reading for me. (Now I look again, I see that GWL quotes Henson in his very first letter, dated 27 October 1955, though I'm blest if I know what HH meant by "that state of resentful coma which scholars attempt to dignify by calling research".)Tim riley talk17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How about something like "Letter from GWL to RH-D, in RH-D ed. (Year)"? I can see the arguments either way, but I think it's important to clarify who is, at least theoretically, "speaking" here, even if that's not as clear a distinction as it could be. UndercoverClassicistT·
C18:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Charles Gore and the Puseyites: suggest adding a brief indication of what these people believed in, for those of us not fully versed in the different flavours of Anglicanism.
Tricky. They were high church early Anglo Catholics, of the type known in my youth as "tat queens" - lots of vestments, bobbing and bowing, and theatrical carrying on. But we already say "high church" and "Anglo Catholic" and I think on the whole it is best to let those phrases and blue links bear the weight. Tim riley talk17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
St Margaret's, Barking, in east London, a large, working class parish, with a population of 12,000, and increasing: lots of commas here. Worth splitting the sentence or bringing in some bigger pauses to give it more shape?
An All Souls colleague Cosmo Lang, himself on the brink of a Church career: I know we have different ideas about commas, but I think this really needs one after colleague -- alternatively, stick the name first and put a comma after it?
his relentless work at Barking put a strain on his physique: Is physique the right word here? Cambridge have it as "the shape and size of a human body" (e.g. "he had a very slight physique, so found the work difficult") -- I'm not sure it's a direct synonym for the body itself. "On his body" or simply "on him"?
In 1895 he accepted an offer from Lord Salisbury of a less arduous post, the chaplaincy of St Mary's Hospital, Ilford,: was Salisbury PM at the time (he became so in June)? In either case, do we know what he was doing handing out minor clerical appointments? The "Westminster" section says that it was a personal gift, but that only makes me more confused as to why it was Salisbury's to give.
Salisbury had – wait for it – an advowson – the right to appoint a clergyman to a particular living. This was in his private capacity. He was associated in a lay capacity with the Barking parish and knew of HH's work. You're the second reviewer to query this point and I've added an explanatory footnote. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Arthur Winnington-Ingram, Bishop of London and Lang, now Bishop of Stepney.: Bishop of London is parenthetical, so needs a comma on either side (it took me a minute to realise that he wasn't the bishop of a place called "London and Lang".
From his pulpit, Henson spoke against the view that ecumenism was, in W. E. Gladstone's words, "a moral monster",: is this in 1902? Gladstone had been dead for four years by that point -- I'd suggest contextualising a) who Gladstone was, briefly; b) when he said this, and c) why Henson still cared what he thought.
The Times, reporting HH's lecture, thought Gladstone's phrase worth repeating. Gladstone coined the phrase back in 1874, but it clearly still resonated with some in 1906. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
for the "Putumayo atrocities": why the quote marks -- "for what he called..."? At the moment, they read as scare quotes, implying that this label was overblown.
St Margaret's Henson neither received institution from the Bishop of London: what does received institution mean?
Most vicars/rectors are formally installed in a new parish by the local bishop. The OED says this: Ecclesiastical. In Episcopal churches, the establishment of a clergyman in the office of the cure of souls, by the bishop or his commissary. In the Church of England, the investment of the presentee to a living with the spiritual part of his benefice, which is followed by induction n., admitting to the possession of the temporalities of the benefice. It's rather an impressive service, but neither "institution" nor "induction" has a relevant WP article for me to link to. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Would this be clearer as something like "Henson did not undergo the ceremony of institution, by which the Bishop of London would have formally installed him in his parish" -- I'm not quite clear (if it matters) whether this was a Henson thing or a St Margaret's thing. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Suggest linking
Defender of the Faith. It's a good quote. I would also link destroyer in the quote that follows, as non-native or non-maritime readers may not immediately pick up that he means a warship (rather than just something destructive).
The Bishop, Handley Moule, hoped the prime minister would appoint Henry Watkins: we've inconsistently applied
MOS:CAPS here, and somewhat throughout. The rule on paper is that if the title stands in for someone's name (so "I met the Pope last Thursday" -> "I met Francis last Thursday"), it's capitalised, so most cases like "the Prime Minister did such-and-such" should be. Of course, consistency is king, so I'd have no objection to decapitalising all of them, but we can't have both Bishop and prime minister here.
two colonial bishops: might give them as the bishops of Mombasa and Uganda, both to be more specific (the British Empire was a big place) and to clarify the quote later: at the moment, we have to infer that he's talking about the same people.
In the academic sense, symposium should link to
Academic conference, but it's only really the right word if there was a physical conference as well -- was there? If so, you would normally say that he presented the paper at the symposium.
Well if you read Plato, a symposium is where you get legless and end up with a hangover, while engaging in activity that would get you in trouble under the Sexual Offences Act, 2003. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, yes, but unless the CofE is more interesting than I gave it credit for, we should make the link to the article about the academic rather than the Hellenic meaning of the term. After all,
Symposium begins with a hatnote This article is about the social custom in ancient Greece. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know what the C of E is like now, but you might be surprised at the goings-on when I was young, but be that as it may, my and your types of symposium, above, are respectively the first and second definitions in the OED, but the third is "A book consisting of essays on various aspects of a subject contributed by a number of different authors". Symposium is rather a chameleon term, like "classical music" which is broadly taken to mean the stuff they play at the Proms, but which specialist musical scholars confine to music of the late 18th and very early 19th century – basically Haydn, Mozart, early Beethoven and Schubert. If we restrict "symposium" to the OED's second definition it would be as if Bach, Verdi and Tchaikovsky didn't write classical music. Tim riley talk16:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You are quite right (and I was quite wrong): symposium can mean the book as well as the event, so our framing is fine if there was no physical conference. As for the link, though --
Symposium (disambiguation) says that readers looking for the ancient Greek event should go to
symposium, while those looking for something in academia should go to
academic conference or
academic journal. I'd suggest changing the link to the last of those, but in any case it needs not to point to
symposium. UndercoverClassicistT·
C19:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
in general lay people supported his appointment: maybe I'm being incorrigibly modern, but how many lay people actually knew or cared? It would be a bit like saying "in general, most people support the Under-Secretary of State for Pigeons": if she's got an approval rating of 75% among the four people who have heard of her, that's a little misleading.
During his brief time at Hereford: brief drip-feeds the idea, only really brought home in the last paragraph, that he didn't last long there -- I think we should either let the cat out of the bag the first time, and say that he remained there only until 1920, or else keep mum until we get to his transfer.
True, but under
MOS:LEAD, that's generally considered a slightly separate thing to the body -- after all, we always start the body with the subject's full name, even though that was in both the lead and the infobox. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Was Henson's Freemasonry ever controversial? It would seem a gift for opponents who wanted to paint him as unorthodox and/or heretical.
As far as I can make out, being a prominent Freemason was uncontroversial in the C of E of those days (though it ain't now!) Henson's contemporaries in the dioceses of London (and later Canterbury), Norwich and Lincoln – Geoffrey Fisher, Percy Herbert and Nugent Hicks – were among the bishops who were Freemasons. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
James Welldon ... [was] given to making public statements that Henson found infuriating: we imply almost that Henson just disliked his speaking style, and give prohibition as an example of their disagreement, but was there anything more substantial to this conflict?
Well, Welldon was given to making public statements that went against the pronouncements of his diocesan superior, as illustrated by the example of his criticising HH's liberal view of alcohol. (What Welldon imagined Jesus was doing at Cana in John 2:11 I have no idea.) Peart-Binns says of Welldon, "And he was found, in the experience of colleagues, to be radically untrustworthy, not deliberately or consciously, but because he could never resist the appeal of the Gallery. He would never fail to sacrifice a friend to a cheer!" Tim riley talk16:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah: I think it would then be useful to amend or add to "found infuriating": as currently expressed, I realised that Henson found his speeches annoying, but it wasn't clear that he was actually saying anything objectionable or insubordinate (as opposed to being an annoying speaker, self-promotional, or generally not to Henson's tastes). Your explanation here that the prohibition pronouncement is an illustrative example of Welldon contradicting his boss clarifies things tremendously, but I didn't pick that up from the article itself. UndercoverClassicistT·
C19:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relations between the deanery and Auckland Castle, the bishop's official residence: a common metaphor, especially in journalism, but I think the gloss pulls it the wrong way -- it sounds as if we mean relationships between two buildings rather than the people who worked in them. One way to get around this would be to introduce Auckland Castle a little earlier, or to say something like "Henson's staff at..."?
It's not quite the construction that's the issue, it's the
zeugma: we have to simultaneously understand "Auckland Castle" as metonymy and not-metonymy: for it to work with the first clause, it has to carry one meaning, but the second clause can't be understood with that meaning. Most style guides advise avoiding zeugma, unless a) trying to show off and b) creating some conscious effect, and I'm not sure either is really the case here. As for Shakespeare, I shall bring that up next time I write an article in iambic pentameter! With all that said, you're right that there's no real chance of misunderstanding or concrete grammatical error here, so this does ultimately come down to de gustibus. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It might be worth moving the explanation that "in gaiters" meant "bishops" to the main text -- but is that quite right? Admittedly, I'm remembering this from notes on The Dead, but there gaiters are shorthand for being well-heeled and a bit fancy-pants -- not necessarily being a clergyman. Put another way, all of his bishop guests would be, metaphorically, in gaiters, but not all of his gaitered guests would be bishops.
Whatever James Joyce meant by the word, it unquestionably and to my mind unmistakeably refers in this quotation to the upper clergy. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It might, but Chadwick isn't explicit about that, and we've talked before about the dangers of
putting our own interpretation on quotes (with, as I remember, the proverbial boots on the opposite feet). I think we need some sort of source for what's currently given as "i.e. episcopal" in the footnote, which isn't supported by the citation currently given. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Henson denounced the Jarrow March in 1936: reads more naturally as of 1936 to me, given that we've already used a temporal phrase for the denouncing at the start of the sentence.
To Henson, the Church's principal concern was each individual man or woman's spiritual welfare: in this day and age, would advise each individual's... -- Henson probably didn't intentionally mean to throw children or non-binary people to the dogs, or indeed know what non-binary people were. As it's not a quotation, we should use modern, inclusive language unless we have good reason to think he consciously meant to do otherwise.
"the publication of this Book does not directly or indirectly imply that it can be regarded as authorized for use in churches: just checking that the Oxford English -ize is original?
Oh, yes! In those days, the OUP, CUP, The Times and Fowler held fast to the idiotic superstition that ize should always be used where the verb has been formed by using the suffix equivalent to the Greek suffix -izein (which retained its z when Latinised), but that ise should be used for words formed in a different way. Who knows, one day the OUP may catch up with the mid-20th century. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
damage limitation measures: a bit of a cliché, but a compound modifier in any case, so hyphenate it if it's staying. Likewise Prayer-Book debacle.
I don't like "damage limitation" either, but have tried and failed to think of something that says the same thing better. Any thoughts? Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Dwelly's biographer Peter Kennerley considers it ironical that Henson,: not ironic? I understand ironical to mean "intentionally suffused with irony": so "he gave an ironical smile at the ironic situation".
He occupied a considerable part of his retirement writing a substantial work of autobiography: I'm not sure the two adjectives really work for prose: advise cutting substantial, as the next clause does a perfectly good job of setting out just how substantial it was. There's also a potentially awkward double-meaning here: does substantial mean "really long" (fine) or "full of wisdom" (not so fine for
WP:V)?
the posthumous publication of Henson's edited letters were a better legacy: as written, needs to be was, but we might rearrange to make the letters, rather than the publication, the subject.
Henson's isolation from contemporary fashions had not diminished his influence: "Its secret lay in things far deeper than contemporary fashions: perhaps look at the repetition?
I find it odd in the "Reputation" section that such a controversial figure appears to have nobody willing to say a bad word about him after his death. Is that the case?
It seems so. Even the people he battled with such as Gore liked him personally. I daresay that if Welldon had outlived HH he might have struggled to say something complimentary, and some Durham miners probably retained a lasting grudge, but on the whole HH was liked as well as respected. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Lloyd George was an agnostic, but was from a nonconformist family, like the majority of Welsh people: needs a slight rephrase (suggest shifting the agnostic bit to the end, and probably dropping the article) -- most Welsh people were not agnostic.
Grimley writes that the friendship between Henson and Booker was the basis of a 1987 novel by Susan Howatch, Glittering Images, in which Henson is portrayed as Alex Jardine. In the novel Jardine's friendship with the companion is more than platonic, but Grimley emphasises; suggest cutting as indicated: the part that's opinion is already attributed to Grimley, and we can be more concise in what is a long foonote.
Conclusion by Fowler&fowler: This is a story, as I see it, of how an unusual kind of religious prodigy was shaped by the economic and social urbanization associated with the Victorian and Edwardian eras. Henson's father, Thomas, had run away from the farm, prospered in London, and then retired to pursue a kind of religious passion or ideal that brought some others, equally passionate, to America. He and his wife had raised six children, all cloistered with no social or scholastic outlets except some home schooling and a library full of cranky religious books. Then his wife died. Thomas remarried three years later, but during the traumatic motherless years, one child, the fourth, aged seven, had became a voracious reader of the library's books and taken to preaching in his nightshirt. His precocity came to be recognized, at first by the stepmother and then by the outer world into which she was to nudge him. This is a story, essentially, of that kind of a boy.
When Tim riley first approached me, I had no idea what I was getting into. I had never heard of Hensley Henson. The last FAC bishop of Tim I had reviewed was a few years ago—an Archbishop of Canterbury. At first sight HH didn't seem that glamorous. But I took the plunge. Helped along by Tim's explanations, both thoughtful and when required humorous, his judicious sense for what material to include and what to not, and strikingly concise and supple prose, I am where I am now. On the basis of what has transpired at
User talk:Fowler&fowler/HHH FAC between 16 July and now, I am delighted to to offer support for the article's promotion to an FA. This article is a winner. Best regards,
Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Fowler&fowler – It's hard to find words to express my gratitude for the work you have put in and for your perceptive and helpful comments. They have led me to rephrase many sentences and add more than 500 words, greatly to the benefit of the article. For that, and for your support here, thank you so much. Tim riley talk08:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't really have the time to do a more in-depth review, but I want to throw my two-cents in considering my background with the 1928 prayer book. If you're interested,
Jix's book The Prayer Book Crisis (1928) includes details on Benson's book in support for the Deposited Book (see pages 147 and 148 of Jix's second impression). If you don't have access, I can send you images from my copy. I also have any of the sources you see in articles on the prayer books, should you want to check them for additional material. Having reviewed only the Durham section, I am positively inclined towards this article's promotion. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
04:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Pbritti, that's most kind. What I feel would most benefit the section is a footnote summarising what new wording the low-church lobby felt was "popish". If you had time and inclination I'd be glad of some pointers from someone with your specialist knowledge. Jix's book is in the Internet Archive, but the site is playing up at present: I'll certainly have a look later. Thank you so much. Tim riley talk09:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll take a look at addressing the popish question sometime today. Glad to see an outstanding article on a bishop of this period; I hope to give
Walter Frere the same treatment someday. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
14:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Excellent. Thank you. I've tentatively drafted this, but won't add it unless you think it's OK. Additions, deletions and amendments most welcome:
Evangelicals objected to, among other things, an
epiclesis (calling of the Holy Spirit on the elements of bread and wine), and the continuous
reservation of consecrated bread and wine.(ref name=s241)Spinks, p. 241–242</ref> Other objections included the wearing of
chasubles,
prayers for the souls of the dead and changes to the communion service repositioning the
Prayer of Oblation, and cutting down the prayers for the sovereign.(ref name=s241/)
I'll consult my copy of Oxford Guide, but from memory, Spinks's chapter supports all this. Because "cutting down" can idiomatically mean "totally annihilate", perhaps swap in "reducing". I'll reply here ~22:00 UTC once I'm back home; currently on an adventure that's seen me on
1,
2, and
3 different train lines, with a scheduled four-hour drive to undo it all this evening. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
15:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Just glanced at my copy. The portion "calling of the Holy Spirit on the elements of bread and wine" is a direct quote from Spinks 241, so feel welcome to slightly adjust it with a wording like "invokes the Holy Spirit to descend upon the communion elements of bread and wine". Otherwise, a fine summary of a ludicrously complex set of theological issues. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
20:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about... one of the most important figures in the history of the Royal Mint. If you're looking for the
Charles Fremantle for whom Fremantle, Australia is named, you've come to the wrong place, that was his uncle. But this Charles Fremantle did quite a lot, enough to distinguish himself in a family where there are an amazing number of notable people. Enjoy.
Wehwalt (
talk)
14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"and was the boss in a position described as "none too arduous""
A large part of the wonderment at his resignation was that he was the boss, with none to contradict him, since the master of the Mint was busy elsewhere.
Do we know when he was appointed JP?
No. I looked.
A word or two on what the Charity Organisation Society actually does, if Fremantle is one of the movement Fathers, would be useful
Do you have some thoughts on phrasing? Our article on it is not wonderful.
Some discrepancies in your referencing style. Ref. #2, #46, #48 (which should also include the page number used), #50, and #51 would do better as short form references with longer entries in the Sources section
Done, except for the two that go to the ODNB online. I don't think those need page numbers.
I found this a hugely enjoyable article and look forward to supporting its elevation to FA. A few minor cavils and carps first, more meo:
"Fremantle began his time as deputy master under Master of the Mint Thomas Graham" – we could do without the
false title
"and then entered the treasury as a clerk in April 1853" – if we're capitalising "Royal Mint" (rightly, I believe) we ought, I think, to give H. M. Treasury its caps too.
"and Hon Sir Henry Brand, later speaker of the House of Commons" – whether you contract "Honourable" to "Hon" or not it needs a definite article.
"and that the Royal Mint would benefit from an infusion of new blood" – I suggest a pronoun instead of "the Royal Mint" would help the prose along here.
"someplace closer to the City of London" – "somewhere", rather than "someplace" if we're in BrE.
"every Continental mint had updated its equipment, even that in Constantinople, making the Royal Mint the least efficient in Europe" – not clear why Constantinople is singled out here.
From the source, "... the Royal Mint's machinery was more obsolete and inefficient than that of any other mint in Europe, Constantinople included." I don't have access to the memorandum by Fremantle which seems to be the original source. Probably the view of the Turk as somewhat decadent and not very competent.
"tied up in treasury and parliamentary red tape" – a good phrase, which I like very much, but I suspect some sobersided editors will think it a little colourful for our ever-so-serious encyclopaedia.
"De Saulles would go on to design the coinage of King Edward VII before dying in 1903" – reads a little oddly, as though he might have designed it after dying. Something on the lines of "shortly before dying in 1903", possibly?
"interdepartmental committees relating to the Civil Service – should the civil service be capitalised if chancellor of the exchequer is not?
It's how I interpret JOBTITLES but would be happy to be wrong as the lower case rendition of such titles looks very strange to me.
"Hasegawa Tameharu, who he had met" – "whom", please.
"Fremantle's father, Sir Thomas Fremantle, was ennobled as Baron Cottesloe in 1874, entitling his sons to preface their names with 'The Honourable'" – glad to see this bit: I'd been wondering from the outset where the "Honourable" came from. Would you consider adding "later Baron Cottesloe" in the first para of the main text? Just a thought.
"Fremantle wed Sophia Smith – the current edition of
Fowler calls the use of "wed" instead of "married" "irretrievably naff" in serious writing, and I concur. Fine for tabloid headlines, of course.
Sir Charles William Fremantle KCB JP FRSA (12 August 1834 – 8 October 1914) was a British government official...
Educated at Eton College, Fremantle entered the Treasury in 1853 as a clerk and served as...
Dropped comma after "clerk".
Disraeli's appointment of Fremantle as deputy master of the Royal Mint excited some controversy but was supported by his political rival William Gladstone. More concise version.
Fremantle began his time as deputy master under Thomas Graham, the master of the Mint, but Graham died in September 1869, and the Treasury decided the mastership should go to the chancellor of the day, with the deputy master the administrative head of the Royal Mint. Could this sentence be shortened or rephrased for greater accuracy and conciseness?
He died in October 1914 months after his eightieth birthday. "Soon" should be omitted in any case from this sentence given that August and October are two months apart.
I see that two items in the source list have no listed author and that they are alphabetized between themselves before the alpha-first listing with an author name. I think I always see those integrated alphabetically into the rest of the sources, but I also can't find any policy saying that is necessary. Have you thought about this explicitly?
I went back and looked at the last time I remembered having sources that lacked an author, which was
New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal. Although all the sources that lacked an author were published by the state, I had alphabetized them and put them before the sources that had an author. That's what I often do, see what was found to be acceptable before. That way you aren't constantly trying to reinvent the wheel.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
01:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Journal of the Royal Society of Arts: I think it would be appropriate to include the volume (62) and issue (3230) numbers.
Charity Organisation Review: I think it would be appropriate to include the volume number (36).
Craig: I think it would be helpful to write out the whole title like it is listed
here on WorldCat.
I see Cambridge is in the UK and Llantrisant is in Wales. I think either Cambridge should be in England or Llantrisant should be in the UK. London is listed without a country. For consistency, I think that should be added, though I wouldn't stand in your way if you want to leave that one be.
I've added "United Kingdom" after Wales. My understanding is that there is no need to disambiguate major cities such as London.
Elliot: I think it's appropriate to include the volume number (45). Also, the publication year doesn't match what's in the link.
It says 1916 on the first page near the bottom. I have to assume that it means what it says. As for the volume number, the title says it's the Forty-fifth annual report, so it might be redundant.
Seymour: I think it's appropriate to include the volume number (25). Also, the publication year doesn't match what's in the link.
Similar as for the 45th. The title says it is the Twenty-fifth and the first page of the book says 1895 as the publication year.
The source list is pretty heavily weighted toward publications over a century old, particularly from the time of Fremantle's death. You can't find more contemporary sources?
No, and that's often the case in such biographies. Contemporary biographical sketches, news mentions, and obituaries often provide detail which later sources lack.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
01:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing on this list longer than a page is specifically about Fremantle. Have there been no book- or article-length treatments of his life?
I see every item in the list of sources includes a ref= parameter. Do the in-line citations not work without them? My impression is that this parameter is for sources with no listed author.
I don't see a publication date on Debretts. Where'd that come from?
Similar text is found
here. Since there's no doubt about the reliability of the source, I'd rather cite to the more easily verifiable page. Google Books is not available in all countries, and previews may vary.
According to this Google Books link, this ebook was published April 19, 2016. The citation says it was published June 24, 2021. I still don't see where the 2021 date comes from.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Laughton/Morriss and Seccombe cite the same publication but are formatted quite differently. I think both should have the publication date and the retrieval date.
Liverpool Daily Post: The listed publication date and page number don't match the link.
What I said in the above section about the age of the items in the source list I could say about the items listed as in-line citations only, except that these ones tend to lean even more toward primary sources from Fremantle's life. There aren't newer sources for that info?
I did a newspapers.com search since 1950. A few articles mention him in passing in connection with one of his sons, who died in 1952. Every other reference to Charles Fremantle has to do with his uncle.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
13:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not a source check issue
"City" is inconsistently capitalized. My feeling is that the only appropriate capitalization is the direct quote.
The capitalizations are to "
City of London", which our article on same capitalizes. When used in connection with the Australian place-name, it is lower cased.
The items in the sources list are all legit-looking journals or books that WorldCat says are held at reputable libraries. I didn't do much of a spot check, but I'll say that in the few instances where I looked at a source to confirm a claim, it was there. I'm not excited about the number of primary sources, but I don't see any being used inappropriately. Save for a few minor issues raised above, the sources seem to me to be consistently formatted. I can't find any obviously comprehensive, book-length treatises on Fremantle's life, so I would have to take it on faith that these sources represent a comprehensive survey. There certainly are plenty of different sources and none of them are unreliable.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
00:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for a most thorough review. I would say that if you are going to have a high-quality article on a person who no one has seen fit to write a book about, then there's an extent to which you have to rely on contemporary sources. The heart of the article is about the Royal Mint, and that is reliant on secondary sources, the two histories of the Royal Mint. I've done the other things you suggested or given my view as to why it is not necessary. Thanks again.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
13:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I get the use of primary sources. My basic internet search didn't bring up anything newer or more scholarly to replace them, but I figured I would ask in the spirit of the review. My only unresolved comment is the one about the date on the Debrett's link.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
of the work had to wait until 1882, when the Royal remove the comma
Fremantle sought to beautify the coinage, and, believing remove the first comma
Fremantle began his time as deputy master under remove "his time"
early life and career
Charles William Fremantle was born 12 August 1834 add "on" before "12"
several officials, successively, Sir William Hayter, Sir William Hylton Jolliffe remove the comma after "successively"
deputy master
stating that Fremantle had been chosen for his youth ==> "stating that Fremantle was chosen for his youth"
the Royal Mint had been reorganised in 1851, ==> "the Royal Mint was reorganised in 1851,"
reductions of staff, and of salaries, proposing i'd remove the comma after "staff"
European mints in scientific researches and ==> "European mints in scientific research and"
parliament had required the deputy remove "had"
These contained detailed information and statistics regarding the Mint's activities. beginning a series that Dyer and Gaspar described as "long and extremely helpful", that would continue for more than a century. the start of the second sentence is incomprehensible; beginning is not capital, and it, despite that, still does not make sense
These were published as parliamentary papers, and contained lengthy appendices by Roberts and others. remove the comma
for more than a century ==> "for over a century"
could be built up prior to the commencement of work ==> "could be built up before the commencement of work"
Fremantle, "it is hardly possible to over-rate the advantages ==> "Fremantle, "it is hardly possible to [overrate] the advantages"
was George T. Morgan of Birmingham, in response to a remove the comma
the Jubilee coinage of 1887, that saw new designs for a number of denominations ==> "the Jubilee coinage of 1887, which saw new designs for several denominations"
which bore Boehm's portrait of Victoria and which were engraved by Wyon remove the second "which"
He had the Royal Mint's collection catalogued, and the catalogue published. remove the comma
that brought a number of members of ==> "that brought several members of"
retirement and death
Fremantle retired as deputy master in September 1894, and was succeeded by Horace Seymour. remove the comma
family and honours
Order of the Bath (CB) in 1880, and a knight commander of that order (KCB) in 1890. remove the acronyms, as they're not used again; also remove the comma
Thanks. I've done all those or rephrased to avoid except I would leave the acronyms, or postnominals really. KCB is mentioned in the lede and in the infobox and actually in the infobox picture, and since KCB is stated it would be odd not to also say CB.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
14:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, the United States commemorative half dollars. By the 1930s, these were getting much less special as every nonprofit in the country seemingly tried to fundraise through one of them. The Texas commemorative half is famed for its absurdly intricate reverse design, which is a great example of the pitfalls of coin design by committee. I initially planned to bring this up to FA by my lonesome, but Wehwalt took an interest to it and added a bunch of contemporary newspaper sources, so now it's a co-nomination! Hope you enjoy the read.
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she)
19:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've removed a tag from the image page that implies publication, and left the one that this is part of the Bain collection and freely usable.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
15:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Joeyquism
Throwing in my hat for a prose review. Should get to this in a couple days; personal life has been really wearing me thin recently, so if I somehow don't get to it in that time, feel free to ping me liberally.
joeyquism (
talk)
23:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Love to see the Texan representation here. Below are some things I've noted, some of which are nits; as always, you are free to refuse any suggestions with justification:
Lead
"...while the reverse is a complex scene incorporating the winged goddess Victory, the Alamo Mission, portraits of Texan founding fathers Sam Houston and Stephen F. Austin, alongside the six flags over Texas." - I was a bit confused by this sentence (I find that I am unable to properly articulate why it was confusing - I will say that it reads as an incomplete list with no "and" to signify the end of the list). Perhaps wording it so that the six flags over Texas goes first (e.g. "incorporating the six flags of Texas alongside the winged goddess") or adding "and" before "portraits" would be better?
Since the flags are not prominent, I've adopted your suggestion to add and, with a couple of other slight modifications.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
18:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Authorization
Pretty straightforward, no glaring issues I could spot. The only thing I personally had trouble with was the sentence beginning with "Bertrand H. Snell of New York asked how the coinage dies would be paid for", as I had been thrown off by the use of "dies" as a reference to both the minting term and the last name of the congressman. Just a little unlucky coincidence there; I'm not sure that wikilinking
Coining (mint) would be worth it as it seems redundant in the context of this article, though I will suggest it anyways for your consideration.
"Coppini had previously designed various public monuments in Texas, prominently including..." - I am not sure of the inclusion of the word "prominently" here; it feels out of place to me. This is not a pressing issue, however, and will not significantly influence my vote.
"Charles Moore, the chair of the commission, had become critical of the commemorative half-dollar series, and took an especially dim view of Coppini's initial models, describing them as a conglomeration of 'the whole history of Texas and all its leading personages in a perfect hodgepodge.'" - The quote does not appear to be that critical to me; is there perhaps a more scathing quote that would better convey Moore's disdain for the models? I understand that "hodgepodge" here would be used for its more literal definition ("a confused mixture of different things" according to
Cambridge dictionary), but I think today it is more colloquially used to mean just a heterogenous mixture. Plus, the addition of "perfect" sends a mixed signal; perhaps paraphrasing the quote here and using a quote for Lawrie's criticisms could be beneficial. I recognize that this is a silly critique and that you have no control over what a guy who died 80 years ago says, so if there's no such quote and/or you find it to be silly as well, feel free to ignore this comment.
No glaring issues with the design description. I do wonder if the reception section could be rearranged into paragraphs focusing on positive and negative feedback, but this is mostly coming from my experiences with album reception section organization, and I'm not sure if this is appropriate for numismatic articles.
"The first coins to be vended were sold on December 15" - Is "to be vended" necessary here? It feels rather redundant.
Sometimes the first coins struck by the Mint were sold at a premium. This is not such a case. These, so far as can be ascertained from the sources, were simply the first ones sold. I think if we deleted that phrase, there might be ambiguity.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
01:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Some of the coins were placed on exhibit at the Austin Chamber of Commerce so the public would know what they looked like" - Could benefit from a more formal wording; something like "for public viewing" would suffice.
"Civic organizations and other groups joined the Legion in selling the coins" - Who are these other groups? If there are no details on them, that is okay.
The source says "various business and civic organizations and schools". That's what we got on that. I saw some references to local chambers of commerce in other sources, if that helps.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
01:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for this information. I think it could be worth it to include these details here for the sake of clarification, but ultimately I will leave this up to you.
joeyquism (
talk)
02:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, the only group I can find specifically named is the Austin Chamber of Commerce and as far as I can tell, they only displayed the coins, and did not sell them.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
17:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Given that information, I would maybe include the businesses and schools and omit the Chamber of Commerce. Regardless, this is still up to you and should not affect my decision going forward.
joeyquism (
talk)
17:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Collecting
No glaring issues.
A wonderful article. Much of this is already in good shape, so I think that many of my criticisms can likely be ignored. Still, I look forward to reading your responses, and I will likely come back to support after they have been addressed. Great job from you both, and I hope you have a wonderful week ahead.
joeyquism (
talk)
22:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It sounds interesting. I have one promised review I have to do and then will get to yours, likely by the end of the weekend.
Wehwalt (
talk)
19:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Texas independence from Mexico" shouldn't this be "Texas's"? I know it sounds goofy with Texas, but try subbing another place and see what I mean - "Canada's independence from" vs "Canada independence from". It should be the possessive.
"Such a method of funding had been proposed...who proposed" - word repeats in the sentence
Why is the image of Coppini half up into another section?
MOS:SECTIONLOC suggests images not be placed too early. Better to move it under the "Preparation" header so it rests where he's first mentioned
"Coppini did not charge for his services" might want to specify that this means in this instance, when I initially read it my first thought was "really, ever?"
Wow Moore was really on a tear here
"design elements, likely requested" and "criticized the design, and wrote" - rm unnecessary commas here (see
User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences)
"CFA members eventually dropped their broader criticisms of the design, accepting adjustments to the specific design elements of the coin." you have "design" twice in this sentence, and also right at the end of the previous sentence to boot. You could probably also drop "of the coin" since it's clear from context what design elements are being changed
"but ultimately held by the large number of separate design elements" - I cannot understand what this phrase means. Is it missing a word?
"...distributed through Texan banks, available at a price of one dollar per coin,[6] on sale throughout the state beginning on December 20, 1934" - lots of redundancy here, suggest simplifying to "...sold through Texan banks at one dollar per coin, beginning on December 20, 1934"
"and on December 1, the San Angelo Standard-Times reported that all but 30,000 remained unsold." Normally I'm quite fussy about repetition, but here I think the use of "X remaining unsold" is awkward and somewhat confusing. Better to just say "only 30,000 sold".
"continued to be used as a fundraiser for the museum. Low sales continued" - repeat usage of "continued"
can we explain "whizzing" for those who don't know the term? Or just sub it out?
"Despite their relative lack of sales, the issue has proven popular with collectors, and have gradually appreciated in value." Since "issue" is singular, "their" sounds odd. "Despite the coins' relative lack of sales, the issue ..." would fix it.
Per
WP:NPOL Temple Harris McGregor is probably worth a redlink.
"Opposition to commemorative coinage due to counterfeiting concerns led to various failed commemorative coinage bills": suggest "had led to".
"A more favorable climate was found under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration": suggest "The climate under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration was more favorable".
"While based in Texas, his main studio was located in": if his "main" studio was in New York, in what sense was he "based" in Texas?
"By May 1934, Coppini completed": suggest "had completed".
"accepting adjustments to specific elements": do we know (and is it interesting enough to mention) what these adjustments were?
Lawrie wrote, "minor changes in the figure of Liberty, and in the claws and a wing of the eagle". Judgement call, but I don't think it's worth spelling out especially since Lawrie doesn't get into the specifics of what the changes were (he had met with Coppini personally).--
Wehwalt (
talk)
15:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"dim" and "dimmer" appear; it's a fairly memorable word in this context since it's pejorative and slightly colloquial. Perhaps change one to something like "negative"/"more negative"?
"Adair had suggested that coins with that year's date": I don't think we need "had" here.
This article is about 1997 science fiction film Starship Troopers, one of director Paul Verhoeven's last works in the western studio system and the unofficial third and final installment in his anti-authority trilogy including RoboCop and Total Recall. The film was widely derided on its release as a pro-fascist film despite its intention to satirize fascism, which was blamed both on poor marketing and contemporary cultural leanings. It's reputation has grown over time once the satire became evident and is now considered a cult classic.
Darkwarriorblake (
talk)
16:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"In December 1991 ... Davison realized it bore many similarities to the 1959 science fiction novel, Starship Troopers, by Robert A. Heinlein. The novel had ... remained an enduringly popular work for over four decades." Do the math. :-)
Gog the Mild (
talk)
17:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's 9700 words, most of my comprehensive articles on older films range around this as comprehensiveness is part of the requirement, but as I say on each review, the Thematic Analysis section is something I have to include, not want to, and I have to provide an acceptable level of coverage for it. That section is 1300 words in this case and, plus the 400 words in the lead, text relating to a big and influential science fiction film adapted from a controversial book, with an arduous production, and which generated controversy itself is actually about 8000, though, per
WP:SIZE, I can go up to 15,000 words if the scope of the subject warrants it. I have gone through prior to this and copy edited it and removed some information which I found interesting but I took an objective approach towards so I do believe I've reached a fair equilibrium.
I think by 1991 it would've been in 4 separate decades, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, but I've removed it anyway as I don't think the specificty is important.
Darkwarriorblake (
talk)
17:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify this has been addressed,
Gog the Mild, you may be using a different tool to me but the "page size" link said that, before your comment, it was 9700 words. I have gone back through it and reduced it to 9500, and I did spend all of June reducing it from 11500 so I have tackled this to the best of my ability.
Darkwarriorblake (
talk)
22:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"its popularity had endured over the span of four decades." This would normally be understood to mean 40 years. You are using it when the time span in question is 32 years. The current wording has, IMO, a high risk of misleading a reader.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
14:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Since its inception in the late 1930s,
Blue Note Records has been an influential force in jazz music, with major releases from genre figureheads such as
John Coltrane,
Miles Davis, and
Thelonious Monk under its belt in the mid-20th century. Its presence still stands strong today, with
Norah Jones and
Robert Glasper taking home Grammys for the label in the 2000s and 2010s. Music aside, Blue Note has also attracted attention for their wonderful album covers, some of which have been noted for their unique
Bauhaus-esque compositions and labeled by some writers as being the definitive "look" for jazz as a whole. This article chronicles the history of those covers from the early 1950s to the present day, with commentary revolving around their designs (
Andy Warhol did a few!) and their respective designers, particularly
Reid Miles.
Quite an unusual subject around here, but looks interesting (I've just been listening through my old collection of jazz CDs, some Blue Note among them). Will have a look soon.
FunkMonk (
talk)
15:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for so quickly taking to reviewing this nomination,
FunkMonk! I've addressed your comments below, though I may have also been quite quick to reply, so I apologize if I'm causing any merge conflicts here. Looking forward to reading anything else you may have to say in the future!
joeyquism (
talk)
15:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
One concern I had was whether there are sources that cover this as a single subject, or if it was just stitched together from disparate sources about individual covers, but it does seem there is some wider coverage.
Yeah, this is something I initially believed to be the case as well; however, I was elated upon my discovery that there have actually been entire book chapters and articles written about this topic, lol
I see a few
WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:
[6]
I've installed the script; however, I'm not sure that it's working right now (for me, at least). If you could point me out to what you've seen so far, that would be much appreciated, though I should note that I intentionally double-linked some things in accordance with "Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence."
Never mind; I only now realized that it's off to the side. I've since resolved the duplicate links, which I now see were inappropriate.
Images of people should preferably be aligned so the subject "faces" towards the text, could another Andy Warhol picture be used, or could it be right aligned?
Personally, I dislike when every image/piece of media is aligned in the same way, so I'll get to looking for another Warhol picture I just found the mirrored (potentially original?) image on Commons (Andy Warhol1975.jpg). I've replaced it in the article.
In the first footnote you only give lastname of the person mentioned, but in the second you give the full name, could be consistent. Talking strictly about the people mentioned earlier in the article already, Hermansader and Miles.
Adjusted so that the full name appears in both footnotes.
"covers of first eight 12-inch" The first eight?
Ah, yeah. Fixed.
" by German-Jewish immigrant Alfred Lion.[1] The label initially comprised Lion and American writer Max Margulis" Are their nationalities really necessary here? You don't give it for most other people mentioned in the article. Doesn't really seem relevant to the story either.
I feel like indicating where Lion emigrated from is relevant here as it establishes a bit more context, though I do agree that "American writer" is redundant. I've removed the latter, though I may ease up on removing the German-Jewish designation later.
I won't press the issue, but if the Bauhaus connection had some relation to the German origin, I could see a point in it, not so much when it has no significance to the story.
FunkMonk (
talk)
01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe that Lion's origin is rather important to the history of Blue Note; many sources emphasize this point as being something unique to Blue Note itself (e.g. Cook p. ix calls the label "little other than two German guys putting out music they loved", Havers p. 22 states that the (fairly obvious) circumstances in Germany during the 1930s "played a significant role in the creation of Blue Note Records", etc.) I think this should be included in the background section, which serves to establish some context for the essence of Blue Note. This might just be a bit of impassioned writing on my part, though I understand your concern here. Nevertheless, I'll keep it in unless others prod me to leave it out. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Since the scope of the article is all covers by this label, it seems an oversight that nothing is said about covers from before the late 1940s, if the label produced records already from 1939, which I'm sure must have had some sort of covers? I think something about this is necessary under background at least, how were the pre-late 1940s albums packaged?
Unfortunately, I struggled with this issue while writing the article as well. The earliest Blue Note release with an album cover I could find was Sidney Bechet's Jazz Classics Vol 1, which was recorded in 1939 but released in 1951, around when Paul Bacon joined the label. However, while researching in order to address this concern, I've found that prior to September 1950, Blue Note releases were packaged in "plain, mass-produced... paper sleeves" according to page 79 of the Richard Havers book. Not sure of where to include this information as of right now, but if you have any suggestions, feel free to let me know; I'm not exactly looking at this with the freshest of eyes just yet.
Yes, the info you list is exactly what I'm asking for, and could fit well before you introduce Wolff in the Background section.
FunkMonk (
talk)
01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, upon a second read of the excerpt, I'm not sure that this information is applicable, as it makes no explicit mention of Blue Note actually using those paper sleeves; I may have paraphrased it incorrectly while in a drowsy stupor. Here's the part of the text I'm concerned with:
The new format brought with it the additional cost of creating individual album sleeves. These were more expensive than the plain, mass-produced, 78-rpm paper sleeves that were a one-size-fits-all solution. (Havers 2022, p. 79)
I've prepared a revised sentence in the History section that would look something like Prior to September 1950, Blue Note had packaged their records in plain paper sleeves; however, the growing popularity of 10-inch (25 cm)
LP records in the late 1940s and early 1950s...; if this information were to be included, I think that the Background section would be a strange location, as to my knowledge such sections should be (within reason) some sort of elaborative text on a topic that encompasses the article's subject rather than the subject itself, akin to the background section of a monument or an album. Let me know your thoughts on this, and I will prune further based on those comments.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I definitely think this info could be worked in without "falsely" implying that this is what they necessarily did before. This is my last comment for now, and by coincidence, I'm currently listening to a Jimmy Smith Blue Note album...
FunkMonk (
talk)
17:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Revised as However, with the growing popularity of 10-inch (25 cm) LP records in the late 1940s and early 1950s came an increased demand for detailed album covers with graphics and information, replacing the plain paper sleeves that were previously common. As a result, Wolff's photos would be featured on more of Blue Note's covers after the label began issuing 10-inch LPs in 1951.joeyquism (
talk)
18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There was some problems with this which I chimed in on
[7], but shouldn't Genius of Modern Music, Vol. 1 be linked at first mention? Pinging
Eugenia ioessa as to how this should be done.
You don't need to spell out full names after first mention, now you do it at least for Reid Miles and Alfred Lion, could be checked throughout, because now it's inconsistent anyhow.
Yeah, it gets a bit hard when it's a barrage of names - I've removed what I saw with regards to duplicated artist first names. I do feel that the style and composition section is a bit weird starting off with "Miles is credited..." rather than "Reid Miles is credited..." because the former makes it sound as if the article is about him (to me, at least). I've removed "Reid" for now, along with other first name duplicates.
"and Blue Note founder Alfred Lion" Not sure about presenting him again the second time around, but maybe ok since it's a bit after his first introduction.
I feel like this is fair to include.
"while the title "Genius Of Modern Music" is written" Not sure, but since this is still the title of the album, shouldn't it still be in italics?
I think that since it's more of a reference to the words themselves rather than the work, this should be fine. If that makes sense? Removed this altogether - see below re: "There seems to be some overlap..."
"with a then-unknown Andy Warhol" While famous, could still be presented by occupation like most other people you mention.
I think "with then-unknown artist Andy Warhol" reads a bit strangely, given that most people in tune with art within the past century would have some idea of who or what Andy Warhol is? However, I also understand that article writers should generally assume that people are reading them to learn everything (at least that's my philosophy to a degree), so I think that this revision can stick, at least for now.
"Following Lion's departure, Miles also left" and "After Miles left Blue Note in 1967". I think the date should be given at first mention. As it reads now, the reader first gets the impression that he left the same year as Lion, until reading the following section.
I believe that I've covered this with "This frustration, coupled with heart problems, prompted his retirement from the label in 1967. Following Lion's departure, Miles also left...", though if you are referring to a different aspect, please let me know.
"are often supplemented by the photography of Francis Wolff, whose candid black-and-white photographs of musicians at recording sessions appeared on hundreds of Blue Note album covers" This seems to repeat info already stated in earlier sections (except for the photos being black-and-white), could be summarised further or somehow consolidated.
Reduced to just "which appeared on hundreds of Blue Note album covers", and added the information about the candid and black-and-white qualities of the photos to the 1951–1956: Early years section.
There seems to be some overlap in how you describe styles used between the History and Style sections, which feels kind of repetitive. It seems a bit arbitrary that the styles of some individual covers are described nde rHistory, but others under Style.
I'll admit that I didn't like this either, even while writing the article. I've since removed the longer style descriptions of individual covers in the History section.
I'm not sure if all the info should be wholesale removed, but could perhaps be moved to the Style section, if it hasn't already been.
FunkMonk (
talk)
01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As I've written it, the style section focuses more on articulating the techniques used on the covers rather than in-depth descriptions of the covers themselves; unfortunately, I feel as if honing in on a few covers more than the others seems a bit unfair and awkward? I tried rewriting the sentence beginning They are generally characterized by their use of bold colors like ochre, vermilion, and indigo... as They are generally characterized by their use of bold colors like ochre and vermillion, as seen on the covers of both volumes of Monk's Genius of Modern Music (1956); however, that would warrant the omission of the mention of indigo, which I feel adds a little more to the idea of "bold colors". Regardless, I will certainly take this comment into consideration for future revisions.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A few things I'm left wondering are how do the covers of other jazz-producing labels of the time compare to those of Blue Note? Were they different, or did they later mimic the Blue Note style, considering it is here described as "definitive of the visual identity of jazz"? Looking at my Columbia album covers, for example, shows little resemblance to the Blue Note style.
I didn't really look too much into the covers of other jazz record labels, as the labels themselves were seldom brought up at all in my research of Blue Note. I would have assumed some apt comparisons would be made had there been any notable covers among the other labels, though I didn't seem to find any.
I'll certainly keep an eye out. Hopefully I can find something comprehensive, but if not, I would say "it is what it is" applies here.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"In an interview with the Kennedy Center, Blue Note president Don Was noted" You could give date for this and other retrospective statements for context. Especially since you suddenly mention another president of Blue Note.
I've added the year of the interview, though I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of this. I apologize.
I basically mean all the retrospective views discussed under Reception and impact, would help their context if you added years to when the statements were published.
FunkMonk (
talk)
01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Artist Logan Walters reimagined the album covers of Wu-Tang Clan in the Blue Note style." In what context? An art project? Re-issues of those albums?
Revised to "A project by artist Logan Walters featured the album covers of Wu-Tang Clan redesigned in the Blue Note style." Do note that I could not find a single date from a reliable source anywhere; this guy's website states that the project was featured in the New York Times, but after some odd hours scouring the web for this alleged NYT recognition, I couldn't find an article even mentioning his name. Odd, but I think it's still worth a mention.
Candid photography should also be linked in the article body.
Done.
"photos by label executive Francis Wolff" You don't mention that occupation in the article body.
I've revised this as "pictures by photographer Francis Wolff". Wolff was a label executive for Blue Note, though I think his role as a photographer is more pertinent here, at it was his profession prior to joining the label and a sort of side-role during his tenure there too.
Hi
FunkMonk, thank you for your comments. I've addressed all (or at least I believe I have - it's late where I am and this was my winding-down-before-bed activity) of your comments above and my edits should be reflected in the article. Hope to hear back from you soon.
joeyquism (
talk)
03:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
FunkMonk: Hello again! I've addressed your comments above; apologies for any pushback that could potentially be the source of contention. Looking forward to what you may comment next.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - looks good to me, nice someone is tackling subjects like this. Would of course also be great if some of the for now unsolvable issues might be resolved down the line.
FunkMonk (
talk)
18:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the wonderful comments and your support! Apologies that I wasn’t able to get to Laysan honeycreeper before its promotion; if any of your nominations come up in the near future, I’ll be sure to return the favor of making some hopefully helpful critiques over there.
joeyquism (
talk)
19:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry for forgetting about this. Here are my initial comments.Lead:
Para 2: "Miles made approximately 400 to 500 album covers" - I think it may be appropriate to just say "Miles made 400 to 500 album covers" without any loss of meaning (the reader would assume that it's approximate anyway). Ditto for the last paragraph in the 1956–1967: The Reid Miles era section.
Para 3: "after his departure, Forlenza Venosa Associates" - You mean after Miles's departure?
Background:
Para 1: "Blue Note Records is an American jazz record label, founded in March 1939" - This is relatively minor, but the comma isn't necessary. You could remove it without any loss of meaning.
Hi @
Epicgenius, thank you for your comments here. I've addressed the ones you've listed so far; looking forward to what you may comment next. Hope you've had a great weekend!
joeyquism (
talk)
19:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Joeyquism, thanks, and I hope you're having a good weekend as well. I'll leave some more comments tomorrow, most likely, but so far I'm not seeing too many issues. –
Epicgenius (
talk)
19:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
1951–1956: Early years:
I noticed this section uses "would" a lot, e.g. "At almost every Blue Note recording session, Wolff would take candid photographs", "the black-and-white photographs would be used infrequently". Is this a conditional "would" (for example, Wolff would take photos if something else didn't come up), or a future-tense "would"? If it's the latter, then I would suggest rephrasing these as past tense. It's not a big deal, but the essay
WP:WOULDCHUCK somewhat explains why the future-tense "would" isn't optimal.
Thank you for pointing this out to me; I was kind of stubbornly leaving these in because I thought it read a little better, but I see the issue now. I've cut these and replaced with the past tense save for the last sentence, which I feel uses "would" in a way that serves as a lead-in to the next section quite smoothly. Of course, if I'm mistaken here or you have other thoughts on the last matter, please let me know.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Para 2: "the textual information and designs featured on the covers were prioritized over the inclusion of images" - So in other words, the images were cut if there wasn't enough space?
The source used as a citation for this claim states that "At first, Wolff's photography was used only sparingly in both advertising and on record sleeves. The dictates of design came first, and artists' names, tune titles and whatever else jockeyed for position on the front of an album jacket." There's a bit of a wrench thrown in with the ambiguity of "whatever else" here, but I would assert that your inclination here is correct. I believe I mentioned it earlier in this thread, but one of the first covers I could find was the re-release of Sidney Bechet's
Jazz Classics from 1951, which was designed by Paul Bacon - notably, no photography is seen on this cover, but rather an illustration supplemented with some text about the artist and the release itself. Probably original research here, but I hope this at least helps your understanding a bit more. I'll do some rewording if requested by yourself or another reviewer.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the explanation. I don't think the info needs to be reworded at this point—I was just wondering about whether they cut the images if there wasn't enough space and if they were prioritizing textual info and designs. –
Epicgenius (
talk)
02:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
1956–1967: The Reid Miles era:
Para 1: "Miles, a fan of classical music, was not interested in jazz, and relied solely on Lion's descriptions of the music on the albums in order to design their covers." - Two things here. "In order" seems redundant here, and the comma before "and" doesn't seem necessary either (the essay
WP:CINS explains why).
Fixed. I also don't like using "in order" for the reason you mentioned; perhaps the "hit the word count" mentality I subscribed to when writing essays in high school came back to me here. That'll be my excuse here, lol.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Para 4: "Following Lion's departure, Miles also left, as Liberty's marketing team became more involved in the design process" - Was Miles's departure due to the growing involvement of Liberty's marketing team? Or did they just happen at the same time?
Cook states that "Reid Miles, too, stepped away from his design duties as the Liberty marketing people took a larger involvement" - you may also be picking up on the fact that there exists some annoying ambiguity in this source. I understood it to mean that Miles left as a result of Liberty's growing involvement, as the previous paragraphs in the book established that there was already some irritation with Liberty among the higher-ups at Blue Note and I think it would be strange if that somehow wasn't a persistent theme throughout the excerpt, if that makes sense. I'm not sure of a way to more clearly demonstrate causality, but I'll ponder a way of rephrasing it. If anything comes to mind, I would also appreciate your input here if possible.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
1967–present: Post-Miles era
I suppose Blue Note didn't use Wolff's photographs anymore by this point.
Wolff's photographs were used on some of the covers for re-releases (as briefly mentioned in the
style and composition section), but were not extensively featured by any means. Wolff died in 1971 (something I actually contemplated adding, but ultimately gave up on at some point because I felt it to be out of place as this isn't so much a chronicle of the history of Blue Note itself but rather one of the designers and their achievements), and of course you can't take pictures if you can't move your finger to press the shutter button, so by this time photography was mostly outsourced to other people. I'll look around to see if I can find more covers that use his photography from this period, though.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
By the way, do the covers designed after 1967 have any specific themes (like how the 1951-56 covers mostly use photographs by Wolff, for instance)?
Para 1 - "His covers have been described as belonging to the Bauhaus and Swiss Style movements" - Out of curiosity, which of the sources described his covers like that? I see that the footnote immediately after this sentence cites "Cuscuna, Lourie & Schnider 1995, p. 18; Heller & D'Onofrio 2017; Cook 2003, pp. 88–89." However, it's not clear which source says which.
Heller & D'Onofrio describes Miles' body of work as being partially composed of Swiss Style designs, while Cuscuna et al. calls it Bauhaus. Not sure what I got out of Cook; I think I had something in there about Miles not explicitly adhering to one style or system, which evidently I have removed as Cook doesn't really quote Miles on that claim in the book (what's written is "Miles never settled into a particular typeface or system", which is to me simply an assumption made by the author; for all I know Miles could have been fawning over Bauhaus lookbooks). I've since removed the Cook reference there.
joeyquism (
talk)
02:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Para 1 - "The typography varies between" - Would it be appropriate to say "The typography alternates between", or are the uppercase and lowercase letters used pretty much arbitrarily?
I don't think "alternates" is the right word, as it would perhaps suggest that it lOoKs LiKe ThIs, which is not the case; I believe your characterization of the casing being arbitrary is correct. There are instances where it'll look like "EXAMPLE ARTIST NAME example title" (as seen on the covers of
Genius of Modern Music, Vols. One & Two), which is mostly what I meant by "varies"; this should be supported by the Cook source that's cited at the end of the sentence.
joeyquism (
talk)
02:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, I've had a look at the "reception and impact" section and don't see any major issues. Since everything else in my review has been addressed, I will support this FAC.
Epicgenius (
talk)
14:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
SC
Just a couple from me:
You could add the Blue Note logo as an image in the lead. Your call.
In the Early years section, “did utilize Wolff's photography”: just “used Wolff's photography” would suffice
Nice piece. It’s a shame the copyright restrictions don’t allow more of the covers to be shown. -
SchroCat (
talk) 05:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (Addendum: I did most of my heavy lifting at the PR, but these comments are based on a fresh read through at FAC -
SchroCat (
talk)
06:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC))reply
Hi
SchroCat, thank you so much for your comments! I've gone ahead and implemented both suggestions; let me know what you think about the inclusion of the logo as the lead image. And yeah, I'm bummed out about the copyright too - how much more colorful the article would have been had it not been for fair use limitations. Hope to hear back from you soon, and hope you've had a great week so far.
joeyquism (
talk)
05:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"In the early 1950s, the LP record format gained popularity, necessitating album covers with graphics and information. " Well, the body of the article seems to say that such covers became popular, not that they became necessary.
Revised to In the early 1950s, the LP record format gained popularity, increasing the demand for album covers with graphics and information.joeyquism (
talk)
21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The second lead paragraph is long, detailed and contains much information. It might be easier on the reader if it were divided.
Agreed; I've split it into two paragraphs. This may be a violation of
MOS:LEADLENGTH, though to my understanding those divisions are just suggestions, and the lead itself does not seem that long to me to begin with, even when divided in four.
joeyquism (
talk)
21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Blue Note Records is an American jazz record label, founded in March 1939 in New York City by German-Jewish immigrant Alfred Lion.[1] " Why is religion relevant here?
"increased demand for detailed album covers with graphics and information, replacing the plain paper sleeves that were previously common" Would it be helpful to state what the covers were made of? I know it may seem obvious but some people today have never seen an LP.
In the list of relevant sources, I'm unfortunately not seeing any mention of what the newer LP covers were made of. I would say they're usually made of
paperboard or
cardboard, but I have a feeling that would be OR. If I happen to come across any sources that corroborate this, I'll be sure to add it.
joeyquism (
talk)
21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"One of the first noted appearances of Wolff's photographs on a Blue Note album cover was on Wynton Kelly's album Piano Interpretations (1951), which was designed by saxophonist Gil Mellé." What is a "noted" appearance?
"Graphics featuring US president Barack Obama have emulated the designs of the label's covers.[34] " This seems to be a bit unclear. What graphics?
The source used describes them as "
portraits", but I am apprehensive about describing them as such because 1. the portraits are only a component of the designs (
as seen here) and 2. I have been grilled for the semantics of the word "portrait" in the past. I've chosen to rewrite it as Designs featuring portraits of US president Barack Obama have emulated those of the label's covers; feel free to let me know what you think about this.
joeyquism (
talk)
21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you so much for the comments,
Wehwalt; I've addressed them above. Looking forward to what you may comment next, and hope you're having a great weekend.
joeyquism (
talk)
21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Generally speaking, the more non-free images are included, the stronger the rationale required for each. At the moment, all have the same stated purpose of use: "The image of the album cover is necessary in order to illustrate the style of the covers of Blue Note Records". This doesn't make it clear why multiple non-free works are required for this purpose (
WP:NFCCP#3)
Apologies for that; that was sort of a boilerplate purpose statement. I've provided the explanations that I've since appended to each non-free file; please let me know if anything else is needed:
For Piano_Interpretations.jpg, I've explained that "The cover of Piano Interpretations is one of the first appearances of Francis Wolff's photos on a Blue Note cover; this cover will be used to provide a visual reference for the early covers of Blue Note and, when displayed alongside other covers, demonstrate how the style of Blue Note's covers evolved over time."
For UnaMasDorham.jpg, I've explained that "Designer Reid Miles occasionally arranged typography around the artists in the photographs featured on Blue Note covers; this cover will serve as an example of this technique."
For both JoeJacksonBodyAndSoul.jpg and Sonnyrollinsvol2.jpg, I've explained "The cover of Joe Jackson's Body and Soul was inspired by the cover of Sonny Rollins's Sonny Rollins, Vol. 2; this cover will be used to demonstrate the similarities between the two covers."
I couldn't find where Andy_Warhol1975.jpg was first published, so I've opted to include a different image (Andy Warhol at the Jewish Museum, gtfy.00025.jpg), this time from the
Bernard Gotfryd collection from the U.S. Library of Congress. To my knowledge, the LOC's ownership of this image makes it free from copyright restrictions, and thus makes the image public domain. I'm not sure if this image was used anywhere else prior to 1980; however, the PD designation should cover for this. For reference, here's the new image's listing at the LOC:
[8]
I think #24 should be pp if it cites more than one page number. I don't think that newspapers need ISSNs. Is there anything to say about what makes the books reliable sources? Are these major publishers? Otherwise the sourcing seems sound, with a caveat that this isn't a field where I am deeply familiar with reliability.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
07:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Changed to pp.
Removed ISSN for newspaper sources. I'm curious: is there a specific reason why newspapers don't need an ISSN in citations?
I wouldn't classify some of the publishers as major per se (though HarperCollins, Abrams, T&H, and Rizzoli look good to me), but I do acknowledge that all of them are independent of Blue Note Records and, at the very least, not self-published. Regarding reliability, the only potential issue could be with the book co-written by
Michael Cuscuna, who himself worked for Blue Note as an archival discographer; however, I didn't find the content to be excessively promotional or biased.
Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'll give a run-down of what I've found on each publishing company. I'm not sure what you're looking for in particular with regards to quality, though I've tried my best to justify their reputations (albeit at the cost of conducting some OR, perhaps):
On
their website, Andre Deutsch has claimed to have published works by
Norman Mailer,
John Updike, and
Laurie Lee, to name a few. The claim that this citation is used to justify is, in my opinion, merely supplementary; if this is not enough, feel free to let me know and I'll look for another source or remove it.
Rizzoli is rather prolific, with repeated recognition from the New York Times (a Google search of "Rizzoli International Publications new york times" should return some results). They recently published
a book about the 2023 Barbie movie authored by
Margot Robbie, for one.
MUZE UK is also defunct, to my knowledge. However, they were the U.S. publisher for this specific volume of
The Encyclopedia of Popular Music (a recognized music reference book in its own right) that was uploaded to Internet Archive; I believe other volumes were published by
Oxford University Press.
Apologies for the confusion on my end; again, I wasn't entirely sure what quantifies "known reputation for quality" here. I'm hoping that these descriptions at least helped somewhat - if they didn't, please let me know what I did wrong so that I may rectify it.
joeyquism (
talk)
10:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
The Bonn–Oberkassel dog is one of the oldest known examples of a domestic dog that modern archaeology is pretty sure about. We've found more late Paleolithic dogs since it was discovered in the 1910s, but what's most important about this little pup is the evidence of early veterinary care, and how ancient humans cared for this creature, seemingly out of compassion alone. I hope you enjoy reading, and I hope I can make any changes needed to bring this article to the best state it can be.
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she)
03:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Will review. Feel free to refuse my comments with proper justification. I assume that this article is written in British English?
750h+12:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
lead
while the other bones from the dog were placed into the ==> "while the dog's other bones were put into the"
40–50 cm (16–20 in) tall at shoulder height and weighed add a comma before "and"
Osteoarthritis, alongside signs of enamel defects, missing teeth, and gum disease indicate add a comma before "disease"
it may have been due to effects of its illness ==> "it may have been due to the effects of its illness"
background
populations of gray wolves ==> "populations of grey wolves"
A number of prehistoric dog burials are known ==> "(Several/numerous) prehistoric dog burials are known"
A large number of Magdalenian dog ==> "Many Magdalenian dog"
discovery and research history
On 18 February, 1914, workmen at remove the comma after "February"
A number of other animal ==> "Several other animal"
grouping a number of other bone ==> "grouping other bone"
in 1993 specified this age to slightly later than originally thought ==> "in 1993 specified this age as slightly later than originally thought"
and grouped a number of other ==> "and grouped several other"
created a catalog of the ==> "created a catalogue of the"
Finds of domestic dogs prior to this are ==> "Finds of domestic dogs before this are"
physical description
identifiable bone fragments are known from the ==> "identifiable bone fragments known are from the"
closes at an age of 7 months i'd remove "an age of" since the reader would probably know that you're talking about age
health
a behavior potentially ==> "a behaviour potentially"
prior to the end of the Iron Age ==> "before the end of the Iron Age"
falling down without control. remove "down"
from the vomit and diarrhea caused by ==> "from the vomit and diarrhoea caused by"
if it was killed in order to bury it alongside ==> "if it was killed to bury it alongside"
second dog
differed in color from the other teeth ==> "differed in colour from the other teeth"
Whilst reviewing I was a bit confused as to whether we were using British or American English, as it is a German dog. Feel free to refuse the British English suggestions if the latter's the case. Fine work overall.
750h+13:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've been wondering if this one would come up here for a while. Greatly enjoyed reading -- comments below which are, as ever, suggestions rather than demands. UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would try to get the dog's rough date into the first paragraph, if not the first sentence: I know we give "Late Palaeolithic", but most readers won't know what that means beyond "a really long time ago".
Done. - G
The Bonn–Oberkassel dog (German: Hund von Bonn–Oberkassel) is a Late Paleolithic dog: I think we would say was, wouldn't we? In the same way as "Christopher Wren was an architect who is buried in St Paul's Cathedral"?
Good point. - G
put into the university's Geological Collections: I think we should decap here, unless that name was used in a very formal sense (for the British Museum, for example, we would talk about its Roman collection, or the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities)
Done. - G
32 identifiable bone fragments have been attributed to the dog:
MOS:FIGURES discourages starting a sentence with a number in figures.
It was around 7.5 months old at death, 40–50 cm (16–20 in) tall at shoulder height, and weighed 13–18 kg (29–40 lb), suggesting a slender build similar to the Indian wolf or some modern sighthounds.: again, I would be tempted to promote this to the first paragraph, as this is pretty fundamental information as to what readers are picturing to be the subject of the article. The current final sentence of the first paragraph could then be "demoted" to the second, as that information becomes useful and interesting once we know what this animal is that we're talking about.
Good idea, done. - G
40–50 cm (16–20 in) tall at shoulder height: this isn't quite idiomatic: you've done it much better in the body with tall at the shoulder.
Done. - G
the Bonn–Oberkassel dog suffered from a canine distemper infection as a puppy: for humans, admittedly, but most medical style guides (including the MoS) discourage "suffered from (
WP:SUFFER). Could do "survived", and rework the next sentence slightly?
That works. - G
It might be a nice touch to do a double-image in the lead, with the second image being a modern dog(s) of similar build (e.g. an Indian wolf and a sighthound?).
Expansive human care: "Expansive" means "over a wide area"; I think we mean "extensive" ("very thorough").
suggests significant compassion towards the dog: or, more cynically, that the dog was very useful?
This is an interesting point, and I see you raise it throughout the review so I'll put it here; the Janssens et. al source makes the point that the disease would have prevented proper training, and none of the other sources really make the cynical argument here — though now that I'm thinking about it, they really should. I guess I should lean on the training thing a bit? - G
I've got no problem with foregrounding the compassion argument (though I'd suggest keeping it attributed -- "Janssens et al have argued that...") -- but I do think we should do so in a way that doesn't claim to rule out other or complementary explanations. Interesting point about the training, but we could still have, for example, "that dog had a seizure as a puppy, so it must be inhabited by the spirits, and they will get out and haunt us when it dies". Mentalising people in the far past is a very dangerous business. UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Noting that this (in broad terms) is my only real remaining "grump" -- the article is otherwise excellent, but I do think we need to be careful with the boldness of our assertions here, and draw a clear(er) line between what is known and what is conjectured. UndercoverClassicistT·
C19:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A dog molar belonging to a separate, older dog: I would cut the first dog: it would be surprising for the dog to have owned some other animal's molar.
Good point, lol. -G
"Second" might be a more natural word here than "separate"?
Yeah. -G
I would link "domestication" on the word "domesticated".
Done. - G
place the origin of dogs to a population of East Asian wolves c. 39,000 BP.: you place something in or with something, not to it.
Done. - G
Numerous prehistoric dog burials are known, spanning from ritualistic and symbolic burial to simple corpse disposal out of hygienic concern: I think we need to be a bit careful about motives in this article; we often speculate about religious, compassionate, hygenic or so on motivations, but the honest truth is that we have no idea what far-ancient people were thinking when they carried out death practices. In particular, I'd need a lot of convincing that we can trace a meaningful distinction between "we should bury that dead thing because it's dirty" and "we should bury that dead thing to avoid religious pollution/the anger of the spirits that comes from being around dead things", or indeed that people in the Paleolithic would have drawn one themselves.
There are quite a lot of "many", "some" and similar words in the Background section. Can we give a ballpark for these numbers?
Sadly, these are not given by the sources and I can't find more firm ones. - G
"rechter Unterkiefer vom Wolf": when quoting in italics, we don't use quote marks, but what's the rationale for the German here at all?
No clue what I was trying to do here, removed. - G
While the Oberkassel skeletons themselves were put into storage in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn, animal remains from the site were split into two groups: I would cut themselves and put human before Oberkassel, as the dog's remains are, strictly, a skeleton.
Lol, good point. - G
In the late 1970s, a student studying the Oberkassel site rediscovered the separated material within the university collections: can we name-check them?
Name added. - G
Use a lang template for words like Landesmuseum, with |italic=no, so that screen readers handle them correctly.
Done. -G
A 1982 study: similarly, can we name and, ideally, cite it? In general, when we refer to a specific work of scholarship directly, it's good to be able to cite it and, if possible, direct interested readers towards it.
Done. -G
dating to 15,000–13,500 BP: this needs a circa.
Done. - G
Finds of domestic dogs before this are tentative and disputed: in the Background section, we gave 17,000 BP as the terminus ante quem for dogs being "well-established" in the Magdalenian.
Ope, realized that's ambiguous. Cleared it up: dogs begin being found during the Magdalenian, not at the end. - G
This made the dog the earliest known example of a domesticated animal.: do we mean the Oberkassel dog specifically, or the dog in general? Would clarify. Might be nice to add a footnote to say what the next couple are?
Good idea. - G
I would link
premaxilla and
coronoid process in the footnote; we have generally done similar in the body text.
Done. - G
dates the dog to c. 14,000 BP (c. 12,000 BCE), with estimates ranging about 200 years in either direction: firstly, I would give the BP/BCE equivalence the first time we use BP, and then not again. Secondly, are you sure about "estimates ranging about 200 years in either direction"? That's more precision than I'd expect in an estimate that far back: it's more usual to write something like "15,000 BP ± 200 years", which means that the tools involved are only precise enough to give a reading that's accurate to within about 200 years either way, not that someone thinks it's 15,000 BP, someone things 15,100, and so on.
Ooh, yeah. ± is what I meant, thank you. - G
The cranial growth plate of the lumbar vertebra is closed: can we explain, without unduly bothering the reader with details, what it means for a growth plate to be open or closed?
Gave it a shot. - G
The dog's remaining canine tooth showed heavy abrasion and enamel loss, resembling cage biter syndrome. However, since wrought metal only emerged in the Chalcolithic, this wear was likely due to compulsive stone chewing: I think we could make this a bit tighter and say something like "The dog's remaining canine tooth showed heavy abrasion and enamel loss, probably caused by compulsive stone chewing". The Chalcolithic is a long way away from the Paleolithic, so any talk of cages is just going to confuse people.
Fair point. - G
Osteoarthritis is extremely rare in dog remains before the end of the Iron Age; one of the only other known cases is a buried dog from the Anderson site in Tennessee, c. 7000 BP: slightly devil's advocate, but how many specimens are we working with here (OK, I know there's quite a lot from the Bronze Age, but how many really comparable examples have we got?), and how many of them were old enough to get what is usually a disease of old age? How visible is it on a skeleton, anyway (I notice we're diagnosing it by a proxy here, which isn't perfect -- just ask
Donald Trump).
Most typical causes of elbow osteoarthritis in modern young dogs are unlikely to have created the bone spurs seen in the Bonn–Oberkassel dog: similarly, I would explain this by outlining what these causes typically are.
in a study of 544 wild dogs and wolves, not one had the horizontal enamel damage typical of the disease in puppies: I don't know whether it needs to be said that all of those animals died (or were killed) in adulthood?
Elaborated on this a bit. - G
Caring for the dog would have had no practical purpose for humans, as the prolonged disease required significant effort and likely prevented training.: again, I want to believe this but have to be a little cynical: the humans may well have considered it possible that the dog would recover, and therefore become or remain valuable. Compassion isn't the only possible motivation here.
It is unknown whether the dog died from its past illness or other natural causes, or if it was killed to bury it alongside the two humans.: do any of the studies note signs (or absence thereof) of cut marks on the bones? I'm particularly interested in the possibility of butchery here.
Sadly not; though Janssens et al. 2018 says that cut marks on Paleolithic dog bones are rare. -G
One estimation, extrapolated from the diameter of a left diaphyseal humeral fragment, estimated the height at shoulder level as 46.8 cm: this isn't really extrapolated in a strict sense (you can't extrapolate from a single data point, or from apples to oranges): based on? Suggest linking the technical terms and converting the cm value.
Done. - G
When Dogs and People were Buried Together: Were is a verb, so capitalise.
Done. - G
The Oldest Case Yet Reported of Osteoarthritis in a Dog: an Archaeological and Radiological Evaluation: in title case, capitalise the first word after a colon or similar. Likewise for Morrey 2006.
Done. - G
Can we use |trans-journal= for the two German-language journals?
Done - G
Some journals have ISSNs, others don't: advise consistency.
Done - G
FM
I somehow missed this when first glancing the nominations page, I guess because of the long placenames, but seems right up my alley. Will have a look soon, probably after UC's issues are resolved so we don't tread the same ground.
FunkMonk (
talk)
02:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I see a few
WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:
[9]
Fixed. -G
Various anatomical terms like premaxilla, maxillary, coronoid, etc., should be linked, and perhaps even explained in parenthesis (see recent palaeontology FA articles for example).
Linked. - G
Not much that can be done about it, but I wonder if the diagrams tagged as de minimis here
[10] aren't really based on some images that are already in the public domain. Perhaps
Mariomassone has come across them in their many image searches for canids?
William Harris may also be interested, if not entirely inactive.
FunkMonk (
talk)
02:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That seems extremely close to the diagram, well spotted! I think that could be linked as a possibility in the photo's Commons description to avoid copyright claims.
FunkMonk (
talk)
18:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"including the "rechter Unterkiefer vom Wolf", 'the right lower jaw of a wolf'" Why do we need a seemingly random snippet of German text here? I think it would make more sense to include the German nickname for the specimen in the article body if anything.
Removed this. - G
Do we have any other images of artifacts from the site that could be shown for flavour?
There's one at least! - G
Perhaps a location map of the site?
I don't really have room to put that here - I feel it might be better suited for a future article on the double-burial itself. - G
"While the Oberkassel skeletons themselves" Specify "human", the dog is also a skeleton.
"later supported by separate radiocarbon dating taken by Kiel University" Give year?
Done. - G
Is this supposed to be UK or US English? I see both paleo (US), palaeo (UK), archaeo (UK), catalog (US), color (US) etc., should be consistent.
US; corrected "palaeo", though archaeology is correct in US spelling.
Link Radiocarbon dating.
done. - G
Not sure how important this is, but you use Latin plural for vertebrae, but common English plural for scapulas and ulnas (should also be "ae" if you go the same way).
Dictionary I used says vertebrae is the only correct plural, but scapulas/ulnas are both okay. - G
"Modern scholarship dates the dog to c. 14,000 BP (c. 12,000 BCE), with estimates ranging about 200 years in either direction." Why is this under physical description?
Fixed. - G
"as 46.8 cm" Give conversion as you do for other measurements.
Done. - G
The article body says "comparable to the Indian wolf and some breeds of sighthound" while the adjacent caption has more detail "similar to West Asian wolves (such as the Indian wolf), or some modern sighthounds, such as the Saluki", which could be repeated in the article body, which is where the main unique info should be.
Fixed. - G
This image
[11] has no description template on Commons and only German text; it should have a template and English text as well.
Done. - G
Could probably briefly explain in-text what pica is.
Done. -G
Link University of Bonn in intro.
Done. - G
Any more info about the buried humans and their culture for context?
Added. - G
There's a nice close up of the skull material
[12], a bit of a shame not to use it.
Looking good, there seems to be something wrong with the bolded part of this newly added text: "A team comprising physiologist
Max Verworn, anatomist
Robert Bonnet and geologist
Gustav Steinmann examined the skeletons and a tentative dating to the
Magdalenian due to commonalities in grave goods." Missing words?
Sources are all of good quality. The few instances of old / primary sourcing is supplemented with modern secondary sourcing.
Source are roughly formatted consistently. Some journal papers have the month included, others don't. I would exclude it everywhere for simplicity.
Removed these. - G
I imagine dog domestication is a heavily studied field (but not at all an expert here). 2018 is not that old, but have there been developments since? In particular, are the dogs from the Aurignacian still debated?
Still debated, yeah. Dogs, Past and Present: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (2024) mentions a general archaeological consensus of ~14,000 BP domestication, except for some "intriguing sites" from the Aurignacian. - G
I have spot checked the prime numbered citations, and did not find any issues with text-source integrity
I have not been able to find any sources that may be missing, or any contradictions in more general sources about background information.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
18:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about a rural, sparsely populated county in Tennessee. It has been continually improved since reaching Good Article status in 2022, and was recommended to take to FAC by peer review in 2023. Additional updates, modifications, changes, and improvements have been done since then, and it's about as good as I can get it. Sources have been exhaustively researched and statements cited. At this point, I am running out of additional sources to keep building the page from, so I think it's as good a time as any to start the FAC process. Thanks in advance!
nf utvol (
talk)
17:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
Suggest adding alt text
Suggest scaling up the maps
File:Perry_County_Courthouse_(1868).jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Noah_Harder.png
Thanks! Added alt text to everything and scaled up the maps a bit. Let me know if you think they should be bigger. Regarding the image publication info, the info on their sourcing is in the file page on Commons, but they're both items in the collections of the Tennessee State Library and Archives. The exact original publication date and author are unknown, but they are both listed as out of copyright. Regarding the age pyramid, I went ahead and removed it. I'll work on building an updated one with sourcing. Thanks again for the image review!!!
nf utvol (
talk)
23:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing anything at the source link for the first item regarding copyright status - could you clarify where that's coming from? On the second, I see a claim it is out of copyright, but not one specific to the given tagging.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
23:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I looked again and you're correct about Perry_County_Courthouse_(1868).jpg, it doesn't have a copyright status on that page, however the courthouse depicted in this image burned in 1928. Additionally, the image was mounted on a card that had an estimated date of 1900 on it (I pulled the physical copy from the library and scanned it to get a higher resolution image), hence the date in the image's page. Using the library's date of 1900, that would put it as before the 1903 guideline listed in
WP:PD for unpublished works where the author's identity is unknown. Regarding the Noah_Harder.png, I updated the tag to just reflect no copyright instead of copyright expired since that better represents the notice on the source page.
nf utvol (
talk)
00:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
HF
I don't have time for a full review, but I do have some concerns.
" "It's Just Our Nature". YouTube. Retrieved March 14, 2022." - what makes a youtube video from "patvb2003" (with less than 2,000 views and the channel with 5 subscribers as of the time I'm posting this) a high-quality reliable source?
:I should be able to source the information from this elsewhere, that particular source should have probably been removed long ago anyway. Anything that can't be sourced I'll remove.Removed a date not supported by other sources and removed the source.
nf utvol (
talk)
18:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Cedar Grove Iron Furnace". The Historical Marker Database. Archived from the original on March 15, 2022. Retrieved March 15, 2022." - this source is user-generated
" "Perryville First County Seat of Perry County". HMdb.org. Retrieved October 2, 2023." - also user-generated
For the HMdb.org entries, while the source itself is user generated, it is in turn sourced to a historical marker inscription. If that's not acceptable, then I think for most of this information I can find a different/better source, or just source the marker itself...let me know your thoughts.
"Younger, Lillye. "Perry County, Tennessee". Decatur Co. TNGenWeb. Archived from the original on March 14, 2022. Retrieved March 14, 2022." - what makes this local genealogical source a high-quality RS?
Younger is a historian who has been published by a university press (see
here). My reading of
WP:NOTRELIABLE leads me to believe this is enough to establish some level of subject matter expertise that would allow a self-published page to pass the bar for reliability for non-BLP related items. Considering this, if this is still too questionable, I'll see if I can find separate references.
" Duncan, James Carl (2013). Adventures of a Tennessean. AuthorHouse. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-4817-4157-6." - what makes this self-published book a high-quality RS
I'll see if I can find a separate source, if not I'll pull that sentence and source. Source pulled and sentence it was supporting removed.
nf utvol (
talk)
01:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Tennessee River Flood Stages Data". Parsons Weather. ParsonsWeather.com." - what makes this a high-quality RS?
So this is pretty borderline, I'll admit. It's a self-described "weather hobbyist" site from a group that provides information to the CWOP. I'll see if I can find additional sourcing from the NOAA or other government/academic sources. Updated info and source to FEMA flood maps.
nf utvol (
talk)
16:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
" "Tennessee Population Density County Rank". USA.com. World Media Group. Archived from the original on March 15, 2022. Retrieved March 15, 2022." - what makes this website a high-quality RS?
I see the concerns here, but it's nothing more than a compilation of otherwise publicly available census data that appears to pass a spot check for accuracy. I'll see if I can find it in another form from a different source, though. Surely the Census Bureau has this information in a pretty digestible format.
" "Domino 4328 – The Pickard Family – 1929". Old Time Blues. Retrieved February 27, 2024." - this is somebody's personal website. What makes it high-quality RS?
Let me dig to see if I can find another source for this. If not, I'll remove it and the associated information (as well as the associated sourcing and information on
The Pickard Family). Found a primary source with the information, should be okay for uncontroversial fact-of information like place of birth per
WP:PRIMARY.
nf utvol (
talk)
18:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
""Domestic Names Search". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey. Retrieved March 7, 2024." - this is being used to support the existence of a place as an "unincorporated community". This source is not appropriate for that; see
WP:GNIS
I'll pare down this list to only those with non-GNIS sourcing. I was under the mistaken impression that GNIS could be used for sourcing for lists such as this, but should not be used to establish greater notability for individual articles.
Thanks for the initial review, I'll start working on these and any others that might be of concern! Any further advice/recommendations is appreciated!
nf utvol (
talk)
15:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Coordinator note
This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
14:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Cyfeilliog was a bishop in south-east Wales in the time of Alfred the Great. He is best known for having been captured by the Vikings and ransomed by Alfred's son Edward the Elder for the large amount of forty pounds of silver.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
14:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It is unsourced and apparently created by an editor who has long since disappeared. All the other maps I can find in Commons are not as good and equally unsourced. There is a map in Lloyd's History of Wales, and as he died in 1947 it is presumably out of copyright. Can I scan and upload it? It is over size (9x11 ins) but I can presumably either shrink it or scan part of it.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
21:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Gog but the Ecnomus map has licence {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Presumably I cannot use that as I just scanned the map. Can you advise what the licence should be in this case?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
22:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a hiccup. I have this work first published in 1901, with a second edition in 1912. Is that correct? Do you know if the same map featured in either of those? If it did, on what page?
Gog the Mild (
talk)
17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That is correct, except that the first edition was in 1911. I will ask for a scan of the map - if there is one - in the first edition to check.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
21:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Can I suggest cropping that image, and/or adding a caption that more clearly points the reader to the top right? It's not totally obvious which bit is the cryptogram (it could be the marginal note about two thirds down, for example). It might also be worth cropping out the Cambridge UL copyright claim, as Wikimedia's position is that Cambridge can't claim a copyright purely by virtue of scanning the thing (edit: but perhaps they could for the scale ruler, so another argument for cropping?). UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A really excellent article, and no doubt some tricky source-work to pull it all together. As ever, the below are thoughts and suggestions rather than demands:
Can we give a pronunciation guide at the top?
I do not like pronunciation guides. They always seem to be one editor's unreferenced personal opinion, as would be the case in this article.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Welsh orthography is very consistent between spelling and pronunciation: see
Help:IPA/Welsh or, if you like, you could reference something like
this guide from Aberystwyth University. Given that very few Anglophone readers will pronounce Cyfeilliog anything close to what's intended, the benefits of adding at least an IPA transcription seem to greatly outweigh the costs. In policy terms, I'd say that this is the same principle as
WP:CALC (that making a routine calculation isn't OR): if we have a good source for how all of those morphemes are pronounced, it's a routine calculation to string all of those together. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've gone and done this using
Help:IPA/Welsh (erring on the side of South Walian pronunciations). As the template automatically links there, I believe that's the usual practice for "citation" where the name is pronounced as "normal" in the language. I haven't written a respell, deferring to your point above about it being more subjective. UndercoverClassicistT·
C07:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Am I reading this right? It looks like you added Modern Welsh pronunciation to the Old Welsh name. My understanding of the diachrony of this is that there is no way /au/ would have been pronounced [ai] in Old Welsh.
This paper (p. 7) shows that /au/ monophthongizes to /o~ɔː/, which is indeed confirmed in the Modern Welsh orthography (-auc → -og) . Unless I misunderstand, this should be removed before promotion.
ThaesOfereode (
talk)
18:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I didn't see this! The short answer is no. For one, I'm not terribly well-versed in Old Welsh. For another, a brief look through some literature I have on hand seems to indicate that there is some debate as to the precise phonology (esp. the emergence of the pitch accent). Plus, medieval manuscripts are notoriously finicky wrt to spelling vs. phonology. I think best-case of me taking a stab at it is I blatantly violate
WP:SYNTH.
ThaesOfereode (
talk)
23:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Bartrum 1993 citation: check formatting of AD. Currently one letter has a dot, one doesn't, and both are spaced: our MoS advises no dots or spaces (and to make that change in a title per
MOS:CONFORMTITLE)
Cyfeilliog is probably the author of a cryptogram (encrypted text) in the Juvencus Manuscript: the tone here sounds as if we expect readers to know what the Juvencus Manuscript is; I must admit that I didn't. Suggest "the book of poetry known as the Juvencus Manuscript" or similar? I think we've got space in the lead to play with.
Bit of a problem now with in the ninth-century collection of poetry known as the Juvencus Manuscript, which would have required a knowledge of Latin and Greek: what's the antecedent of which? As written, it's "the ninth-century collection...", but I think we mean it to be "being the author of that". UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
but some historians are sceptical as they think that this date is late for a bishop active in the 880s.: we don't really explain this in the text, but it sounds like a pretty weak objection to me: surely he could have been consecrated in his twenties or so, and it's not ridiculous to have therefore died in his sixties or seventies? Do Sims-Williams and Davies give any more detail here? On another note, "are sceptical" sits slightly awkwardly: I think it's the combination of it being so explicitly mind-reading and so clearly present-tense. Perhaps better as "some historians consider this date too late for..."?
The souces do not give any more explanation, but it is not correct that he could have been appointed in his twenties. He was a priest, and the minimum age for consecration as a priest was 30. He was probably a monk for some years before becoming a bishop, so he was most likely born before 850 and would have been around 80 by 927. This was old for the time. Sceptical sounds OK to me.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that seems a bit more solid, though at least personally I'd take that more as "may be a bit too late" rather than "definitely false". Augustus, Augustine and Jerome all lived well into their seventies, for example. But this is probably now better dealt with below. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It would clarify that Mawr isn't strictly a name, for non-Welsh speakers. It would also avoid the 'easter egg' effect, where some of our readers will pick up information here that isn't available to most. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Mercia, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom on the eastern Welsh border, traditionally claimed hegemony over most of Wales: I am not a huge fan of traditionally for a few reasons: one, all traditions are invented: was this 'tradition' years old, decades old, centuries old...? Secondly, was this really a matter of people piously observing tradition, or a matter of the Mercians having lots of rough people with sharp things ready to enforce that 'tradition'? Suggest something like "which since the sixth century [or whatever] had claimed/asserted..."
This is the wording usually used by historians, and I think it conveys the position better than alternatives.
Do they put a date on it at all? I imagine that most of these historians are writing for people who know a little bit about the period, so won't assume that this stretches (e.g.) into the fifth century CE or earlier.
It went back to the early ninth century. There were claims in some periods of the eighth century, but the position then was more variable. I have changed to "Mercia, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom on the eastern Welsh border, had claimed hegemony over most of Wales since the early ninth century."
Dudley Miles (
talk)
15:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In 881, Rhodri's sons defeated Æthelred in battle, but he still continued to dominate the south-east Welsh kingdoms, and they sought the protection of King Alfred the Great of Wessex. Is "they" the sons of Rhodri or the south-eastern [NB adjectival form] Welsh kingdoms?
On the maps front,
this one, with a few additions and sources to support, could be used as a starting point, perhaps cross-referenced with the Lloyd map?
all the districts of right-hand [southern] Wales: the word for "right-hand" and "southern" (de) is the same in Welsh, so I think we can just say "southern" here -- it's not some metaphor or odd turn of phrase; there's not really another way to say it.
Interesting! In that case, the argument is reversed (Latin has two different words here), so it should definitely be kept -- fascinating to see Asser's linguistic background creeping through. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Also interesting that it is evidence against the claim made by some historians that Asser's biography is a fake by a later English writer. The claim is now rejected, but I have not looked into the arguments closely enough to see whether this point has ever been made.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ellipsis (...) typically has a nbsp before it and a regular space after.
Page ranges take an endash (looking at n. 5 in particular)
I not understand the rules regarding endashes and I do not see why they matter. I have a script which fixes them but it has stopped working. Do you know of one which works?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't, unfortunately: the important rule here is that ranges (of pages, dates, etc) take an endash. More broadly, endashes are used if you would pronounce or think of the mark as "to" or "and" (so pp. 9–10 ('pages nine to ten'), the London–Edinburgh train ('London to Edinburgh'), the Oxford–Cambridge rivalry ('Oxford and Cambridge'), a Lee–Enfield rifle ('Lee and Enfield'). UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It is in Latin, with each letter being the Greek for the number of the letter in the Latin alphabet.: not sure I've quite grasped this one: did the writer simply use e.g. the first Greek letter for the first Latin letter, the second Greek letter for the second Latin letter, and so on? I'd be interested to know what they did with y, in that case, as there are only 24 letters in Greek and quite a few Ys in Welsh...
It is in Latin, not Welsh. The source says "The cryptogram uses a code based on the Greek letters for the numbers 1-23, each of which replaces the appropriate Latin letter in the inscription." To avoid copyvio, I have "It is in Latin, with each letter being the Greek for numbers one to twenty-three replacing the number of the letter in the Latin alphabet." Does this look OK?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The interesting thing (no, honestly) is that there's a couple of ways to do it: if you could send the original over by email, I'd be very interested. At the moment, "the Greek for" sounds like it would be the Greek word: if we'd said "each letter is the English for that number", we'd expect to be reading "one, three, seventeen" or so on. How about "the Greek numeral", perhaps with a link to
Greek numerals? The question-mark is whether the writer used the numerical system or simply swapped in the letter with the same number (in other words, is L written as λ or as ΙΑ?), but I'll be able to see that from the text. UndercoverClassicistT·
C06:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah -- I'm having aa bit of a problem with sending emails, it seems. Could you perhaps put the file into Google Drive or similar and send me a link via Wikimail? UndercoverClassicistT·
C20:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have actually managed to dig out the cryptogram
here, and he has used the numerical system (so Cemelliauc becomes Γ Ε IB E ΙΑ ΙΑ Θ Α Κ Γ -- 3, 5, 12, 5, 11, 11, 9, 1, 20, 3. I must admit that I can't make the rest of it work, partly because I don't think I'm reading all of his Greek letters correctly (and possibly haven't got the Latin alphabet in the same order), but it's definitely Greek numerals, so suggest with each letter replaced by the Greek numeral for the number of the letter in the Latin alphabet.UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There are no errors in Greek in the cryptogram: if I've understood the system correctly, surely this only means that the author knew (or could look up) the order of the Greek letters: the language skill is in the Latin, surely?
This did occur to me, but Davies said that she had been unable to copy the cryptogram without errors, and it would have been extremely difficult for someone who did not know what he was copying. I have written "very difficult", not impossible. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Delete "very"?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've managed to get hold of Davis' big book on the Juvencus manuscript via a certain online repository: there (p. 27), she only avows that the scribe must have known the Greek alphabet and understood the cipher (and therefore that the scribe is almost certainly the Cemelliauc/Cyfeilliog who composed it, rather than a later copyist). She doesn't credit him with knowing the Greek language, and indeed points out on p. 28 that some of his 'Greek' letters are rather more Insular-Latin than Greek. I think we can now clarify these details a little. UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
and this would have been very difficult to achieve unless the writer knew the language: see above: if it's simply a matter of letter-matching, I'm not convinced.
which was an unusual accomplishment in the period: well, it was in Wales. It was pretty normal in the Byzantine Empire, probably/maybe still a Thing in Italy, and
wasn't all that unusual in Ireland, at least in the C8th. Pedantic, perhaps, but I'd specify "in Wales", "in most of Western Europe", or similar.
I am not sure that the source supports your interpretation. It says "Eriugena is credited with a knowledge of Greek far exceeding that of his contemporaries" and "So the evidence points to a considerable disparity between the study of Greek in Ireland and that among Irishmen on the Continent, supporting Laistner's view of Greek in Ireland being almost non-existent." He does question the latter comment on the basis of later medieval material. The comment in the Cyfeilliog article that knowledge of Greek is rare is based on
Michael Lapidge's encyclopedia entry on the Continental scholar
Israel the Grammarian. That obviously would not apply to Byzantium or Moslem areas. I could add "in Europe". That would not be strictly correct as Europe technically includes Byzantium, but I do not think it would be misunderstood.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's not quite where the article ends up: Moran's point is that the evidence makes it look as if Greek was almost absent in Ireland, but he goes on to argue that this is an artefact of how our evidence base has been formed: he argues that at least some Irish people had a basic understanding of Greek and the tools to pick up a more advanced one. The other tricky area is southern Italy, particularly Sicily, which remained under Byzantine control for quite a while and where Greek has survived in tiny patches into the modern day (see
here, p. 444ff). I think "Europe" is still too broad, but "most of Western Europe" would be fine, or you could take another approach and say something like "outside regions where it remained a spoken language"? Certainly, by even the most optimistic models of the survival of Greek in the west, being able to read and write it fluently as a second-language learner was impressive (though again, I'm not convinced that knowing or being able to look up the Greek numerical system is really the same thing as that). UndercoverClassicistT·
C06:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I read McKee as saying more than that, but I do not think it is clear what she is saying, so I have deleted comments about his knowledge of Greek.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The cryptogram is in a different handwriting from the rest of the manuscript: not sure handwriting is a countable noun: in a different hand or in different handwriting.
Is McKee's the only reconstruction of the cryptogram? Especially given that we've got lacunae, I'd be surprised if there's not some level of uncertainty or debate. Would be nice to include the 'ciphertext' and the Latin, if we've got them.
There probably are no other reconstructions as Davies says that the cryptogram has been ignored in recent years. She copies the version by
Whitley Stokes, which she says is "apparently" based on decipherment by
John Rhŷs and his daughter Olwen in the 1890s. My Greek is non-existent, but I can email you a scan of the Greek and Latin versions if you wish.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
but as the source for the document: can we clarify this: do we mean "the person who tells us that the document existed" or "the person who came forth with the document"?
This is complicated. Edward Williams's 1796 History of Monmouthshire contains a tract dated 1729 ascribed to David Williams, allegedly based on a transcript received from the forger Morganwg. Some scholars have objected that the tract cannot be genuine as David Williams died in 1720, but Sims-Williams argues that some manuscripts date the tract 1719 and the 1729 date is probably a misprint. I am not sure how much of this detail is relevant.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
15:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It does sound like we can reword "source" to be clearer: perhaps something like "the manuscript was initially brought to scholarly attention by the forger Iolo Morganwg"? We certainly seem to have other sources to say that the document existed, even if there are doubts as to whether it was genuine. UndercoverClassicistT·
C06:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That is not quite right. There is independent evidence of the 1719 tract, but not of the original ancient document. I think you have been misled as my wording was inaccurate. I have changed it to "He is included in a list of abbots of
Llantwit said to have been in a "very decayed and rent" parchment recorded in a tract dated 1719, but as the tract was based on a transcript by the forger
Iolo Morganwg, scholars are uncertain whether the list was genuine." Does this look OK?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
According to a Canterbury list of Professions of Obedience: what are those?
The sources do not give any explanation. The term is frequently used in Wikipedia without explanation and I am not sure whether any is necessary.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Looking
here, and indeed at
Religious vows#In the Western Churches, it seems that these are formal promises by bishops to obey their superiors, particularly an archbishop. I think an explanation is always valuable, if only in a footnote: the FA standards require the text to be understandable to a broad audience, and I find it hard to believe that most of our readers would already know that term. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The first is a catalogue description, the second relates to promises by monks to their abbots. Neither is a suitable reference. The source is a list of consecrations of bishops on the back of a profession roll. How about deleting "Professions...", and replacing with "According to a Canterbury Cathedral
roll"?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
15:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Three clerical witnesses to Cyfeilliog's charters also witnessed those of Bishop Nudd, and another three those of Bishop Cerennyr, probably because these bishops were Cyfeilliog's predecessors, and he inherited members of their episcopal households. Cerennyr was active over the whole of the south-east, suggesting that he had a superior status.: it's taking me a bit of work to get through why these two people are important here. So Cyfeilliog succeeded these men (both at the same time?) as bishop, but Cerennyr (did he come first or second?) seems to have been a bigger cheese than (his predecessor/successor?) Nudd? UndercoverClassicistT·
C22:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Looking at this again, Charles-Edwards comments are unclear. He says that they were Cyfeilliog's predecessors, but then he suggests that Nudd was the predecessor and Cerennyr a superior. I have deleted "these bishops were Cyfeilliog's predecessors, and".
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Can we briefly introduce the ASC, in particular by date?
I prefer to leave out a date because it gets into complications which are irrelevant to the article. The different versions of the ASC were written at different times and give slightly different dates for Cyfeilliog's capture.
Dorothy Whitelock dates it 914 and her date is mostly accepted by Anglo-Saxon historians. Welsh historians sometimes date it 915, but on this point I prefer to rely on Anglo-Saxon specialists.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
granted Villa Caer Birran: can we add something like "the estate of Villa Caer Birran"? Was the "Villa" part of its name, though, or was it a villa/manor called Caer Birran?
I am slightly concerned that I can't find a hit for "Villa Caer Birran" anywhere online. On the other hand,
searching Google Books for "Caer Birran" gives a lot of hits for e.g. "Caer Birran, villa" or "village of Caer Birran" (villa is often used for the latter in medieval Latin). I assume
this, p. 626f, is the primary source, and that's pretty clear that we're talking about a village or at least an estate by the name of "Caer Birran". UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, yes, but that's a gazetteer (a tertiary source at best), and it doesn't say where it's got that name from, or indeed anything about the place except to give its name (and, incidentally, only a date much later than we're interested in). I'm struggling to track down Davies 1978 online; what does she say here? UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
She gives a translation of the charter: "King Arthfael gave Uilla Cair Birran, with four modii of land, to bishop Cyfeilliog; ?; c. 890, bounds."
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Personally, I'd render that as "the village/manor of Caer Birran" (remembering that Latin doesn't really do capitalisation), but this is now the last outstanding issue and it would be wrong to ask you to edit a source, however trivially, on the say-so of an anonymous peanut-thrower on the internet. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"in puro auro": lang template. The MoS would prefer that we lose the quote marks, but I can see the argument for them.
of the worth of his face, lengthwise and breadthwise: I may regret asking this, but how do you calculate the worth of someone's face?
This is not explained in the sources. I take it to mean covering his face in gold, but there is no information on how thick the gold is.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, indeed! From what I can find out about the term (see
here p. 471 and
here, it sounds as though "face-worth" meant "money paid to apologise for an insult" -- in other words, 'face' as in 'loss of face'. Again, I'm a bit uncomfortable leaning too heavily on an interpretation from a single source that doesn't seem to be corroborated by any others, and if anything seems at odds with them. Davies (p. 130) glosses "worth of face" as "compensation for insult". It's a tricky one: barring any additional sources, my preference would be to cut "lengthways and breadthways" as unimportant and/or unclear, and to explain "worth of his face" as meaning something like "in compensation for the loss of dignity". Certainly, I wouldn't leave in what seems to be an obscure legal term that will almost certainly mislead readers (neither Davies nor anyone else suggests that any skull-measuring went on here). UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It is compensation for insult and the article says so. Sims-Williams quotes the charter: "pretium faciei suæ longitudine et latitudine in puro auro". He translates it "in length and breadth", whereas Davies has "lengthwise and breadthwis". I think it is interesting and well supported.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Is it absolutely clear in the translations whether they think "lengthwise and breadthways" refers to the face or the compensation? As I read it, it's most likely to a pretium (piece of compensation), which was made up entirely of gold (that is, "lengthwise and breadthwise of pure gold"), given in compensation for an insult. I'm struggling to make longitudine et latitudine modify faciei suae in a way that would sound right in Classical Latin, but medieval writers may have had different ways of doing things.UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I came across
this book, which does talk about a practice of demanding a chalice with a golden cover as broad as the Welsh king's face in recompense for insulting him. I'd be interested to see exactly what our sources have to say on this one, but I should probably withdraw my earlier objection -- it may not be the worth of his face so much as the size of it that was in question, but it does seem like what it says on the tin. UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
described as "a holy virgin": would that be a nun?
I assume so, but I have no source for clarifying. BTW the source says that she was seduced, which rather contradicts the description.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In 914 Cyfeilliog was captured by the Vikings, and the event was recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: are we absolutely certain that the recording happened in 914 (not 915, for example?) If not, would lose the "and" and break the sentence instead.
It's not usual to give the season in "Summer 2000a" unless there's another one for e.g. the Winter. As written, the "a" makes it look as if there's going to be a Summer 2000b.
The 'easy' solve here would be to cut the word "Summer". Otherwise, you can use the |ref= parameter to give it the ID of "2000a" etc without having that in the date field. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A few replies done -- absolutely no quarrel with most, but there are a couple of tricky ones where I've made some tentative suggestions, or at least tried to make sure I've been clear as to the concern. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Many thanks again for your very thorough review. The map is now in place if you would like to edit it. I think I have now replied to your points apart from endashes, which I am not sure how to deal with.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support -- this has been an interesting and at times arcane process; I've enjoyed digging into cryptograms, face-worth and villas, and thank you for your patience with me while I've done so. By your leave, I'll sort the endashes myself, and maybe come back to the map at some point -- the first is a quick fix and the second absolutely optional. Very nice work. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
UndercoverClassicist thanks for amending the alt text. The reason I made it a placemarker is that an editor has deleted the alt text on a couple of my FAs on the ground that it duplicates the information in the label, and another editor explained that the alt text should be a placemarker because its only effect is to display the label text instead of the file name. I do not know if that is correct.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't mean to pull you in contradictory directions, but that really isn't what alt text should do. The idea of alt text is that, as far as possible, readers who can't see the images can get the important visual information conveyed to them. It's true that it shouldn't duplicate the caption, but my alts didn't -- I used the alt text to give the visual information (that is, convey what the image looks like), while the caption's job is to convey what the image is and why it matters. Our own
MOS:ALT is not universally loved, but
the RNIB have a very concise guide here, which might be of use, or there's
another from Harvard here. While there's some debate as to what constitutes the best alt text, personally I don't see how an article can meet
MOS:ACCIM (which, as part of the MoS, is an FAC criterion) if it consciously doesn't try to use alt text -- that guideline includes Images and icons that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers. UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Were medieval English pounds equal in mass to modern pounds? If so, consider using the {convert} template to include the weight in kgs, in both the lead and body?
English pounds were 240 pennies. The Welsh did not have coinage in this period and I have been unable to find out what a Welsh pound was.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
10:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In the biblio, link to: Peter Bartrum, John Blair (historian), Andrew F. Wareham?
You could consider expanding the lead to at least 3 paragraphs, I believe 4 is the FA criteria. I think there is enough material to do so, if not you could split the lead into small paragraphs.
For the alt texts, why have we just left placeholders? We have only two images so adding the alts for them will take you very little time.
An editor has deleted alt text on several articles I have edited on the ground that it repeats the information in the label. I understand that the alt text just makes readers see the label instead of the file name, and it should therefore just be a placeholder.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
10:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"He is recorded in charters" there's a comma splice here that jars a bit, partly because of the changing tense in the middle. It may be well to split (full stop or sc), but I leave it up to you
I see from UndercoverClassiccist's comments above that you were planning to replace "According to a Canterbury list of Professions of Obedience" with "According to a Canterbury Cathedral roll" but it appears that did not happen? I think it would be a good change.
"The Asser who was the biographer of Alfred the Great spent a year ill in Caerwent at this time": we haven't given a date so there's no referent for "at this time". Around 885, I assume, looking at
Asser, which I wrote so long ago that I can remember little of it.
Imma ping
Ealdgyth here as I think she's the resident expert on this field. Is Arthur Bannister
this guy? Looks like otherwise we are dealing with major publishers and reputable authors, with my usual caveat about this not being a topic I am deeply familiar with.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
07:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
So this is another MRT article! But what's more interesting here is that the station was closed for a while even when the line was opened (20 June 2003). The announcement to close the station was rather last minute and hence led to some discontentment among the few residents living in the area. There was some lobbying by residents, MPs and grassroots leaders to open the station, including a rare form of public protest by putting up "white elephant" cardboard cutouts when a minister visited the area. While the station was projected to open only in 2008 in tandem with housing developments, the government eventually relented and the station opened in January 2006. A curious little drama for the "white elephant" station.
ZKang123 (
talk)
08:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Limited comments by Nick-D
The material on the protests stands out for me, as it seems a bit under-developed. I have some comments:
The police response seems absurdly heavy handed. Google Scholar returns some references which seem to discuss this, including as an example of the limited opportunities Singaporeans have to protest
This scholarly book has some good discussion of the incident, noting that it was an example of the problems the Singapore government was experiencing at the time in terms of building the train line and (more significantly) responding to public concerns.
Very interesting. Though the PAP book essentially covers what I managed to find (given it's published by SPH Holdings, which definitely would have access to the news articles I've cited about the incident). I try not to detract too much focus from the station subject, and commentary of the protests in nature is something that can be explored in another potential article (
White Elephant saga, perhaps, as the PAP book calls it.) There's actually further context from another source (
p56) on how the slump in housing development of the Singapore northeast was due to the 1997 financial crisis.
Just keeping an archive of a cited source from the 2nd journal page
here. Not sure how to incorporate it, given the editor isn't really an authority on what determines a national political issue or not. I added a citation of what Chua Beng Huat remarked about the paranoia.--
ZKang123 (
talk)
11:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The station will also serve Sengkang Grand Residencies – an upcoming integrated development, and a future bus interchange. remove the comma
I've used a slightly different rewording.
Buangkok station is a designated Civil Defence shelter, and the two entrances of the station are enveloped by white Teflon sheets.. Id split these two sentences, like something like "Buangkok station is a designated Civil Defence shelter. The two entrances of the station are enveloped by white Teflon sheets."
Done. Though the problem is that the lead seems a little choppy here.
history
The North East Line (NEL) project, which was first proposed in 1984,[1] received government approval in January 1996. ==> "The North East Line (NEL) project, first proposed in 1984,[1] received government approval in January 1996."
I think I prefer to retain "which was"
for redevelopment into an important new town. ==> "for redevelopment into a new town."
Done.
Just days before the opening of the NEL, on 17 June 2003, operator ==> "On 17 June 2003, just days before the opening of the NEL, operator"
I've used a slightly different rewording.
along with the other stations, due to the lack remove the comma
Done.
open the following January, after SBS Transit remove the comma
Done.
required for them to sell the shirts, while also warning the organisers remove the comma
I think a comma here is necessary given the clauses are rather long.
still traveled to the adjacent change "traveled" to "travelled", as in Singaporean English (i think)
Fixed.
details
The station is designed by Altoon + Porter Architects and 3HP Architects. change "is" to "was"; unless they're still designing the station
Fixed.
artwork
Leow drew parallels to the little dots and pixels of TV and computer images which blur out certain images add a comma before "which"
"Dissatisfaction with the station's continued closure had increased after the announcement of transport fare hikes." I don't fully understand the link, the source implies it is due to having to pay more and not getting a better service?
The dates on White elephant incidents and station opening are slightly unclear, after mentioning "27 July 2005". After that no years are mentioned until "pushed to 2008".
No history after the opening? Did ridership eventually increase?
From September 1995 to May 1996,
Mariah Carey spent six months at number one on the US
Billboard Hot 100 chart with three singles from Daydream.
Columbia Records released "Forever" as the fourth US single and fifth overall. No other Carey song would surpass "Forever"'s peak of number two on the adult contemporary chart in the US until "
Oh Santa!" some 14 years later, perhaps showing how making this type of music did not last "forever" for her :P Thanks for any comments about the article,
Heartfox (
talk)
00:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments
""Forever" was related to Carey's past work." - I think maybe ""Forever" was compared to Carey's past work." would work better
In the reception section, there's a bit of a mixing of tenses. You have "Pitchfork writer Jamieson Cox said it shows" but "Cleveland.com writer Troy L. Smith said it paled"
"thought it was one of her best singles that did not reach number one" => "thought it was one of her best singles not to reach number one" --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
20:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - apologies, I didn't realise you had replied last weekend. Always best to tag me as I regularly forget I have even reviewed articles so don't come back to check for replies :-D --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
19:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Review from brachy0008
Hi there! Thanks for your help on
So It Goes.... I decided to do this article, and it’s my first FAC (got some advice from an experienced FA nominator,
ZKang123). I’ll try to dig up as much content as possible.
Image review
Image checks out.
Thanks for checking this.
Prose review
Since "Forever" was promoted to GA status in 2010, I think it may need more brushing up. I would also focus a bit more on wording than my GA reviews.
Anything specific you noticed? The article has been completely rewritten since 2010.
I'll try to find some comments on the prose. However, given the comment you addressed, I would mainly focus on the wordings.
Lead
The lead is a bit relatively short... You can try expanding it a bit more.
Unterberger consequently described the release as a victory lap. Smith said it showed how Columbia was "trying to milk the success of Daydream". Critics from music magazines predicted the song would become a success. seems a bit choppy. Just a concern.
Combined the first two sentences: "Unterberger consequently described the release as a victory lap and Smith said it showed how Columbia was 'trying to milk the success of Daydream'."
Heartfox (
talk)
07:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Source review (minor)
I would mainly focus on the source formatting (I would be pissy about it, that's the tea) because I would be confident that the sourcing is verifiable.
FN 27: Since Penske Media Corporation runs Rolling Stone (which is reliable in culture), I’d assume that Gold Derby would be reliable as well. But best double check it. Also missing archive link.
And that should be all the points I have. So, first reviewer has done all his points, now address the ones I have put out so far, and wait for the next reviewer to come by and review it.
I would slightly revise this part, (Described as referencing music of the 1950s and 1960s), to say "Described by critics as" to attribute who is describing the song in this manner.
Revised
This is more of a clarification question, but has Mariah performed this song at any point after the
Daydream World Tour? I would imagine that you have exhausted all coverage on this song, but I was more so just curious about this.
The lead and the article mention how the song references music of the 1950s and 1960s. Would links to
1950s in music and
1960s in music be helpful or would they be too broad?
Linked
I was initially a bit confused by the Nick Krewen of The Spectator quote (i.e. "into the real world of human emotion with truly soulstirring performances") as I was uncertain of the comparison that the critic was making (i.e. moving in "the real world" from what and where). In the source, he specifies this transition from as moving "beyond the Barbie Doll plasticity of her debutant existence". To be clear, I am not saying that you should add this quote, but the critic is discussing a transition, and the article only mentions one part of it so a bit of its original context is lost.
Restored full quote
For this part, (suggested it was worse than "
One Sweet Day" and "
Open Arms"), I think it would be beneficial to say the years that these songs were released as it is not directly clear in the prose that these are the other singles from the same album, which is more so implied from the sentence placement.
Added years
This is more a matter of personal preference, but I am not sure about the need for
File:Tokyo Dome (52480559907).jpg, particularly if the clear template is needed to avoid issues with it running into the next section heading. That and I am just not sure that an exterior shot of the venue is particularly helpful for readers. Again, it is up to you though.
Prefer to keep as it's better than nothing I guess
That is fair. As I said above, it is more of a matter of personal preference, and I can see the value of keeping the image.
Aoba47 (
talk)
02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that the
Macintosh link should be shortened to Mac. I believe that Mac is the more commonly-known name for the computer. I honestly was uncertain of what this was referencing until I clicked on the link. I do not really think of the computer with that name. The target article also does not use that name either.
"Macintosh" is given in the liner notes and the article notes it was the official name of the hardware until 1999, after "Forever" was recorded.
Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. I agree that it is best to stay true to what is in the liner notes.
Aoba47 (
talk)
02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I hope that these comments are helpful, and I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion once everything has been addressed. I have always really enjoyed this song, but that could be because I happened to watch that season of American Idol while it was airing back in 2008 (and that makes me feel ancient thinking about it lol). I hope you are having a good start to your week and are doing well.
Aoba47 (
talk)
01:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Aoba47: Thank you for the review! 20 days in and only now is there an acknowledgement from Wikimedia that Newspapers.com access is messed up, so I wasn't able to search there for the Idol performance, but I did go on Google and ProQuest so I think the new paragraph is hopefully as good as can be anyways.
Heartfox (
talk)
01:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for addressing everything. I am glad that there is at least an acknowledgement of the issues with Newspapers.com and although it is frustrating, hopefully a solution is being worked on and will be implemented soon. The new paragraph looks good to me as it focuses on the main points. I was debating on whether or not other details should be included, specifically Mariah Carey being a mentor in the episode and this being Kristy Lee Cook's elimination, but that seems more about the show than the song. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Wonderful work as always.
Aoba47 (
talk)
02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for checking. I think the current version does a very good job with summarizing what the reader needs to know about the performance.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about
Carly Rae Jepsen's 2022 song "Talking to Yourself". Pride month might be over, but it is never a bad time to listen to a good old-fashioned Carly Rae Jepsen synth-pop song to boost one's mood. Built into an album ironically titled The Loneliest Time is this club-friendly track that still feels underrated even though critics raved about it briefly after its release. At least the Japanese liked it! Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.- NØ18:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Aoba47
The lead specifies that Benjamin Berger and Ryan Rabin co-wrote the song and make up the production team
Captain Cuts, but it does say that they actually produced the song.
The lead specifies that reviewers praised the production as "infectious and danceable", but I do not see that claim supported in the "Critical reception" section with an overview sentence or another sign that this was a view shared by multiple critics.
Siroky and Sanchez called the chorus catchy, and the others said something along the lines of calling it a hit or fit for the dancefloor. I have revised this sentence to a more general one, which hopefully takes care of it.
The
Billboard Japan chart placement should be discussed in the prose. I am not sure that a separate table and section are needed for a single chart placement, but even if it is kept, chart placements should be discussed in the prose. You could wait to see what other reviewers have to say about the inclusion of the table and section as it could be just something that I am noticing.
I would prefer to keep it.
That is understandable. My main concern was the chart placement not being discussed in the prose and that has now been addressed.
Aoba47 (
talk)
14:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am uncertain about the "embarked" word choice in this part, (Embarked on
the Dedicated Tour). I think something like "While on
the Dedicated Tour" would be more suitable.
I am unsure about the word choice for this part, (creativity was stimulated by the
COVID-19 pandemic). It makes it seem like Jepsen was inspired directly by the pandemic itself rather than getting inspired after being stuck at home during
COVID-19 lockdowns. I think that this part could be worded better and more clearly.
The "endured bereavements" wording seems a tad over-dramatic, and I think could be replaced with something else.
For this part, (She worked with several producers and created more than 100 songs), I am not sure the "with several producers" part is necessary. It is generally assumed unless otherwise stated that when an artist works on music, they are working with producers and others. That and I find it to be vague as "several" could mean any number. I think just saying that "She created more than 100 songs" would be more concise and would not lose any information.
Is the day that Jepsen announced the album, (August 1, 2022), relevant for any reason? I believe that all the reader would need to know is when the album was released and that there were two other singles put out before its release.
I believe it helps put a timeline to when the album's production had definitely been completed and the tracklist chosen.
I am not fully convinced, but I do understand your point. It is not a major point for me so I would be okay with it staying in the article and it would not hold up my review in any way.
Aoba47 (
talk)
14:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Was there any further coverage on the music video or on the performances during the tour?
The music video does not have any coverage, considering there really isn't much going on in it. And the tour has shockingly received no reviews from reliable sources I could find.
That makes sense. That was the vibe that I got while reading the article, but I just wanted to confirm that with you. Thank you for the response.
Aoba47 (
talk)
14:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Would an audio sample fit in the "Composition and lyrics" section or would there be concerns that it would potentially overwhelm the section (or any other concerns in general about one)? I was only asking as I could see a strong justification for one illustrating the 1980s vibes that are being discussed here.
I would link
engineered,
mastered,
mixed, and
programmed to help with readers unfamiliar with that level of music jargon. I would link them in the prose and in the section with the credits.
For this part, (and influences of the
1980s), I would instead say (and influences from the
1980s music) to clarify where the link goes.
In the "Composition and lyrics" section, there are two sentences in a row that use "According to X critic". One of these instances should be revised to avoid repetition.
I was confused by this part, (the song does not specify if it was a serious relationship, friends-with-benefits, or just a crush). The article has consistently referred to the subject of this song as an "ex-lover" and that to me implies more than a crush.
This is a very good observation. There is a general critical consensus the song is about an ex so I have made this an attributed opinion.
I tried to look for any other citations for this song.
This source from
Attitude says that she performed this song at
Glastonbury Festival 2023. I am not sure if the source is appropriate for a FA so I would leave that up to you, and the citation does not go into much detail other than she performed it. Other than that (and again, I'd trust your judgement about it), it appears that you have covered everything else.
I hope that these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC, and I hope you are doing well.
Aoba47 (
talk)
22:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for addressing everything. Great work with the article as always. I am always happy to see a song article up for a FAC. I support this FAC for promotion.
Aoba47 (
talk)
14:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
An accompanying music video for "Talking to Yourself" was released alongside it. -- I think this will work as "The music video for "Talking to Yourself" was released alongside it"
and performed it at Glastonbury Festival 2023 -- at the Glastonbury Festival 2023.
Chris DeVille of Stereogum thought it recalled the 1980s pastiche of Jepsen's albums Emotion (2015) and Dedicated (2019) -- does the reviewer mean the song drew parallels or is reminiscent of her previous albums 1980s theme? Maybe some wording change to "recalled"
Thanks for doing a prose review as well,
Pseud 14! I do not know if I will be working on any other Jepsen articles, but this song was an immediate standout to me. I have fixed the issues along with some copyedits.--NØ18:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"praised its production as catchy and commented on the lyrics" - "commented on" is a bit vague and doesn't really convey whether the comments were positive or negative. Possible to reword to give a tiny bit more detail?
"lockdowns following the COVID-19 pandemic" => "lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic"
"unable to join her family" => "being unable to join her family"
The openings of the three paragraphs under "Composition and lyrics" are all very similar - any way to reword?
"PopMatters's Jeffrey Davies" - while not technically wrong, this looks a bit odd with the "s's" and the second s not being italic. Maybe "Jeffrey Davies of PopMatters".......?
"described it as a sanguine track and "dance-pop anthem"" => "described it as a sanguine track and a "dance-pop anthem""
"and honed it among Jepsen's most high-energy songs" - I don't think "honed" is the right word here at all. Maybe "named"?
"using some diverting production brandishes" - "brandish" isn't a noun, so this doesn't work. I think maybe you mean "using some diverting production flourishes" --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
21:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems like sources are consistently formatted and are mostly dedicated magazines. I wonder if somewhere there is a list of reliable magazines on music topics. Spotcheck upon request.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"recalls a previous relationship with an ex-lover". "a previous relationship" and "an ex-lover" seems a little clunky due to the redundancy. Perhaps delete "previous"?
"While on the Dedicated Tour". Perhaps tell us when this took place?
It was preceded by the singles "Western Wind" and "Beach House"". I assume that these were both on the album? If so, could we be told?
"The song was included on the set list of the tour". Which tour?
File:Lise_Meitner_(1878-1968),_lecturing_at_Catholic_University,_Washington,_D.C.,_1946.jpg: is a more specific tag available? Ditto File:Lise_Meitner_standing_at_meeting_with_Arthur_H._Compton_and_Katherine_Cornell.jpg
File:Lise_Meitner12.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg
File:Hahn_and_Meitner_in_1912.jpg: when and where was this first published?
In a commemorative brochure for the opening of the KWI in 1912. A copy was in Otto Hahn's papers, and is now in the Smithsonian. The Max Planck also has a copy.
Hawkeye7(discuss)03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Chemist_Lise_Meitner_with_students.jpg: the source seems to indicate this is not a NRC work?
She was particularly inspired by Boltzmann, and was said to often speak with contagious enthusiasm of his lectures. I'm not sure about "contagious" here, and it should be "about" rather than "of"
Meitner and Hahn in their laboratory, in 1913. When a colleague she did not recognise said that they had met before, Meitner replied: "You probably mistake me for Professor Hahn. Image caption is confusing
of which he gave ten per cent to Meitner. Is this %?
MOS:PERCENT: "The body of non-scientific/non-technical articles may use either the % symbol or the word(s) percent (American English) or per cent (British English)"
In 1945 the Nobel Committee for Chemistry in Sweden that selected the Nobel Prize in Chemistry decided to award that prize solely to Hahn: Colon should be a full stop
Women were not allowed to attend public institutions of higher education in Vienna until 1897, and she completed her final year of school in 1892 I think this would make more sense with the clauses reversed, and moved after the following sentence; this way, it'd flow naturally into the "only career available" part.
"Circumspect" seems like a bit of an obscure word here. Also "egalitarian" is a bit confusing - I know we're talking about how Hahn drank a lot of Respect Women Juice, but it's phrased confusingly in this portion.
Germany was very formal society at the time. Oppenheimer, for example, once made the mistake of addressing
Arnold Sommerfeld as "Professor" instead of "
Geheimrat". Removed. I need to strike the right note here. For a man of his time, Hahn was progressive in his attitudes towards women.
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Later that year, perhaps fearing that Meitner was in financial difficulties and might return to Vienna, since her father had died in 1910, Planck appointed her his assistant at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in the Friedrich Wilhelm University I think it might be best to remove the "since her father had died" clause. Maybe split it up; "Meitner may have entered financial difficulties after the death of her father in 1910. Possibly due to this, Planck appointed her..."
You reference prices in marks a lot, but a modern reader has no context. Is there a way we can have conversions? There's likely a template for the mark. (Tho these might be best as efns after each quote rather than as in-line text)
This isn't really a prose thing, but I notice a paucity of images in the middle sections. The diagram of the
Auger effect might be good at the beginning of the Beta Radiation section. More importantly, there's gotta be something that fits for the Nazi Germany, Transmutation, and Nobel Prize for nuclear fission sections, right?
The exhibition table being left-aligned creates a weird break in the text in combination with the massive Frisch quote. Might be better to right-align it.
Moreover; the Frisch quote is nice, but it is massive. Could there be a way to pare it down a bit more with a (...) or two?
The bust of Meitner image is a bit low-res and hard to make out. What about "file:Lise Meitner Denkmal vor dem Lise-Meitner-Wohnheim in Kaiserslautern2.jpg"? Bit more photogenic.
There are quite a few places where I think the article would benefit from being more clear and explicit about the geography and geopolitics. Those conditions, especially during the pre-World War I period, will only become more unfamiliar to readers as time goes on, so I think it important to future-proof the article, as it were. I've made a number of specific comments about this below.
"Meitner's earliest research began at age eight, when she kept a notebook of her records underneath her pillow." – I can't say I quite understand what this is saying.
"She completed her final year of school in 1892 [...] In 1899, Meitner began taking private lessons with two other young women, cramming the missing eight years of secondary education into just two." – eight missing years?
"an article on
optics by
Lord Rayleigh that detailed an experiment that produced results that Rayleigh had been unable to explain" – a bit choppy with three instances of "that" so close together, but this is really a nitpick.
"Meitner went to the
Friedrich Wilhelm University" – here we should probably state where this was located geographically. She moved to a different country, after all.
"Planck invited her to his home, and allowed her to attend his lectures, which was an unusual gesture by Planck, who was on record as opposing the admission of women to universities in general, but he was willing to admit that there was the occasional exception; apparently he recognised Meitner as one of the exceptions." – this sentence does not "flow" particularly well and could probably be improved by copyediting (possibly by splitting the sentence).
"She became friends with Planck's twin daughters Emma and Grete" – I might indicate something about their age here. Easiest would probably be to state the year they were born.
"(In fact, they were
isotopes of known elements, but the concept of an isotope, along with the term, was only propounded by
Frederick Soddy in 1913.)" – entire sentences in parentheses is rarely the best approach, and I don't think this is one of the exceptions.
"In Montreal, Hahn had become accustomed to collaboration with physicists, including at least one woman,
Harriet Brooks." – this is really minor tinkering, but I think this would be better if the second comma were replaced with "stronger" stronger punctuation (I would suggest an em dash).
"Women were not yet admitted to universities in
Prussia." – Germany (or the
German Empire) has not yet been mentioned. Considering that, I would gloss this as "the German state of Prussia".
"radioactive recoil, in which a daughter nucleus is forcefully ejected from its matrix as it recoils at the moment of decay" – this is rather technical. In order to make it more accessible, I would link
daughter nucleus and provide either an appropriate link for "matrix" or explain it in some other way.
"Meitner was particularly interested in
beta radiation. By this time, they were known to be
electrons." – I'm guessing "they" here is a result of the preceding sentence previously using "beta particles", but it doesn't work with "beta radiation", and using "radiation" rather than "particles" is the right call.
"Meitner received an attractive offer of an academic position in
Prague" – I would try to find some way to note that Prague was then part of
Austria-Hungary (the significance being that she would have left Germany for her home country if she had accepted the offer).
"Fischer arranged for her salary to be doubled to 3,000 marks" – is there any particular reason her previous salary did not get a mention prior to this point? The paragraph does note that she held "the same rank as Hahn (although her salary was still less)".
Actinium being element 89 is rather important context that is missing here.
"the search for the mother isotope of
actinium. According to the
radioactive displacement law of Fajans and Soddy, this had to be an isotope of the undiscovered element 91" – I'm confused. They knew about beta decay, and the article has already stated that Hahn and Meitner made money off of radium-228 ("mesothorium"), which beta decays to actinium (as do other
isotopes of radium, for that matter). Why did they assume the mother isotope had to be an alpha emitter?
"However, the isotope they had found was a beta emitter, and therefore could not be the mother isotope of actinium." – I understand why beta decay of element 91 cannot produce element 89, but I don't think this is clear to the average reader.
"In 1914 Hahn and Meitner developed a new technique for separating the
tantalum group from
pitchblende, which they hoped would speed the isolation of the new isotope." – this is jumping back in time a bit, so I would say that they had done so.
"not only Hahn but most of the students, laboratory assistants and technicians had been called up" – I gather this is "called up" in the sense of "summoned to serve in the armed forces" as opposed to "personally selected (for some particular purpose more generally)". Maybe I'm an outlier, but I come across this phrase more frequently in the latter sense than in the former, and so think this should be rephrased somewhat to eliminate ambiguity/lack of clarity.
"they devised a series of indicator tests to eliminate other known alpha emitters. The only known ones with similar chemical behaviour were
lead-210 (which decays to alpha emitter
polonium-210) and
thorium-230" – this doesn't quite work. I might suggest replacing the first "alpha emitters" with "sources of alpha [particles/radiation]". I would also add "via
bismuth-210" to the parenthetical statement.
"The connection to uranium remained a mystery, as neither of the known
isotopes of uranium decayed into protactinium." – I don't think it's clear why a connection to uranium should be expected in the first place? I might also note which those known isotopes of uranium were.
"At a conference in 1937, Meitner shares the front row with (left to right)
Niels Bohr,
Werner Heisenberg,
Wolfgang Pauli,
Otto Stern and
Rudolf Ladenburg;
Hilde Levi is the only other woman in the room." – there are seven people in the front row, so one name is missing. Who is sitting closest to the camera? I would also add indicate Levi's position in the room in the caption.
The unidentified man is the one at the very end (if nothing else, our article on
Rudolf Ladenburg uses a cropped version of this very image, showing the man sitting next to Meitner), right? In that case, the current "[...]
Otto Stern, an unidentified man and
Rudolf Ladenburg" should be ""[...]
Otto Stern,
Rudolf Ladenburg, and an unidentified man".Levi stands out okay in the full-size image, but not so much in miniature versions that one may see on this article under typical viewing conditions (screen size and resolution, and so on). I also think it says something that Meitner is in the front row while Levi is furthest back, and that the caption should note this.
TompaDompa (
talk)
18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"It appeared that the
law of conservation of energy did not hold for beta decay" – it is not obvious how this conclusion follows from what was stated before.
I think it works now, assuming I have understood it correctly—the difference between the spectrum's measured energy and the disintegration energy was viewed as a real difference (as opposed to being within the expected margin of error for the setup), meaning there was an unexplained "loss" of energy. Did I get that right?
TompaDompa (
talk)
18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, but it is the implication of this that bothered the physicists. Quantum theory hold that the electrons can only have discrete energy states. How then can they not have when ejected? (As an aside: Chadwick conducted this experiment while in an internment camp with a home-made Geiger counter and a tube of toothpaste.) Here, Meitner shows her tenacity as a physicist. This has important results later.
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"
Irène Curie and
Frédéric Joliot irradiated aluminium foil with alpha particles, and found that this results in a short-lived radioactive
isotope of phosphorus. They noted that
positron emission continued after the neutron emissions ceased." – neutron emissions? Not alpha particle bombardment? It would make perfect sense to me if positron emission continuing after the alpha irradiation ceased was viewed as evidence of radioactivity (as opposed to the bombardment "knocking loose" positrons directly or something), but I can't quite figure out the text as it is, which is why I'm suspecting an error of some kind (or maybe I'm just bad at nuclear physics).
"On 1 August she took the train to
Stockholm, where she was met at
Göteborg station by
Eva von Bahr." – this phrasing makes it sound like she was met by von Bahr at Göteborg station in Stockholm, which is of course nonsensical. Did she take the Stockholm-bound train and disembark at Göteborg? Or did she take the train to Stockholm and was joined from Göteborg by von Bahr? The former sounds much more likely as Kungälv, where they went next, is much closer to Göteborg than to Stockholm.
"the results of the experiments, particularly the supposed discovery of isomers of radium" – the what now? Unless I've missed something major, this has not been mentioned previously.
"Hahn and Strassmann isolated the three radium isotopes" – as above: which? Also, is "isotopes" here and "isomers" in the preceding section correct, or should they match?
"Hahn had mistakenly believed that the
atomic masses had to add up to 239 rather than the
atomic numbers adding up to 92, and thought it was masurium (
technetium), and so did not check for it: 235 92U + n → 56Ba + 36Kr + some n" – surely that should be
uranium-238 on the left-hand side rather than
uranium-235, if the atomic mass should add up to be 239?
I don't think this heading really works. It sticks out a bit from the other (which it wouldn't if it were plain "Nobel Prize"), but more importantly it belies that Meitner did not receive the Nobel Prize. I don't have any good alternative suggestion right now, however.
Changed to "Nobel Prize"
"On 15 November 1945, the
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced that Hahn had been awarded the 1944
Nobel Prize in Chemistry" – this looks like an error, but it isn't one. I would definitely add an explanatory footnote about the one-year delay.
"The five-member physics committee included Manne Siegbahn, his former student Erik Hulthén, the professor of experimental physics at
Uppsala University, and Axel Lindh, who eventually succeeded Hulthén." – if that's three people, the first and third commas need to be semicolons.
"The poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner" – that their relationship was poor came as news to me, as there was not really anything obvious above to suggest so—or did I miss it?
"The poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner was a factor here, as was the bias towards experimental rather than theoretical physics (a bias that did not help
Chien-Shiung Wu when she was omitted from the Nobel Prize for her experimental work and the prize awarded to two men for their theoretical work)." - this borders on snide. The intended meaning is clearly that the exclusion was due to bias against women, the implicit (but unsubtle) argument being that even a bias in favour of a particular subfield was later not enough for a woman to be awarded. If the accusation of gender bias is attributable to appropriate sources, make it explicitly and attribute it to those sources. If it is not, remove the implicit one. If the mention of
Chien-Shiung Wu being omitted from the Nobel Prize is retained, the year should be given.
"Hahn's receipt of a Nobel Prize was long expected." – the word "receipt" stands out to me as I almost never encounter it in any other sense than, well,
receipt. I would suggest rephrasing here.
This section feels quite a bit like it was written to be later in the article than it currently is, beginning with "Despite the many honours that Meitner received in her lifetime" (as though referring back to the "Awards and honours" section), discussing the poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner (which is mentioned in the following section, "Later life", even if only briefly), and just generally covering events that happened at a later point in time than the first couple of paragraphs of the following section. This is, I think, a rather serious issue with the structure of the article at present. My suggestion would be to remove this section, add the Nobel Prize stuff in its proper chronological place in the following section in a "just the facts" manner, and move the analysis of the Nobel Prize stuff to the last section (which could optionally be renamed "Legacy" or something).
"Her sister Gisela and brother-in-law Karl Lion moved to England, Meitner also considered moving to Britain." – a comma is not the right punctuation here.
"Siegbahn's obstruction of Meitner's Nobel Prize" – the description of this turn of events earlier in the article does not really seem to fit the term "obstruction".
"The intention was that Meitner would have the salary and title of a "research professor"—one without teaching duties." – does the source say anything about whether having or not having teaching duties would be seen as preferable here?
"In 2000, the
European Physical Society established the biannual "Lise Meitner Prize"" – there exists a
Lise Meitner Prize article, and going by that article it should be "biennial" rather than "biannual".
The list of items named after Meitner appears to largely be cited to sources on the items themselves, rather than sources on Meitner or sources on items named after Meitner. This is not ideal from a
WP:PROPORTION perspective. How is the relative importance of the different items (compared to each other) assessed to make sure the weight is due? Likewise, how is the relative importance of this aspect of the overall topic (
Lise Meitner) compared to other aspects assessed to make sure the weight is due? From a
WP:PROPORTION perspective, this is the equivalent of the much-maligned (
and now deprecated) practice of sourcing "In popular culture" sections to primary sources.
Were my point about whether the information is correct/verifiable, that would be sufficient. But that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is about whether the information is
WP:DUE, or more specifically
WP:PROPORTIONAL.
TompaDompa (
talk)
17:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Why have we not used the sources in the Further Reading section in the article? If they don't have anything unique, I would suggest removing them; if they do, then you can always include them in the biblio and cite them.
I'm pleased to see an article about a female scientist here, thank you for such an excellent effort. With the caveat that I am not a native speaker, here are some comments. Feel free to ignore.
The repetition of her name in bold is not great. I know of no specific guideline but in earlier FAs I have applied the use of " to introduce the commonly used first name. For example Nancy Sophie Cornélie "Corry" Tendeloo. So could Elise "Lise" Meitner be an option?
There is a specific guideline.
MOS:BOLD: "Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the
lead. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that
redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not"
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I avoided the construct 'Elise "Lise" Meitner' because that would give the impression that it was a nickname, and it was not. Note that she signed her papers "Dr. Lise Meitner".
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
who was one of those responsible for the discovery of the element protactinium and the discovery of nuclear fission --> who was instrumental in the discovery of protactinium and nuclear fission
She also adopted the shortened name "Lise" --> is it known when?
Not known. Her matura was recorded under the name Elise Meitner. "Lise's name also changed slightly from its original Elise. In Berlin such things might have caused a flurry of paperwork; in Vienna it made no difference."
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
She completed her final year of school --> from reading onwards I gather this is not secondary school. Would it not be better to explicitly say primary school here?
She went to a high school for girls that went to what in my country would be year 8. This might be consider primary school depending on where the reader is. So it would not be better.
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
but women were not allowed to attend public institutions of higher education in Vienna until 1897--> I don't get the "but". And would the list of subjects at school not be better placed with the earlier sentence about final year of school?
she went further and made predictions based on her explanation, and then verified them experimentally --> this seems like a notable event that should be described in a bit more detail: what kind of optics issue are we talking about, what did she predict, how did she verify?
This led Ernest Rutherford to predict the nuclear atom. She submitted her findings to the Physikalische Zeitschrift on 29 June 1907. --> From this order I infer that Rutherford made the prediction before her publication, and thus that there was some sort of informal communication between them. Is this the case?
, and shared her love of music --> because of that comma, I read this with Meitner being the subject of the verb shared. But I guess you meant the twins to be the subject, am I right?
During the first years Meitner worked together with Hahn they co-authored three papers in 1908, and six more in 1909 --> During the first two years Meitner worked together with Hahn, they co-authored nine papers: three in 1908, six in 1909
Vor allem steht ihre chemische Verschiedenheit von allen bisher bekannten Elementen außerhalb jeder Diskussion --> I don't think we need the German here
I find it remarkable that Meitner lived so long and did not seem to have suffered any radiation damage. She must have been really careful from the beginning. This is just a thought, no need to act on it.
"On 1 August she took the train to
Göteborg station in Sweden." I don't think it was possible to do this journey by train in the 1940s. Was it?
John (
talk)
07:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty sure the
Øresund would have been in the way, which was not bridged until 2000. I imagine some kind of ferry or
boat train must have been involved in 1938. It sounds funny if you know the geography to just say "took the train". What do the sources say?
John (
talk)
10:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
On 1 August, she left for Sweden. Again the trip was beautiful. Eva von Bahr-Bergius was waiting for her at the Göteborg station. Together they continued by train and then steamer to Eva's home in Kungälv, a small town on the west coast where Lise planned to stay until September.
I trimmed the "Jewish" from the lead sentence. Her Jewishness was only defintionally important to the Nazis. She was a scientist, not a religious figure. We find out about her ethnicity and the trouble it caused her in her life, but I do not think it is needed in the first sentence. Happy to discuss, of course.
John (
talk)
Well, this is a high-profile topic if there ever was one. Keeping my usual caveat about not being familiar with the topic in mind, I wonder if there is any dedicated discussion to the conflict with the Nazis. It seems like we are using mostly academic publications and major publishers. What makes
http://www.orlandoleibovitz.com/Lise_Meitner_and_Nuclear_Fission.html a reliable source? #112, should that give Nobel Prize rather than www.nobelprize.org? Especially since #113 does. Bit inconsistent with retrieval dates - #118 doesn't have one but #145 does? I wonder why only one German biography is used. What is the logic between placing some publications into Further Reading?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
07:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The first edition of the Tour de France Femmes (a cycling race) – held in 2022 after years of campaigning for a women's Tour de France race.
This is a second attempt (nominated before, and I didn't get to fixing things in time – these have now been resolved). The article is a GA and has been through the WP:GOCE process. Wish me luck!
Turini2 (
talk)
08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Does anyone else have comments on this? Ready and waiting to make any required edits or answer queries that people have. :)
Turini2 (
talk)
09:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments from Reidgreg
As noted above, I copyedited the article in Nov 2023 (
copyedited version) and may be biased toward that version.
I'm still not a fan of the wide infobox; the map is not terribly legible, so I'm not sure the point of having it take up that much room.
I feel that the five-paragraph lead could probably be consolidated to two or three paragraphs for an article of this size. My copyedit version handled it after the lead paragraph as a results-oriented summary, putting the winners first as that's the most important result; I can see from the previous FAC review that some other editors prefer a chronological summary of the race. Can't say that I agree, but in any case it should be simpler and more concise.
The race would take place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris. If it can be confirmed to have happened, use past tense.
and not being hard enough for the professional peloton Not being difficult enough or challenging enough.
pushed for La Course to evolve into a multi day stage race, with former cyclist & commentator multi-stage, cyclist and commentator.
As a matter of completeness, should there be a brief mention of how this race affected the
second and
third editions of the race?
Tweaks made. I also prefer your version of the lead – I expanded it slightly to accommodate the request for a chronological telling of the race following the last FAC review. In terms of the infobox, it's following the pattern of other Tour de France articles (e.g. FA
2012 Tour de France). Thanks for your help!
Turini2 (
talk)
07:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As per the below, the lead now has three paragraphs - an introduction, 1st/2nd/3rd in general classification, and the winners of the other classifications.
Turini2 (
talk)
09:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
The lead is IMO a little long in proportion to the article, and
MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests it should consist of "One or two paragraphs".
"French rider Jeannie Longo won the 1987, 1988 and 1989 editions of the race, gaining fame in the process". This seems a little random. A factoid about one rider dropped into the history of the race.
Would I be correct in assuming that no women's race took place in 2010, 2011, 2012, nor 2013? If so, perhaps this could be stated.
"with sponsors welcoming the visibility of the Champs-Élysées". How is this relevant to the article?
In the lead, I have struggled with including all relevant information requested while keeping the length. Pointers welcome!
The lead is not supposed to include all relevant information, it is intended to briefly summarise the article. I have put a draft of a slimmed down version on the talk page. See what you think. Note that it is not normal to include citations in the lead. (Nor the infobox.) As a summary, anything in the lead will be covered more fully in the main article, where it will be cited in more detail.
Have rewritten the lead, now much shorter.
Jeannie Longo is a reasonably famous sportswoman, particularly in France - happy to remove, but thought a useful (and referenced) historical tidbit.
Almost the definition of things not to include. Either expand the mention to explain why and how Longo particularly influenced the development of the Tour de France Femmes - assuming she did - or take it out.
Removed.
Realistically, the last "Tour de France Féminin" was in 1989 - the organisers of the men's race didn't allow them to use their trademark. Hence the "although the name of the event changed several times" phrasing. There were other
ersatz women's races that tried to be a ""Tour de France Féminin" - e.g.
La Route de France. It's complicated!
That's why we FAC nominators get the big bucks! (Try explaining 3rd century BC naval tactics.) from whenever you start, if there was some sort of proto-TdFF you need to mention briefly it, if there wasn't you need to say so, if it was complicated you need to briefly explain the nature of the complication. What you do, you have done well, but what seem to be gaps stand out.
Have rephrased and reworded, to make clearer.
Women's cycling historically has not been on live TV or well supported commercially - sources back up that sponsors of teams were very happy to be "sharing the stage" with the Tour de France. Again, happy to remove or rephrase.
I meant that thee and me might understand the connection between the TdF and the visibility of the Champs-Élysées, but a non-aficionado will have no idea what you are talking about. And as an encyclopedia we are supposed to be explaining things for a general audience.
Have reworded, and added a slight bit to the background.
"and not being challenging enough for the professional peloton". What is "the professional peloton"? And why "the" and not 'a'?
Piped to clarify
"Riders and campaigners pushed for La Course to evolve into a multi-stage race, cyclist & commentator Joanna Rowsell stating". The comma should be either a full stop or a semi colon.
Fixed
"We need mountain climbs, flat stages, time trials and a Champs-Elysees finish". Reading this made me realise that the article just assumes that the reader is aware of the TdF for men to quite a detailed level. I think you need to explain it somewhere near the start of Background, including what all of these things are and touching on the different jerseys. I assume that you can steal most of this from the TdF article. Having just reread, I am eg unsure from the article whether La Course by Le Tour de France was a stage race or not. Or what a stage is.
I've added a sentence on what the Tour de France is at the start of Background... I note that FA
2012 Tour de France does not provide this level of background information. Have tweaked things to clarify.
"Pushing back on criticism". "on" → 'at'.
Fixed
Did la Course by Le Tour de France occur in each year from 2013 to 2021?
Rephrased
"with Anna van der Breggen stating ... and Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating ..." Who are these two that a reader might care about their opinions? And synonym time, can we avoid two times "stating".
Clarified
I am going to pause here. I think I have given you a fair bit to think about, come back on and/or get on with and I would like to get this foundation stage of the article sorted before moving on to the detail.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
16:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Right, thanks for that. It is now, IMO, in better shape. However, moving on I feel that we may be getting into something akin to a
fix loop. For example
'The overall length of the event was met with agreement, with some teams noting that they do not "yet have the staff or numbers ... for a three-week event."' As it happens, I know the relevance of "a three-week event", but a passing reader may not and I don't see it explained elsewhere in the article. I feel, as I suspect the nominator does, that this is an important point, in which case it needs explaining.
There is a section called "Mountain stages", but no explanation of what they are, nor their significance. Similarly re the several mentions of "summit finish".
"chasing back after a
mechanical". I am not sure that "chasing back" will be readily understood. I am sure that "a mechanical" won't. While it is piped,
MOS:NOFORCELINK says "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." There are several other examples of a Wikilink being used instead of an in line explanation. (And where, IMO, a reader in unlikely to understand what is meant from context and where understanding the text is important to understanding the article.)
Given the points above, each of which is an example of a broader point which I am unhappy with, I am currently leaning oppose. Unfortunately, while happy in principle to discuss this and open to changing my mind - there is a lot of good work in the article and it is not that far off FA standard - I am going to be away from any internet connection for most of a week. So apologies for an anticipated slow response.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I consider I have addressed these three points, as well as making some wider edits to clarify things and unknown terms. In terms of your wider point about a fix loop, this is why I had the article copyedited prior to bringing it to FAC.
Turini2 (
talk)
17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
They are all own works from wikimedia users and all licensed under Creative Commons. All images are relevant to the article. The image "2019-10-26 14-54-37 planche-des-belles-filles.jpg" lacks an alt text but the others have alt texts. All images have captions. The caption The final stage of the race finished at the hors catégorie (English: beyond category) La Super Planche des Belles Filles climb needs to end with a period as it is a full sentence. I suggest removing the expression "the hors catégorie (English: beyond category)" because readers may not be familiar with this technical term, the translation in parenthesis is not helpful, and the information is not essential to understand the image. The caption Large crowds greeted the Tour
also needs to end with a period.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
10:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The
Battle of Tinian isn't as well known as
Battle of Saipan, but it was an important part of the Mariana Islands campaign of World War II. It was mostly a US Marines show, but the other services were heavily involved. The battle is a good case study of the process of command decision making. The island became an important base for B-29 bombers and in August 1945 the
atomic bombing missions were launched from there, which is what it is best known for today, if at all. There is plenty written about it though, and the article could have gone much deeper into the fighting.
Hawkeye7(discuss)00:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"the Combined Chiefs of Staff". Perhaps 'the US and British Combined Chiefs of Staff' to fill in the blanks for readers not familiar with the nomenclature of the higher echelons during WWII?
"Tinian lay too close to Saipan to allow it to be bypassed and remain in Japanese hands. The 9,000-strong Japanese garrison was eliminated, and the island joined Saipan and Guam as a base for Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers" is out of chronological order and repeats what is given in more detail later. Suggest deleting.
"known as the Orange plans ... along the lines envisaged in the Orange Plan". Plural or singular?
Plural. Plans were continually updated. There were many variants, such as Orange-Black (Japan + Germany) and Orange-Red (Japan + the UK).
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"By 10 August, Japanese casualties included 404 taken prisoner and 5,745 dead that were buried by the Americans." This leaves some 2,850 unaccounted for. Do any of the sources suggest how they might be accounted?
It may be worth adding that. If only to clarify that while the battle was over all resistance was not, hence the "Mopping up" section.
When the Japanese forces were reduced to the point where they were no longer considered a threat to the West Coast of the United States, the American commander would declare the island "secure", and "mopping up" operations would begin. In some cases, more Japanese were killed during mopping up than in the battle. Stan Savige (on Bougainville) and Bob Eichelberger (on Leyte) reported that they had killed more Japanese than G-2 reported were present in the first place, but there were still plenty more.
Hawkeye7(discuss)01:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The paragraph starting "Tinian was considered a target from the outset ..." It would be helpful to state here somewhere the distance between the two islands.
" On 12 March, the Joint Chiefs of Staff directed Nimitz to neutralize Truk and occupy the Mariana Islands, with a target date of 15 June ... With the conclusion of the Battle of Saipan on 9 July, preparations began for the attack on Tinian." Perhaps a sentence or two on the battle of Saipan?
In the lead the battle ends on 2 August ("Resistance continued through 2 August"), in the infobox on 1 August.
There are several cases where
false precision has been introduced - eg 100 feet given as 30.5 m or 1/2 mile as 0.80 km - which could do with reviewing.
"with its two battalions of 155 mm guns and two battalions of 155 mm howitzers". So how many actual weapons was this? Similarly "for a total of thirteen battalions."
Each 155mm gun battalion had 12 guns, manned by 26 officers, 2 warrant officers and 529 enlisted men (TO 6-55 31 July 1943). Each 155 mm howitzer battalion had 12 howitzers manned by 29 officers, 2 warrant officers and 500 enlisted men (TO 6-35 15 July 1943). Added that there were twelve tubes per battalion.
Hawkeye7(discuss)22:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"the support of observation aircraft from Stinson OY Sentinel aircraft". Needs some sort of tweak, perhaps delete the first "aircraft"?
"50 dead Japanese were inside." That reads very oddly. How about 'they were garrisoned by 50 Japanese, who were all killed'?
We don't know that. There might have been more, some of who withdrew, and some of the dead may have committed suicide. Tightened text to clarify that fifty dead Japanese were found inside.
Hawkeye7(discuss)22:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I was part of the A Class review at WPMH and found the article to be a great read on an expansive topic. I have some minor suggestions which you could look into,
Hawkeye7:
Since the 3 units of the US Army were all part of the V Amphibious, perhaps you could wrap these up into a {tree list}?
When I looked at the infobox image, I thought it was the only one which didn't have alt text. To my surprise, none of the images have alt texts. Why so? As an aside, many of the images are good ones which could go FP as Adam said, you should look into co-nominating some of them.
Also, how much deeper could we have gone into the fighting? Would it have been day by day details or something more substantial? I ask because that would impact the comprehensiveness.
Yes, into the day-to-day fighting in greater depth. There is already a
subarticle on base development. The article currently has 8,350 words, and going into the fighting in much greater detail would add a great deal more. I feared that there would be complaints that the article was
WP:TOOBIG.
Hawkeye7(discuss)19:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If you have the time, I would appreciate if you could look into my recent FA nom, linked
here.
Infobox says Ogata and Oie are killed in action but main text doesn't appear to corroborate this
The text says that "Ogata was among the fallen, but his body was never identified". Sources do not record what happened to Captain Oya, but he did not survive the battle. Should the {{KIA}} template be removed?
Hawkeye7(discuss)22:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Apologies, that was meant to be Kakuta, not Ogata. Looking at their articles, which say they both committed suicide on Tinian, they are referenced to Brooks, Victor (2005) Hell is Upon Us: D-Day in the Pacific. I don't know if you have access to that? Otherwise if you have sources that do say they at least didn't survive the battle then specifically mentioning that in main text would be enough.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
22:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I was able to find Hell is Upon Us and have added it to the references. Hoffman reported a story about Kakuta, but Morison cast doubt on it and I removed it from the article. Added a sentence sourced to Brooks that neither Kakuta nor Oie survived. Could not find verification of the Wikipedia article on Oie's claim that Fred Osgood took his knife, although the Library of Congress confirms that Osgood served on Tinian with the V Amphibious Corps Amphibious Reconnaissance Battalion.
[17]Hawkeye7(discuss)00:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Main text says 2,610 civilians dead not 2,600
Infobox changed to match the text.
Would be sensible to actually mention World War II early in the main text
What's your rule for using or ignoring "USS" for ships? I would have expected it to be "Colorado and the destroyer USS Norman Scott" and "Colorado, cruiser USS Cleveland and destroyer USS Remey" rather than the current wording
"All three assault battalions were ashore by 08:20" Does this line up with the previous description? " 24th Marines to land on White Beach 1, one battalion at a time" and "the 25th Marines landed two battalions on White Beach 2" doesn't necessarily indicate three battalions to me
"Captain Isumi's mobile counterattack force" You haven't mentioned Isumi before, so when reading this I got the idea this was a different force to the earlier mentioned 1st Battalion, 135th Infantry Regiment mobile counterattack force, which I assume it is not? If Isumi isn't that relevant might be best to remove mention of him
The lede says the Tinian Town feint "diverted defenders" but main text only says "distract". It's not clear whether Japanese troops actually moved away from the north to combat the feint
Hi
Hawkeye7, setting this up as a placeholder, will do the review tomorrow. Please feel free to respond after you return from your break. How is the Olympics live experience?
Matarisvan (
talk)
18:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
The infobox image is public domain with a valid PD tag.
Map of the Battle of Tinian (1944).svg is a featured image. It has a relevant CC tag.
The remaining images are all PD photographs that are taken by the US military, generally marines or navy. These have appropriate PD tags.
Suggest adding Japanese Peace Memorial - Tinian - panoramio (1).jpg, which is included in the Japanese wikipedia article.
The dominance of images from the US armed forces is understandable but to provide a more
neutral point of view, it would be good to have some contemporary illustrations from the perspective of the local populous or the Japanese. Are these available?
simongraham (
talk)
20:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
NPOV is always a problem with the Pacific War articles, as one side was nearly annihilated. Sometimes we have POW interrogation records, but not always, and Japanese sources are often not translated. We have no Japanese photographs of the battle on Commons, which is not unusual. The local population was deported to Japan after the war, so today, the island is inhabited by Chamorros who came from other islands and their descendants.
Hawkeye7(discuss)06:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
One of the most exciting games in American soccer history, which pitted
Hollywood money against a
blue-collar underdog, and broke several records (and one leg) in 130+ minutes of action. Most of this article was written in the days before and after the game, but has undergone a fair amount of changes through a GAN last year and a more recent GOCE copyedit. I believe it is my finest match article so far of the four MLS Cup articles I have sent to FAC. SounderBruce00:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"Both clubs finished the regular season atop the Supporters' Shield standings" - pedantically, they can't both have finished atop the standings. Maybe say something like "the two teams tied for the most points in the MLS, but LAFC topped the Supporters' Shield standings based on......" (also at the equivalent point in the body)
Fixed by mentioning conference tables.
Soccer is linked in the lead but not in the body
Fixed.
"and was contested by 28 teams that are organized into" => "and was contested by 28 teams organized into"
Fixed.
"MLS Cup 2022 was the fourth final to be contested between two regular season winners" - "winners" is a bit vague, maybe say "conference champions"....?
Used "seeds" instead.
"LAFC took first place in Western Conference during the streak" => "LAFC took first place in the Western Conference during the streak"
Fixed.
"By the mid-point in the season in late June" => "By the mid-point of the season in late June"
Fixed.
"LAFC had amassed a 11–3–3 record" => "LAFC had amassed an 11–3–3 record"
Fixed.
"The Union sent Blake, and defenders" - don't think that comma is needed
Fixed.
"who were without forwa rd Talles Magno" - there's a random space in the middle of a word
Fixed.
"but instead finished a mis-timed clearance from the NYCFC defense" => "but instead finishing a mis-timed clearance from the NYCFC defense"
Reworded to be more clear, the sequence was quite chaotic.
Elliott image caption needs a full stop
Added.
"LAFC won a free kick from a similar spot in the 39th minute they almost used to score" => "LAFC won a free kick from a similar spot in the 39th minute which they almost used to score"
Fixed with some tweaks.
"In the 128th minute, LAFC equalized through a Diego Palacios cross that Gareth Bale headed in" => "In the 128th minute, LAFC equalized when Gareth Bale headed in a Diego Palacios cross"
"(now known as BMO Stadium)" - don't think this is relevant as this name came into use after the final was played. I would either remove this or say "from ... known as BMO Stadium"
Moved to the Venue section, since it still has some minor relevance.
Would add "from 2023" instead of "now" since the latter word is a bit vague.
Changed and cited.
"... but LAFC won the Supporters' Shield with the wins tiebreaker." ==> So LAFC won the tiebreaker and were allowed to play the match at their home stadium. Why was/is there no neutral ground to host the final?
The highest-seeded finalist hosts; the explanation is given at the
MLS Cup article and probably doesn't make sense to repeat in the articles for each edition.
Understood, thanks
"LAFC also finished as runners-up in the 2020 CONCACAF Champions League but missed the playoffs in 2021" ==> these are different competitions, I therefore think something like "..., and missed..." (or what you prefer) would fit better here than "but".
Fixed.
Maybe link words such as goalkeeper (in the body of the article), corner kick and draw (in the body and lede)?
Added.
"11–3–3 record" ==> maybe use the
template here to explain that this means 11 wins, 3 losses and 3 draws?
Added.
"Five minuites later" - typo
Fixed.
"equaled the highest-scoring MLS Cup final alongside the 2003 final" ==> who were the teams in 2003 and what was the score?
Added.
"in the Champions League semifinals" ==> semifinals is written with no capital letter, but e.g., "Conference Semifinals" is. Is it standard practice to write the stages of the American competitions with a capital letters but the continental ones without one?
There is a long-running MOS dispute over capitalization and how it works in American sports, but the gist is that the "Conference Semifinals/Finals" are a proper title and branded separately (similar to the Divisional Series in baseball) while in international competitions they are not given special treatment and thus not capitalized.
A man and a woman enslaved in the United States find an opportunity during the War of 1812 to escape their home country and settle down as free people in rural Nova Scotia. Half a century later, their son travels to the American South as a US Navy sailor in the war to end slavery. His grave went unmarked until 2010 when he was honored with a Civil War-era military funeral service. This is one of those instances where you go on vacation, read a historical marker, look to Wikipedia for more information, then end up overhauling the article. I have 7 successful FA nominations so far, plus two FLs. This is my first using non-American English, so I would especially appreciate if anyone can find me misusing Canadian English. Thank you in advance for reading through the article and commenting on the nomination!
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
21:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVetCrop.png/File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVet.jpg need a US tag
{{PD-1996}} added since Canadian copyright law would place it in the public domain as of 1990 (75 years past the 1905 date of creation).
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
13:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Nikkimaria: The earliest publication I can find is the 2010 newspaper article cited in the article. Your question has prompted me to check on the image's original creation date and, according to
the record at the archive that holds the photo, it was created in 1903. For that reason, I have changed the US copyright tag again, this time to {{PD-US-unpublished}}.
File:Harper's_weekly_(1864)_(14784619962)_Crop.jpg: is a more specific tag available?
File:Gun_deck_USS_Richmond_LOC_4a14697v_Crop.jpg: why is this believed to be a work of the federal government? It's credited to what appears to be a private company.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
23:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's a good point. I changed the tag to {{PD-US-unpublished}} since the photographer is unknown but the work was created before 1904.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
13:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Nikkimaria: I believe all image issues you brought up are resolved, including the issue with File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVetCrop.png/File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVet.jpg. Do you agree?
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
23:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"He suffered a serious hand injury and received a Civil War Campaign Medal" → is this the same medal from the previous sentence about the grenade (I assumed so, given the hand injury)? If so, I'd break off the previous sentence after "naval mines" and have a separate sentence about the grenade episode that includes this information rather than repeating the medal bit
"Jackson retired from commercial sailing in 1875, but continued managing" → You can change "Jackson" to "He" since we're still talking about him from the previous sentence, where he's named
"Gun #10, USS Richmond" → unless this is standard practice for these types of things, I would recommend changing to "Gun No. 10" per
MOS:POUND
I can't find a standard. The source uses #, but I think its more appropriate to follow the MOS, so I just changed to match your recommendation.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Early life
"their parents petitioned" → I know what you mean here, but "their" could be a little ambiguous since you've mentioned the children and the families in the first part of this sentence
"In adulthood, Jackson was more than six feet tall" → this doesn't quite fit in here; I would also lean towards questioning its relevance but if you can find a place where it fits I wouldn't object
Removed. Because Jackson is not a super well-documented person, I feel like I need to include every fact I could find about him. This was obviously the hardest to weave into the narrative.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
American Civil War
"At this point in the Civil War" → Does this refer to the specific date of his enlistment or the duration of his service?
"Exploiting Mexico's neutrality, the Confederacy used that country's ports" → it seems a tad clunky to me to name "Mexico" and then use "that country" later in the same sentence. I feel like a rewording that can eliminate the need for separate clauses would be better, perhaps "The Confederacy exploited Mexico's neutrality by using its ports for international trade" or something better you can come up with
"a role he continued to serve" → this is a little picky, but I'd prefer "a role in which he continued to serve" since it sounds more natural to say you "serve in a role" rather than "serve a role"
"At the time, mines were called "torpedoes"." → I think this would be better as a footnote that came after the quote, rather than a full sentence in and of itself. As is, it's a bit confusing as the reader why I'm being told this until I read the next sentence
I think this fact is too crucial for understanding the quote to be relegated to a footnote. Looking over that section, I can't think of a better way to include Farragut's famous quote and have the reader understand what it means. Let me know if you have other thoughts on this.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dugan Murphy Definitely see where you're coming from. Perhaps the two sentences could be combined with a semicolon? "At the time, mines were called "torpedoes"; following the command "Damn the torpedoes..." or something like that? This won't keep me from supporting but the wording of just that sentence still seems off just a bit to me.
PCN02WPS (
talk |
contribs)
18:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I combined the "at the time" sentence with the previous one rather than the following one. Thank you for the idea. The same information is there in the same order, but maybe now the "torpedoes" definition seems less disconnected.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
22:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Nova Scotia became one of four provinces via Canadian Confederation" → this reads a little awkwardly to me; perhaps "as a result of Canadian Confederation"?
Percy Paris's title (which is quite unwieldy) should be capitalized to stay consistent with the other titles in that sentence
Thank you for catching that. Another editor moved everything around in that sentence, which I didn't notice made this necessary. Done.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your attention to the article and your help in improving it! I did sort-of follow your recommendation regarding the torpedoes issue.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
22:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
The lead seems very long for a relatively short article, and
MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests it should consist of "One or two paragraphs".
Is the use of a review of Lincoln's Trident: The West Gulf Blockading Squadron During the Civil War rather than the book itself deliberate?
Yes, in the sense that it provides a summary. I used it as a source for some basic information about the WGBS to contextualize the information more specific to Jackson that I got from other sources.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"to accept a position as ship's cook on the Saint John, New Brunswick-based Marlborough, sailing from Liverpool to New York City." This implies that he boarded the ship in Liverpool. Is that correct? If so, is it known how he got there?
"advancing to a new post on the USS Potomac". Suggest "advancing" → 'moving'.
The VANSDA source said "advanced", so I figured I would use that here to make clear that he was moving into a higher status position.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok.
"actively blockading off the coast of Veracruz, Mexico." That should be 'actively blockading the coast of Veracruz, Mexico.' Also, at this point a reader is thinking "Why is the Union navy blockading Mexico?!"
"Documentation of the injury varies in both cause and severity." Do you mean something like 'Documentation relating to the injury varies in its descriptions of both its cause and severity'?
"Like most Black Canadian veterans of the Union Navy,[d] Jackson returned to his home country" read together with note d "About half of the Black Canadian veterans of the Union Army stayed in the US" does not make sense to me.
"Benjamin Jackson (January 2, 1835 – August 20, 1915) was a Canadian sailor and farmer"; "Like most Black British North American veterans of the Union Navy". Canadian, British?
Jackson was born in the British North American colony of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia was still a British colony until two years after the Civil War ended, when it gained independence through confederation with the other now-Canadian provinces (48 years before Jackson's death). So it seems right to me to introduce him as Canadian in the lead, but refer to the Civil War vets as British North American if they are from anywhere in what is now Canada. Let me know if you have further thoughts on that, particularly if there is a policy on this I'm not aware of.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
22:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this is important information about Jackson and should be in the article. I think your summary above - in green - is admirable. (I assume it is readily sourced. :-) ) Why not insert it somewhere in "Early life"?
I reworded the first two sentences of the Early life section to clarify that Nova Scotia was a colony at the time of his birth. I also added a sentence to the Employment and family section to mark the moment when the Jacksons became Canadian citizens via Confederation.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
18:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"He was still working as a peddler by 1907." "by" → 'in'.
"Jackson started receiving a military pension of US$4 (equivalent to $79.62 in 2023) a month upon discharge from the navy." Suggest 'Jackson received a military pension of US$4 (equivalent to $79.62 in 2023) a month upon discharge from the navy.'
"The pension increased to US$8 a month in 1888, then $10 in 1890, then $14 in 1892." Maybe 'The pension increased to US$8 a month in 1888, $10 in 1890, and $14 in 1892' to avoid the repeat of "then"?
"He later increased it to $17 a month, then $20 circa 1910". "He"? Do you mean 'It was'?
I was trying to make clear that the increases came because of Jackson's persistence with the pension office, but I realize the other sentences around this one make that clear. Changed to "it was".
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Gog the Mild: Thank you for the additional comments! I particularly appreciate having the eyes of a Civil War buff read over the article. I have addressed all of your comments. Do you think anything warrants further discussion?
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Good work. A couple of thoughts above. (I would not consider myself a Civil War buff, I am not even American. But I am a MilHist buff and passably knowledgeable on the
age of sail.)
Gog the Mild (
talk)
18:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks! I feel better about the whole Canada vs. British North America dynamic after adding a little more clarifying content. Do you see anything else worth discussing about the article?
Matarisvan
I reviewed this article at the peer review and found it well written and likely to pass FAC. There is only one thing I would like to suggest,
Dugan Murphy:
Consider restructuring the lead so that it is 4 paragraphs long, which is the FAC criteria.
Hi, I am on a work trip till the 22nd and don't have my laptop on me. I hope to get a source review done by the 23rd or 24th. I hope that is alright. Cheers
Matarisvan (
talk)
18:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Coordinators are free to say otherwise, but I think that should be just fine. I'm still working on attracting more reviewers to look at other aspects of the article.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
19:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Jackson earned a Civil War pension for more than 50 years," I might say "received" rather than "earned". He earned it through his service, he received it later.
"In 1867, Canadian Confederation made Nova Scotia one of four provinces; Jackson and his family became Canadian citizens" I have my doubts on this. I did not think Canada had a separate citizenship until 1947. I would not think that Jackson's status as a British subject changed in 1867.
@
Wehwalt: Thank you for these comments, especially for catching the citizenship thing. That was me misreading the source and not fully grasping the difference between a subject and a citizen. Do you see any other issues keeping this from being FAC-quality?
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. It looks good. No, I didn't see anything in particular that would prevent it from becoming a FA, but I didn't check into the sources in detail and it's not really my area of expertise (such as it is) so there may be things I would miss.
Wehwalt (
talk)
21:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about the
Fountain Fire, a large and destructive
wildfire in rural
Northern California in 1992. The fire itself largely took place over two dramatic days in late August, but its effects persisted in the region long afterward. It destroyed multiple small communities along the
State Route 299 corridor and was only contained by the efforts of more than 4,400 firefighters, making it one of the most destructive and expensive wildfires in state history; as fires in the Golden State have gotten bigger and badder it no longer makes any top 10 lists but remains no slouch. The article was successfully nominated for GA in January 2023 and received a peer review in February 2024. This is my first FAC nomination.
Lead: what is "long-range spotting"? (Googling I get things about hunting telescopes).
"Spotting" refers to wildfire behavior wherein embers and firebrands are lofted by wind or the fire's own convective smoke column and, landing in unburnt vegetation, ignite and thus spread the fire quickly and unpredictably. I've changed the lead to "...behavior such as long-range
spot fires", wiki-linking to
spot fire and
crown fire next to it for good measure. —
Penitentes (
talk)
13:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Background: TIL {{
rp}} has a quote option. I am not sure I like it, but my personal preference is not a FAC criterion.
Could you say something here about what the vegetation / forests in Shasta County were like before the fire?
Great thought. I've added a short paragraph to the "Background" section giving some general geographic context and describing the forest—I don't think it feels redundant to the information given in the "Post-fire landscape" section but please do tell me if you feel that way. —
Penitentes (
talk)
14:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
August 20: " Investigators found pine trees two–three feet (0.61–0.91 m) in diameter snapped in half.[15][19] Such vortices have been recorded ..." so was this snapping blamed on fire vortices?
A map of the local area helping the reader see what is where (a bit more zoomed in than the main map) would be great to understand this section better.
August 22: what is a "hand line"? (I apologise for my lack of fire and firefighting related vocabulary)
Hand line refers to
firebreaks dug/cut using hand tools instead of by bulldozers, as is also common. No need for an apology, I'm so immersed in the subject that it's very helpful to know what terms can and can't be gleaned by fresh readers. I've rephrased it in the article to "constructed
firebreaks by hand" and added that wiki-link to firebreak. —
Penitentes (
talk)
14:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Firefighting effort: is it worth giving more context on the $22 million by using {{
inflation}} or similar?
Closures and evacuations: how long did the evacuation order last?
I agree that this is necessary. It'll take a little longer to dig through the sources but I will try and do it this evening/this weekend, along with the map you mentioned above. —
Penitentes (
talk)
15:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, I think this is largely done. It's difficult to pinpoint what communities were evacuated for which time periods, but I've added this text, which is supported by existing references. "Some residents of burned areas were able to access their properties on August 23 and 24. By August 25, Big Bend, Moose Camp, and Hillcrest were the only communities still under mandatory evacuation orders, and almost all evacuees were able to return by August 28." —
Penitentes (
talk)
21:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, found a Los Angeles Times source and was able to add this new sentence right before the two sentences above: "The majority of these evacuees were able to return to their homes on August 22, leaving 2,000–3,000 still displaced from Moose Camp, Montgomery Creek, Hillcrest, and Round Mountain." I think this now pretty well covers the coverage and duration of the evac orders to the extent the sourcing allows. —
Penitentes (
talk)
14:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Salvage logging: " 10 families belonging to the Pit River Tribe of Native Americans occupied Smith Camp " had occupied?
The prose is in excellent shape already. Some specialist terminology could perhaps be glossed/avoided, but overall I find very little to complain about. I am amazed that this is your first FAC. —
Kusma (
talk)
22:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's very kind! I've responded to all of the comments above, and made changes pursuant to them (barring the new map and the evacuation duration). —
Penitentes (
talk)
15:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Excellent changes. I am happy to hear you are working on an additional map and have one minor point above, but this is already good enough for me to support. —
Kusma (
talk)
21:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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)
15:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Understood. I've left notes on a couple WikiProject talk pages inviting users to comment, but assuming those do not pan out I'll happily accept the archival (any feedback > no feedback) and spend some time reviewing GANs and FACs before I re-nominate this article. —
Penitentes (
talk)
16:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Matarisvan
Hi
Penitentes, good to see this article up at FAC. I was the reviewer at the peer review and found the article to be very well written. I can happily support this article for promotion to FA class. Also, I would appreciate if you could check out a PR I opened recently, linked
here. Thanks in advance, and cheers
Matarisvan (
talk)
11:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi Matarisvan, that's very kind! I was very happy to receive your feedback in my PR request—they were helpful suggestions all—and I'd be happy to lend some time to yours. —
Penitentes (
talk)
18:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The source image for
File:Fountain Fire burn scar.jpg should be correct, the full image extent just doesn't show unless you click it on the source page. If there's a way I can clarify that, let me know!
Converted Bonnicksen to 'cite report'. If #92 is the FEMA link, there's no actual associated report, so it should be OK as is?
@
Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks for your patience! I've added licenses for all underlying data for both of the maps. If any concerns remain relating to the above points, let me know; if not, I will move on to addressing your spot-check comments below tomorrow. —
Penitentes (
talk)
03:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about an 8-mile-long railroad in Rhode Island with a surprisingly long and storied history. It ran from 1876 to 1981 and exists today as the
William C. O'Neill Bike Path. The article recently passed GA, and with the help of a book on the railroad I've been able to expand it to the point I believe it is ready for FAC. It's been over a year since my last nomination, so forgive me if I am a little rusty.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
16:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
Suggest adding alt text
File:Nn_Narragansett_Pier_Railroad._Steam_locomotive_on_steel_bridge.jpg: when and where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Ditto File:NPRR_No_1_'Narragansett'_built_by_Mason_in_1876_and_used_until_about_1891.jpg
These were uploaded by an editor who is, to put it bluntly, not competent (I removed a swath of text they added to the article which was basically copied from online). They've uploaded all sorts of photos like this that they found online and just assumed were public domain without any investigation. The photo of locomotive 1 is also found in the Edward J. Ozog collection:
[18]. The other image can be replaced with a variety of alternatives.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
13:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the long delay in response - I've gone through a difficult move, started a new job, and had my car die on me in the past week. I'm not really sure how to respond to that - the end result of what you're proposing is to delete half the photos from the article (though
[19] may be ok as a postcard which was therefore published). I don't have much in the way of further information on these photos, other that most were published in A Short Haul to the Bay in 1969. I would attempt to keep some of these photos as fair use if they are deleted, because it would be gutting the photos of the article to the point important information would be lost.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
According to
[22], Brown has been collecting these portraits since the 1800s. The portrait collection has been exhibited online by Brown's
Center for Digital Scholarship. The portraits are physically located across the university in various buildings and libraries.
Per Commons, I am unclear on if the original exhibiting of the portraits in university buildings counts as the publication date, or the later (appears to be around 2003) online hosting does. That said, I think we have to be realistic that a portrait completed in 1880 is unlikely to still be protected by copyright.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
15:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I happened upon another portrait of Rowland G. Hazard today, which I uploaded
here. First published in 1889 so unambiguously public domain. I'm still not convinced the current photo in the article isn't also public domain but we have an alternative.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
00:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Streamline_Bus_and_Car-Evans_Motor-Harris_%26_Ewing-1930.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
Nikkimaria (
talk)
05:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll admit to having a penchant for short leads, but in this case
MOS:LEADLENGTH agrees with me. The main body is about 4200 words, which suggests 2-3 paragraphs. Some suggestions for things that can be cut, but these are just a few examples. I'll leave it to you to see what else can be trimmed:
"chiefly Rowland G. Hazard", for a summary, no need to go into this level of detail
"Peace Dale and Wakefield" it's enough to just say "textile mills", no need to specify the towns they were in for this summary.
"absorbed by the Hazards", of course they absorbed it, they owned a thing that was losing money, who else was going to absorb the loss?
"The Hazards also operated a connecting steamboat service to Newport." This article is about the railroad, so that's not essential for a summary.
inherited a mill I'm guessing that means
textile mill, but only because I know a bit about New England history. You should specify what type of mill. Oh, yeah, you say so in the next sentence, but still better to add one word up front to keep the reader from wondering.
The Hazards at first focused on Are you talking here about the father or the sons?
The Hazard family had a very annoying habit of naming one person "Rowland Hazard", his son "Rowland Gibson Hazard", and his son "Rowland Hazard". According to Henwood, the Hazards we are concerned with are Rowland Gibson Hazard, founder of the railroad, and his brother Isaac Peace Hazard. Rowland Hazard, founder of the mills, retired in 1819 according to Henwood, but Heppner says the brothers inherited the mill from him in the late 1820s. Trying to piece together the truth here.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I feel your pain. When I wrote
Margaret Sibella Brown, I discovered that the family seemed to name every newborn girl some variation on Sibella for many generations. I guess when you've got a name that works, you just stick with it :-)
RoySmith(talk)16:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
but focused exclusively on rephrase to avoid repetitive use of "focused"
destroyed the factory and necessitated rebuilding If the factory was destroyed, then it's obvious that it was necessary to rebuild if they were going to continue the business. On the other hand, it wasn't really necessary; they could have just sold the land for another use and not rebuilt at all. So some clarification would help here.
They made a choice to rebuild and to take the opportunity afforded by this to change their product line. I've gathered from elsewhere that a major incident where Rowland G. Hazard intervened in favor of a free black man from Newport being held falsely as an escaped slave in Louisiana, and secured the release of over 100 others in similar situations. He also was active with the Republican Party once that came into being. I redid the sentences here.
this source draws a direct link between Hazard's activities and the change in business as well, but dates the change to 1849. Not sure which is correct.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm still having trouble with this section. When you say "had begun to harm the sale of cotton products in the slaveholding southern states" are you saying that the south in general was buying fewer cotton products, or that southern buyers were specifically not buying from the Hazards as a political protest/boycott? I'm guessing the later, in which case, how about something like:
Rowland G. Hazard's strong abolitionist sympathies had begun to harm his ability to sell cotton products in the slaveholding southern states, as southern buyers turned to other suppliers. This led the brothers to switch to manufacturing high-quality wool products which they could sell into more favorable markets.
I'm guessing that wool was more popular in the north, where it was colder so people needed fabrics from which they could make warmer clothes? Be that as it may, I'm still thinking you want a paragraph break here. One paragraph would talk about their choice of products in response to market pressures: moving away from cotton to avoid the (I'm assuming) boycott issues, and separately moving from low-grade woolens to higher-grade woolens because (I'm assuming) that was more profitable. And then, in a second paragraph, talk about the engineering factors; switching to a different power source (steam vs water) and the issues that arose from that having to do with transporting coal for the steam boilers.
RoySmith(talk)23:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Rowland G. Hazard's strong abolitionist sympathies harmed the sale of cotton products in the slaveholding southern states this is an abrupt change of topic. What does this have to do with what comes before (the fire and rebuilding) or after (the re-powering to use steam)? Seems like it belongs in another section somewhere.
The significance of this, according to Heppner, was a shift in products from lower quality cottons, wools, and linens to woolen yarns of high quality. The transition from water power to steam power took place shortly afterwards, leading to a need for coal (imported by ship from mid-Atlantic ports like Philadelphia, as Rhode Island had little in the way of coal). The mills being several miles from the port at Narragansett Pier made getting the coal there a problem, as there were no trucks back then. This was one of the reasons the Hazards built the railroad. Heppner does tend to go into what some might call off topic or too much exposition, in that he tried to make a book enjoyable both for experts with the subject matter and the general reader, so maybe some of this detail can be trimmed from the article. The key point is that when the mills switched to steam power it provided impetus for a railroad to get the coal from the port to the mills. Henwood also mentions Rowland G. Hazard as an abolitionist but doesn't link that to the railroad directly. He does mention Rowland G.'s investments in the building of the Union Pacific Railroad which I appear to have neglected to add to the article previously.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
neither efficient or cheap for the mill drop "for the mill". For whom else would the efficiency or cost be an issue? Also, I suppose this is a style preference, but saying "inefficient and expensive" seems more straight forward. Taking that one step further, being inefficient implies extra cost, so maybe all that could be reduced to just "was expensive".
I reworded as "The boilers required coal, imported to the coastal town of Narragansett Pier four miles (6.4 km) southeast by ships and then loaded on wagons and brought to the mills by wagons, a process costly in both time and money." Henwood mentions the coal could be bought cheaply from Philadelphia and imported by schooner, but a railroad was needed to move the coal cheaply and quickly from the docks to the mills.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
(commonly known as the Stonington Line, for its western terminus in Stonington, Connecticut) This is a long and complicated sentence. I'd leave this parenthetical out completely, as knowing it doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of this article's subject.
I can definitely remove most of the parenthetical, but I've been told that if I'm going to use an alternate name (and the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad was almost universally known as the Stonington Line) that name needs to be introduced.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
hampered the mill's ability In the lead, you talk about two mills (Peace Dale and Wakefield), but here you say there's just one. That needs to be sorted out.
That sentence in the lead is one of the only sentences remaining from before I rewrote the article. While Karr says mills in Peace Dale and Wakefield, Heppner and Henwood concur that the Hazards' mills were in Peace Dale, though Henwood states mills were also present in nearby Wakefield (the two villages are so close together you can walk from one to the other in less than half an hour). He writes "By mid-century, the textile industry had developed and was centered in the villages of Peace Dale and nearby Wakefield. The Peace Dale Manufacturing Company, controlled by the Hazard family, dominated the economic life of the community". The driving force for building the railroad was the Hazard family mills, but they certainly wouldn't turn away other paying freight customers. I'm going to change the lead to just discuss the Hazard family mills in Peace Dale.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Elisha R. Potter provided an additional $15,000 in funding, use {{inflation}} (here and elsewhere)
when the stockholders held a meeting on January 26, 1876, I'd say "subsequent meeting". Yes, you can work out from the dates that this isn't the same meeting referred to earlier, but this'll make it more obvious. Stopping to figure out the chronology interrupts the reader's flow, so save them the effort.
The Stonington Line also agreed to subscribe $15,000 towards the line's construction between 1875 and 1876. More fuzzy chronology. After you talk about a meeting in 1876, you back up to talk about an agreement in 1875. It's also not immediately clear what "the line" refers to. The Stonington Line or the proposed Narragansett Pier line?
This is sourced to the Stonington Line's annual report dated October 1876
[24]. The directors wrote "In accordance with the policy heretofore pursued, of aiding to a moderate extent in the construction of Branch Roads likely to increase the business of this Company, $15,000 has been invested in the capital stock of the Narragansett Pier Railroad, at par." The report is "for the 13 months ending 30th September, 1876" making it unclear which year the investment was made exactly. This made the Stonington Line the biggest stockholder besides members of the Hazard family. Open to suggestions on how to word this better. Perhaps we drop "between 1875 and 1876" since the investment had to have been made before the line opened and that should be fairly clear to the reader.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reworded as "The Stonington Line also agreed to subscribe $15,000 towards the line's construction in hopes that the opening of the new railroad would provide it with more business."
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm going to (politely) press you on using {{inflation}}. For stuff that happened 150-ish years ago, our readers won't have a feel for whether $15,000 is a lot, an astronomical lot, or something in between.
RoySmith(talk)21:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Now done, except for the sentence in the Great Depression section where four dollar amounts are called out. I think adding the inflation templates 4 times in a row would be very unwieldy for reading.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That seems reasonable, although maybe just convert the first one in the sentence? BTW, take a look at the markup in
American Bank Note Company Printing Plant where I got it to generate a less verbose version, for example $10 million ($339 million in 2023). I think I've settled on using the default "equivalant to" version the first time in an article, then the shorter version after that.
RoySmith(talk)13:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A locomotive was purchased from the Mason Machine Works... this is an overly complex sentence. The inclusion of a multiple-sentence quote makes it particularly difficult to parse. Also, when was the purchase? And what's a "flag stave"?
Flag staves allow for the mounting of flags on a locomotive
like this. They were an optional extra Rowland G. Hazard had no right to demand when he was paying a rock bottom price for the locomotive. The locomotive was ordered in May 1876 and arrived in June, both of which I have clarified in the text. I've broken up the sentence.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
22:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
single tickets were available for travel on both railroads I assume this was some kind of revenue-share arrangement? If there's any information available, it might be interesting to explain a bit how that worked. Did the customer get a discount vs purchasing the two fares separately?
Henwood writes "Tickets were sold to all points on the Stonington Road under the tariff arrangement with that carrier, but the Narragansett Pier Railroad was unable to make similar "drawback" arrangements with other New England lines". That's all the detail the book gives.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
22:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
the railroad's sole passenger car I'm guessing this was
Mixed train operation? If so, link to that.
There was mixed train operation later on, but at this point the company ran separate passenger and freight trains. The locomotive would shuttle back and forth with the line's sole passenger car.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
22:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Travelers from Providence could reach Narragansett Pier in approximately 80 minutes' time as a sad commentary on the current state of rail in the US, that is significantly faster than Google Maps claims you can do today.
Travelers from as far away as New York City ... to the Narragansett Pier Railroad for the final stretch overly long and complex sentence.
(done with everything through the end of "Second period of Hazard Family operations")
(picking up with "American Associates ownership" in
Special:Permalink/1231293569)
at a cost of $25,000, saying "for" would be simpler (thinking lovingly of my copy of Strunk and White).
Actually, I'd refactor these two sentences into "American Associates purchased the railroad from the Hazard family in April 1946 at a cost of $25,000.[2][59] American was the family trust of Royal Little who was also the founder and owner of Textron, then a textiles company."
Passenger service was subsequently officially terminated at the end of that year Why "officially"? That makes me think that service continued in some unofficial capacity. Also, drop "subsequently" that's implicit in "at the end of that year".
The authorization to terminate passenger service didn't come from the RI Public Utilities Commission until the end of the year, and as a common carrier the railroad couldn't just decide not to carry them on its own. The few remaining passengers were carried either in taxis or the railroad superintendent's car from June until the railroad received permission to end passenger service. De facto, there were no passenger trains run after June 1952. Unlike the
Wood River Branch Railroad, I don't see any indication passengers were carried on trains informally after this point (that is, until Hanold enters the picture later). Added to the article.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
With passenger service gone, only minimal freight traffic was carried to and from Narragansett Pier I'm not understanding this sentence. It seems to imply that the ending of passenger service was the cause of the decreased freight traffic.
The intended message is that passenger service was pretty much all that went to Narragansett Pier. Hanold says the company average 3 inbound freight cars a year there, and the higher outbound total of 51 carloads over the last 5 years was only due to a military base being decommissioned and the military shipping out a bunch of their equipment by rail. Added more detail about this.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think there's a few left. I am dealing with a difficult situation irl still (I don't have a car and am working to get a new one) and that has greatly limited my editing time. I was hoping to have that dealt with by now but it's taking longer than I'd like.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Update, happy to report that my IRL circumstances have improved as I have a car finally. I should be much more active in the coming week and hopefully address most if not all of the remaining reviewer comments. Thank you all for your patience.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
20:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
RoySmith: The article should be ready for you to take a second look now. The only thing I'd say is outstanding is the lead section, but given Dugan Murphy below supports the lead section as is (and I agree with him personally) I'm reluctant to cut much more from it.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll defer on the lead length. The only thing I'm still going to push on is the bit in "Background and formation" about the abolitionist sympathies. What you've got now is awkward. I've suggested one way in my comments above that it might get reworked, but I'm not wedded to that. I do think this needs some kind of reworking to make it all flow better.
RoySmith(talk)23:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Poor's Manual is more fully titled "Poor's Manual of the Railroads of the United States". I would also throw in the volume number (37) since that's readily available.
Setting over a dozen citations to Railroads of Rhode Island across a page range of pp. 126–133, 155–157 seems unfair to the reader, especially when you use sfns for Henwood, who is also cited throughout.
Karr is also a book with a page range reused several time, but I would call that less egregious because the whole thing only uses a 3-page range
Utterly a prose nitpick in the middle of my source review, but "compelled by complaints to reduce its passenger fares in 1901, though passengers continued to complain" - complaint/complain in the same sentence feels repetitive.
That's actually it, I didn't find much formatting to snark about
I did clarify in the caption of the legacy image that it's a replica station, feel free to revert if I misunderstood
Spot checks
Not required but doing anyway to be extra. Performed basically at random from what seemed interesting or was accessible.
Ref 1 good
I don't have full access to Heppner, but information checked through Google snippets didn't turn up any issues
Ref 18 good
Ref 20 was annoying to find on the page, but checks out
Refs 27, 28, 29 all good
Refs 33, 34, 36, 37 also good - I've asked to look at ref 35 mainly since I'm already doing this paragraph Recieved and checks out.
Ref 50 good, access via TWL - might be nice to have a link to the ProQuest version, since it's "via" ProQuest, I had to go looking myself :P
Ref 57 good
Ref 62 I can't access but the info is supported by Heppner even though it's not cited here (was looking at Heppner citation for Wakefield Branch Company buying a locomotive and it's nearby in Heppner)
I'm satisfied by the source formatting. Spot checks turned up no issues with either accuracy or copyvio. Sources used are appropriately high-quality; old newspaper sources are used judiciously to support non-contentious statements or reportage as it was stated at the time. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)07:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It appears that the last name of the author of the book in the references list is Henwood, and his middle initials are N. J. The way it is written out, it looks like "N. J. Henwood" is his last name. I recommend moving the initials to the first name parameter. That would of course mean editing all the SFN citations to match.
What do you think about moving the Heppner reference listing to the General references section and using more page-specific inline citations to it, as you do with the Henwood book?
Why is the Legacy section a subsection of the Later owners section rather than at the same hierarchical level?
I felt weird about having a section at the same level with only a few sentences, but if consensus is making this a full section header is the way to go I'm fine with that.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
How is the See also section helpful to the reader?
The intent was to link the other Rhode Island shortlines, most of which have long histories like this one. I've debated making a good topic on these since all 5 entries are GA or higher.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe this is just me, but I would prefer to see the References section changed to "Citations" and the General references section changed to "References". I'm saying that because I've seen "General references" used for lower-quality articles that acknowledge generally where the information came from but lack inline citations.
Rowland G. Hazard's strong abolitionist sympathies harmed the sale of cotton products in the slaveholding southern states. Is that because anti-abolitionists boycotted Hazard's products?
This played a part, yes. I made substantial changes to this area in response to RoySmith's comments above which hopefully make this clearer for you as well.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I recommend changing "slaveholding southern states" to "slave states" and Wikilinking
slave state. That is, in case that sentence is rewritten to take the focus away from slave states to people within them who may have been boycotting Hazard's products.
not long after the rebuild steam power started to be used instead – This phrase needs a comma after "rebuild", but I recommend this rewording instead: "it converted to steam power shortly after the rebuild".
The sentence that starts The boilers required coal is a bit unwieldy. I think it would be easier to read if broken up. Also, the "or" should be "nor". If kept as one sentence, you could change wagons, which was neither efficient or cheap for the mill. to "wagons; this was neither efficient nor cheap for the mill."
approval for a new charter in 1868 – was there an old charter?
No, this was the first charter, so I removed "new".
The charter was approved in 1868, and the survey was completed "promptly" afterward, but construction couldn't start because of a financial panic that didn't start until 5 years later? Is it that "promptly" means 5+ years or neither party had ever built a railroad before implies a 5-year delay?
The Hazards struggled to raise funding for the railroad. The Stonington Line's $15,000 didn't come until 1875/6. Beyond the Hazard family, there wasn't really anyone in the area at that time with the money to drop on financing a new railroad beyond small purchases of shares by local residents and businesses. Henwood says "There was a long struggle to raise money, and many disappointing setbacks were encountered. As a result of the Panic of 1873, the financial climate grew increasingly chilly for new enterprises." I have made this more explicit in the text.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
19:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
could count on sounds a little too far off
WP:NPOV for my taste.
The two uses of Rowland G. Hazard's full name in the Construction section would read better as just "Hazard". By that point, there haven't been any mentions of other Hazards for a while.
At least the first mention of his full name is appropriate, I believe, especially since "Hazards" plural is used in the previous sentence. Rowland G. was the biggest driver for funding and building the railroad, but his relative John N. Hazard was company president (Henwood writes, He was of a studious and retiring disposition, and spent more time with his books and chemical experiments than he did on railroad affairs). I am personally inclined to keep the second mention as well; two uses of the full name over three fairly lengthy paragraphs seems reasonable to me.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
23:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would like to see a couple of contextual words to help the reader understand what a flag stand/stave is. Like, "Disappointed that he would be unable to fly flags from the front of the train, Hazard complained: 'We do not find flag stands on the engine'".
The sources emphasize that Mason, very much busy running an entire manufacturing company, was so peeved by Hazard that he took time out of his day to write a personal response lambasting his demands. Henwood says "On July 24th, the exasperated builder took time to reply to this customer who had purchased the grand total of one locomotive at a minimum price and then demanded extra frills", and Heppner states this was the culmination of multiple letters sent to Mason by Hazard. For that reason, I think it is necessary.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
reply to Hazard stating should be "reply to Hazard, stating:".
The exasperated Mason quote is a bit long. I think it would be better to summarize most of it and only quote the interesting non-NPOV bits like "expensive and boyish".
I removed "One pump is sufficient", which I felt was not very interesting compared to the "expensive and boyish" comment and Mason's pointed words about how the locomotive was the cheapest he had ever sold.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Add something to define side-dump car if you're going to use that term. You could Wikilink
Side dump car in the hopes that it is someday expanded, but at this time, it is very unhelpful.
I agree that the gondola article needs some expansion (I wrote the history section there). I've added that link as a starting point, since at least the photo there makes is clearer what's being referred to.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
23:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Culprit is poor word choice for maintaining NPOV.
I believe this is an accurate reflection of the source, which has an entire section entitled "amateurs assemble a railroad" and repeatedly points out their last minute scrambles to address issues and ill preparation for the task of running a railroad. I think we need to remember that NPOV does not mean "no POV".
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
(despite Hazard hoping to open the line on July 1) – I don't think this needs to be in parentheses.
Initially, four round trips were run daily for passengers, but demand quickly grew to the point this number was increased to six could be shorter and more straightforward: "The line initially ran four round trips per day, but demand quickly grew this number to six"
filled to the brim is a poor choice of phrase for maintaining NPOV.
Respectfully disagree. It is accurate to the source and not an opinion. I am a proponent of encyclopedic writing and interesting writing, and don't see the two as being at odds. This is an encyclopedia written by humans for humans, and I do not see anything in NPOV that says writing such as this example is against policy.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
ice was imported in trains for cooling during the summers – being a Maine historian familiar with the 19th-century New England ice industry, I take this to mean that ice shipped on this line was used for refrigeration and maybe air conditioning. If that's the case, I recommend making that more obvious.
Yes, it was precisely that. I see how this might be interpreted as cooling the trains themselves, so I reworded. The sentence is now "ice was imported in trains for local use as a coolant during the summers" with "ice was imported" linked to
ice trade. Since you're more familiar with this topic, let me know if this conveys the meaning properly.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
was started could just be "started".
I don't agree, I believe "was started" is the proper language as the act of starting was something done by the employees, not something the engine did by itself.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
necessary - passengers – that should be an en dash, not a hyphen.
Halfway through the Operation by the Hazard Family section, Narragansett Pier is being referred to as a resort town, but until then, the reader has only heard about the town's industrial concerns. I recommend adding a little bit to the Background section about the town's resort economy. Or at the very least, preface the first mention of Narragansett Pier of a resort town with something like "Narragansett Pier's tourism economy was also growing" or something like that.
I apparently read your mind, because I only just read this now but added Narragansett Pier's potential as a coastal resort had been known to businessmen since the construction of its first hotel in 1856, but significant growth was held back by poor transportation links earlier today.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
second locomotive used – I had to read this twice. The second locomotive was second-hand?
Yes, their urgency for a second locomotive combined with limited funding meant they ended up with a used locomotive (originally built 1872) from the Providence and Worcester Railroad. Reworded as "purchased a used locomotive from the Providence and Worcester Railroad".
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
20,000 short tons (18,000 long tons; 18,000 t) of freight – What does this mean?
The Wikilink for "passenger train" comes late in the body. I recommend moving the link to the first use of that term, earlier in the body. I also recommend a piped link from "passenger business" in the lead.
Does "the Pier" refer to the Narragansett Pier or a pier within Narragansett Pier?
"The Pier" is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. It should be if this is an abbreviation for the town name.
The Narragansett Pier Railroad was compelled by complaints to reduce its passenger fares in 1901, though passengers continued to complain that the railroad required long layover times for travelers connecting with trains to and from Providence. The two halves of this sentence don't seem as connected as the "though" connector makes it seem. Or am I missing something?
the trip to Narragansett Pier was only a matter of minutes – from where?
The monopoly allegation was also made in 1898 by proponents of a new steamboat wharf in Narragansett Pier that would connect to Providence, who pointed to the railroad's high rates (at the time 50 cents between Kingston and Narragansett pier) and surcharges on coal shipments. I recommend rewording and probably splitting into more than one sentence. Reading this the first time, it looked like Providence pointed, though I understand it was the proponents who pointed.
They found a buyer "They" are the Hazards, not the Pier, right?
They found a buyer in the New Haven, which under the control of J. P. Morgan was fearful of the Southern New England Railway and its plans to build a competing rail line in the area; were the Southern New England to buy the Narragansett Pier, it would have an outlet to Narragansett Bay. This sentence is unwieldy. Who is under Morgan's control? The buyer? How could Southern New England Railway buy the town of Narragansett Pier?
I think "small change" is a poor choice of phrase for maintaining NPOV.
Ditto "one-way track towards bankruptcy".
shareholders that distrusted should be "shareholders who distrusted".
Reworded to better describe what I intended to convey, which was that for a company that operated streetcars, trying to integrate a short line which only used steam locomotives was particularly difficult.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
01:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
I recommend changing Though it was never an intentional act, the Narragansett Pier Railroad's new owners neglected to "The Narragansett Pier Railroad's new owners unintentionally neglected". It's less wordy and, in my opinion, more aligned with NPOV.
The article starts using USRA without making clear what it is abbreviating.
which could not claim much importance in the war effort seems tacked onto its sentence without being that relevant to it.
How did the USRA cut passenger rail service and overwork the locomotives at the same time?
By neglecting their maintenance.
I would argue that the "finally" in "finally failed" is unnecessary and leans away from NPOV.
I don't understand what you mean. This is "finally" because there was a previous history of financial trouble. The "finally" makes it clear that this wasn't a spontaneous bankruptcy but the culmination of years of financial problems. That doesn't have anything to do with NPOV as I understand it.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As part of the resolution of the Rhode Island Company's assets, the Narragansett Pier lease was cancelled in 1920; the USRA returned operations to the Hazard family on March 1, 1920. So the lease was canceled, then the Hazards took back control?
This is because of the nationalization. The Sea View failed in 1919, but federal control didn't end until March 1, 1920, and the court cases dealing with the Rhode Island Company's assets concluded with the Narragansett Pier Railroad lease being cancelled before the end of federal control.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
already proven to be a maintenance headache just to get operational is a poor phrase choice for NPOV.
I don't really agree, but nevertheless I have redone this section to give more detail on the issues with the railcar and removed this phrasing in the process.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
citing competition by cars and trucks – given the predominant use of car for rolling stock, I recommend replacing with "automobile".
was not ignorant of the role of automobiles is poor phrasing for NPOV.
What part of this contradicts NPOV? NPOV does not mean that writing cannot be expressive, and the sentence is an accurate description of the state of affairs and a faithful representation of the views of the cited sources. Management knew that the automobile was a threat and decided "if you can't beat them, join them".
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
(in large part, this covered the route of the abandoned Sea View Railroad). I think this would read better as its own sentence outside parentheses.
spelled the end is not a great phrase for maintaining NPOV.
I don't know what to say to this beyond I simply do not agree. Using language such as this doesn't have anything to do with POV, and your interpretation seems to be that any sort of remotely expressive language is disallowed. I do not believe that is how NPOV is intended, and have never faced such criticisms before in any of my GANs or FACs.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
To improve readability, I think which sat on valuable land in demand for commercial use should be set apart from the rest of the sentence with en dashes rather than commas.
At the behest of the State of Rhode Island, which was building a highway crossing the railroad right-of-way near Narragansett Pier, the now seldom-used segment beyond Wakefield was abandoned, shortening the line to approximately five miles (8.0 km) in length. Unfortunately for the state, by the time the Interstate Commerce Commission gave the railroad permission to abandon the segment, work on the bridge had progressed to the point it was cheaper to complete it than to abandon its construction. I don't understand what's happening here.
The state asked the railroad to abandon the very infrequently used part of the line from Wakefield to Narragansett Pier so that a proposed highway crossing the route would no longer need a bridge. The railroad eventually obtained ICC approval, but by the time it came through work had already started on the bridge and it was now cheaper to simply finish the bridge than demolish what had been built and redo the highway to cross the former railroad alignment at grade.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Where does the quote "liquified fish guts" come from?
The entire Legacy section should be rewritten to improve shelf life: has been converted to "was converted" and since 2010 terminates under a mile from Narragansett Pier to "in 2010 was extended to a mile outside Narragansett Pier". For the last two sentences, adding "as of 2007/2017" is appropriate because those publications cannot say what is standing today.
I'm of the opinion that everything in the infobox should be drawn from the article body. Can you add the track gauge to the body? I'm also not sure the 8-mile length shows up in the body. The reporting mark doesn't.
The length was actually 8.5 miles, though officially reported as 8 in a number of sources. This has been corrected and both sourced and stated in the body. The reporting mark comes up as NAP in The Official Railway Equipment Register on Google books, though unfortunately only a snippet view is available. Nonetheless I have cited it as it shows enough to me that I can confirm the reporting mark is correct. I cannot conceive of any way to discuss a reporting mark in the body, and also disagree that the gauge needs to be explicitly discussed. Essentially every single railroad in North America has used standard gauge since the Civil War ended.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
09:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Kingston Station as well could use a comma before "as"
non-rail operations; steam locomotives: I don't think the second part of that sentence relates enough to the first part to justify joining them with a semicolon.
The last paragraph of the lead should be reworded to preserve shelf life. Most of the right-of-way has been converted could be "In the 21st century, most of the right-of-way was converted". And using now operates is asking for it to become out of date.
I don't see an issue with saying "most of the right-of-way has been converted". The trail isn't going anywhere, and the chances of it becoming a railroad ever again are infinitesimal sadly. I changed the wording of the last sentence to "along with a steam locomotive that has been restored to operation by the Everett Railroad".
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Modified further as "Several railroad structures have been preserved, along with a steam locomotive that was restored to operating status in 2015 by the Everett Railroad."
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Overall
Despite my long long list of comments, I think the prose is good enough to be FAC-worthy if all of those comments are addressed. Honestly, if I had it to do over again, I would say that this article should go back to peer review before writing out all those comments. Having done so, however, I think there's an opportunity to bring the article to FAC quality here. Earwig finds no likely plagiarism. It is certainly well-researched, assuming PMC's source check finds that the sources are all good and represent a comprehensive survey of the relevant sources. The article is certainly comprehensive in telling all the twists and turns in the railroad's history and I think the lead does a great job compressing all that detail into something that can be consumed quickly and easily.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
22:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I appreciate that real life happens, but one of the FAC rules is "Nominators are expected to make efforts to ... address objections promptly." Some reviewer comments have been outstanding for a month, which is not acceptable. You may wish to consider withdrawing the nomination and renominating it when you have more time. In any event, if all outstanding comments are not addressed within 48 hours the nomination is liable to be archived.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
12:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I appreciate that real life happens Clearly, you do not. In the past month I moved, started a new job, and had my car die on the side of the road in the middle of the night. These presented challenges I did not anticipate at the time of nomination. I had points where I went days without even having the opportunity to log into Wikipedia at all due to real life concerns, which take precedence over an online encyclopedia. Despite all of this, I have been consistently working over the past week to address comments. Dugan Murphy left an extremely long list of comments (I count one hundred and five!!!!) that I have dedicated hours of my time to addressing. I had to do additional research and find new sources in response to some of his comments and to improve the article. Do me a favor and archive this now. And when people ask why editors refuse to participate in FAC, maybe remember this moment. I certainly won't be back anytime soon.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
23:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Gog the Mild and
Trainsandotherthings: I came to this FAC intending to review it because the subject matter (New England railroading) interests me. If I have your blessings, then I would like to help out this week with addressing outstanding comments.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
01:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll accept your generous offer, thank you. I believe most of the remaining concerns are prose concerns, as opposed to questions which require deep dives into the sources (unfortunately the best ones are offline).
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My fourth nomination, following the
Aston Martin DB9,
Aston Martin Rapide and the
Lagonda Taraf; the former two have both been promoted whilst the latter is awaiting its promotion. This article is about the 2012 Aston Martin Vanquish, a gorgeous car based upon the now 20 year old platform of the DB9. I believe this article is well written and well sourced. Enjoy the read!
750h+08:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review by Arconning
File:2014 Aston Martin Vanquish, skyfall silver.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
File:2015 Aston Martin Vanquish, rear left (Lisbon).jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:2014 Aston Martin Vanquish Volante 5.9 V12 (52055905516) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
File:2017 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato VH319Z.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:2017 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Rear.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:2019 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Shooting Brake no 73 at Greenwich 2019, front left.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
File:2019 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Shooting Brake no 73 at Greenwich 2019, rear left.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
File:2018 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Speedster in Golden Saffron, front right (Greenwich 2019).jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
File:2018 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Speedster in Golden Saffron, rear right (Greenwich 2019).jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
All images have good alt-text and are relevant to the article.
The six images under the section of "Vanquish Zagato" seem formatted well.
As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse, with adequate justification.
Is the promotional quote at the start of the History section necessary?
removed
Much of the first paragraph of the history section seems tangential: a succession of "at [date] [car show], Aston Martin unveiled the [car]" isn't very useful. What do they have to do with the 2012 Vanquish?
its background. Ive split that off.
"At the 2012 edition" month?
added
Is the Concorso's location needed?
removed
There seems very little discussion of the original Vanquish
its a completely unrelated car; in the car industry, same nameplate does not equal related car
"Aston Martin revealed a concept car called the Project AM310 Concept. In June 2012, the company announced that the production version of this concept" lots of "concept"ing going around; prose should be tighter.
fixed
"and succeeding the DBS." succeeding as what?
it replaces the DBS. ive specified that
"The Vanquish debuted at several events" I was under the impression that a debut happens once.
changed to “showcased”
" of the coupe" the
WP:ELEGVAR isn't helpful, especially as the car hasn't been called a coupe yet.
changed to “car”
A rather abrupt jump between "manufacture began" and "production ended", six years apart. Also seems like the variants would be better suited as subsections of "History"
I have moved this. It is a short section though. Not much is available on the convertible, so i don’t believe the latter suggestion is necessary
"the fourth generation of the vertical/horizontal platform" this platform has been linked before, and I still don't know what it is (
MOS:NOFORCELINK)
is this better?
"which is thirty per cent stiffer and lighter...was enhanced by 25 per cent" compared to?
fixed
There are four occurences of "The Vanquish features...", including two at the start of paragraphs, which makes the section feel slightly too promotional.
removed
WP:NOTSTATS says: "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing". This is the case for too much of the "Design and technology" section. Can you explain the necessity of the following statistics, and how do they compare in context with other cars:
The length and piston-number of the callipers
removed that
The ... something of the tyres (I have absolutely no clue what "255/35R20" is supposed to mean)
removed that too, really isn’t necessary
The individual fuel consumption ratings for city driving, highways, and combined (shouldn't the last be sufficient?)
agreed, removed the other two
The engine's power/torque output
every article on a car should have those stats
Is there nothing about the visual similiarities/differences with other cars?
This source takes that line.
comparisons with other cars generally aren’t helpful. Plus, the source provided just includes its predecessor and its concept
"hand-stitched leather and Alcantara" where on the car
explained via footnote
The tenses need a look: see e.g. the switch in "Its maximum speed remained unchanged, but its 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration has been changed to 4.2 seconds.
"Weighing 1,844 kilograms (4,065 lb), the Vanquish is 105 kilograms (231 lb) heavier than the coupe and 34 kilograms (75 lb) more massive more than its predecessor, the DBS Volante." Fair few points: the Vanquish is ... heavier than the Vanquish? "more massive more"? what's the difference between heavier and more massive? My understanding was that they were the same on Earth.
mistype; fixed
"The convertible top of the Volante ... operates in fourteen seconds" this is annoyingly imprecise: obviously you mean that it takes fourteen seconds to open and close, but instead the article just says it "operates", which could mean anything.
specified
"The car's boot space has been significantly increased over the Vanquish coupe, with a capacity of 279 litres (9.9 cu ft)" the article doesn't actually say what the Vanquish coupe's boot space is, only that its cargo space is nearly 100 litres larger than the convertible.
done
It would be better to move the sentence talking about dealing with added weight to immediately follow the sentence talking about said extra weight.
(refer to above)
Tenses again awry in the "Vanquish S" subsection
fixed
"an optional "graphics packs""?
removed
Is the Palmer quote needed?
I think its a nice add-on
Nothing about what differentiated the Zagato edition, aside from it being a collaboration?
Ive added some characteristics.
It is also the first and only section which talks about units produced. Is there nothing in the sources about corresponding figures for the other models?
Nope, unfortunately
Why does the "Variants" section talk about when "deliveries began", while the "History" section mentions when "manufacture" began and "production" ended? Are they the same thing?
Manufacture/production means when the first units rolled out of the production line. Deliveries is when the cars got delivered to the customers
Are the double images for each Zagato model needed? If yes, consider using
Template:Multiple image.
done
"Reviewers and automotive publishers mostly praised the Vanquish's opulent exterior and interior." gives the impression that the following paragraph is going to be about the opulence, but this is not the case. See
WP:RECEPTION for how to better organise a section.
removed.
For the current state of the article, I'm going to note a weak oppose. The lack of preparation for FAC is clearly evident through the varying levels of focus, prose issues, and general absence of polish. The good news is that it's not a bad article by any means, and is fairly short, so not hard to improve. To the nominator: if you want me to have another look, ping me when you're sure all issues (including ones not mentioned) have been fixed, and I'll have another (final) look.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
13:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
AirshipJungleman29: I believe I have addressed all your comments. I hope we can strike that oppose! Personally I don't think it's as bad as thought, I just think there's a lot of car jargon which may be confusing to non-car people.
750h+15:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"a presentation to a group of guests at the London Film Museum" → this is the only one of the three events in the sentence that doesn't have a month - recommend mentioning July as you do in the body
done
"with deliveries initiating in late 2013" → simplify wording, change "initiating" to "starting" or "beginning"
done
"performance, whilst a more significantly" → recommend eliminating "whilst" and breaking this sentence there (especially since "whilst" implies simultaneous events and these two events happened two years apart)
done
"comprising" → doesn't really fit with "various body styles" so I'd recommend using a different word there
fixed
History
No notes.
Design and tech
"Its structure" → the car's structure or the VH platform's structure?
fixed
"from the DBS, DB9 and Rapide" → serial comma is used earlier in the article but not here; either way is fine but this should be consistent
fixed
Variants
"Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance Aston Martin" → add comma before "Aston"
done
"maximum speed remained unchanged," [past tense] "but its 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration has been changed to 4.2 seconds" [present perfect continuous]
fixed
"which is crafted of triple-layer fabric" → sounds a little advertisement-y, maybe "made of"?
done
"The transmission response time was improved. The Vanquish S also features" → another tense shift
fixed
"composed of exposed carbon fibre, diamond-turned alloy wheels and carbon bonnet louvres" → another instance of no serial comma
fixed
"At the 2016 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este in May" → maybe "At the May 2016 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este" for simplicity?
done
"deliveries were also initiated in 2017" → for simplicity and changing the passive voice, maybe "deliveries also started in 2017"
done
"of the series—the" → recommend comma rather than dash
done
Reception
"bewitchingly beautiful always"." → since the whole sentence is in quotes, you can move the full stop inside the quote marks
I know a spotcheck isn't technically needed, but I thought I'd check a few since I found some spotcheck issues in a recent GA by 750h+. Footnote numbers refer to
this version.
FN 54 cites "In August 2014, Aston Martin introduced technical updates to the Vanquish model. The modifications included a new eight-speed automatic transmission, known as 'Touchtronic III', and an upgraded engine. The upgraded engine produces 424 kilowatts (576 PS) and 630 newton-metres (460 lbf⋅ft) of torque, sufficient to give the car a 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration time of 3.6 seconds; its maximum speed remained unchanged." Some of these details don't appear to be in the source: the August date, for example, and the power and torque figures. The 3.6 seconds time is for accelerating to 60 mph, not 62 mph. The maximum speed did in fact increase according to the source.
FN 65 cites "Its power output was increased to 595 horsepower (444 kW) whilst its torque output was increased to 630 newton-metres (465 lb⋅ft). Aston Martin improved the response time of the transmission. The Vanquish S also features a new body kit composed of exposed carbon fibre, diamond-turned alloy wheels and carbon bonnet louvres. The seats are upholstered in Bridge of Weir Caithness leather." The source says the torque was unchanged. A couple of phrases are repeated: "a new bodykit in exposed carbonfibre" is in the source -- I don't think I know what a bodykit is, but if it just means bodywork then this could be rephrased a little more. Some of the phrases that are repeated would be pretty hard to reword -- e.g. "carbon bonnet louvres". However, if I understand the source correctly, some of the items listed are options, so we shouldn't phrase this as though they were standard -- e.g. the Bridge of Weir Caithness leather.
FN 29 cites "Compared to the DBS, the torsional rigidity of the car was enhanced by 25 per cent due to the incorporation of a carbon fibre subframe and a large, extruded cross-member." Verified.
FN 62 cites "Its maximum speed remains unchanged, but its 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration has been changed to 4.2 seconds. Weighing 1,844 kilograms (4,065 lb), the Vanquish Volante is 105 kilograms (231 lb) heavier than the coupe and 34 kilograms (75 lb) heavier than the DBS Volante. The convertible top of the Volante, which is made of triple-layer fabric, can open in fourteen seconds. The car has a boot space capacity of 279 litres (9.9 cu ft). The suspension system was adjusted to accommodate the added weight. As with the coupe, its standard three-stage adaptive damping system offers normal, sport, and track modes, which also adjust the electronic stability control and throttle response." Verified.
FN 31 cites "The Vanquish features anti-roll bars and double wishbone suspension supported by coil springs." Verified.
FN 73 cites "Aston Martin debuted the roadster version—called the Vanquish Zagato Volante—at the 2016 edition of the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance". Verified, but the source says "convertible" rather than "roadster"; can you confirm that the two terms are interchangeable in British English?
FN 27 cites "The car's structure, which is thirty per cent stiffer and lighter than that of its predecessor, is composed of aluminium whilst its bodywork is made of carbon fibre." The source has "the aluminium structure is clothed in an all-carbonfibre body (30% stiffer and lighter too)". This is difficult to rephrase, so I'm not to concerned about the similarities here, but can we be sure the "stiffer and lighter" refers only to the alumninium? It seems it could be referring to the carbon fibre, or even to both.
The GA you reviewed was from a while back (the reason i opened the GA was mostly to see the results), not even i thought it was a good article. Anyways here are my responses
54: I removed “August”. 0-60 is about the same as 0-62.
65: a bodykit is not the same as bodywork. other concerns should be fixed
73: convertible is more understandable, so i have changed that.
27: the DBS, the Vanquish’s predecessor did not use carbon fibre in its construction, so it would most likely be talking about the aluminium. I’ve reworded this.
It's reassuring to hear that the GA wasn't characteristic of your work, though I think most GA reviewers would prefer it if the nominator checked any old articles reasonably thoroughly before nominating them. Anyway, I agree these issues are not so concerning. I've struck out most points above, but I think there are still issues with the first one -- please take a look. When that's done I'll do another spotcheck.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
17:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The article still says the maximum speed remained unchanged. Yes, 60 and 62 are very close, but I don't think we can use one to cite the other. Those are the only two points remaining from this spotcheck. I'll go ahead with the second spot check, probably first thing tomorrow.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
01:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Second spotcheck. Footnote numbers refer to
this version.
FNs 75 & 76 cite "At the 2017 edition of the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance, Aston Martin unveiled the Vanquish Zagato Speedster; 28 units were manufactured." Verified; optional, but you might move FN 75 to the end of the sentence. FN 76 does verify those last four words, but it's going to be easy for that citation to get detached since it's after the following sentence.
FN 45 cites 'John Simister of the newspaper The Independent criticised the car's two small rear seats, describing them "largely pointless", but he noted that the engine sounded "magnificently crisp and rich"'. Verified.
FNs 17 & 18 cite "At the 2012 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este in May, Aston Martin revealed a concept car called the Project AM310 Concept." Verified, but should "Concept" be capitalized? It doesn't seem to be in the sources.
FN 4 cites "The car's aluminium structure remains largely unchanged from the DBS, DB9 and Rapide, except for a redesigned front-end that is significantly lighter. This allows the engine to be mounted 0.7 inches (18 mm) lower than in the DBS." The source has "the aluminum structure remains largely the same as the DBS’s (and DB9’s and Vantage’s and Rapide’s), the front-end structure is significantly lighter and is redesigned to allow the engine to mount 0.7 inch lower than in the DBS". I think this is too close a paraphrase.
FNs 55 & 56 cite "The Vanquish's interior incorporates a tilt-telescoping steering wheel, bi-xenon headlamps, LED tail-lights, hand-stitched leather and Alcantara, power front seats with memory, and cooling and heating systems. Its connectivity features include Bluetooth, satellite radio and compatibility with USB and iPod. Other standard features include a thirteen-speaker Bang & Olufsen sound system." I don't see that it says "hand-stitched" anywhere on these pages, and I can't see any mention of iPod connectivity, though I might easily have missed both.
I'm going to stop there and not pass or fail this spotcheck; I'll leave it up to the coordinators to decide if they want to pursue this any further. The close paraphrasing I found this time is not terrible but I think it could be done better.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
12:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
While the issues don't seem to be too grave, the article still needs to be free from any discrepancy for it be considered for promotion.
750h+, I recommend that you go through the entirety of the sources again and once you're done, another spot-check should be done (by Mike if he's up for it or by someone else).
FrB.TG (
talk)
13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've taken on quite a bit of other work and would rather not add this, so I suggest adding it to the request list on WT:FAC for someone else to pick up. Might be as well to get a different pair of eyes on it anyway.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
18:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments by Epicgenius
I will look at this later. The nominator asked me to take a look on my talk page, but the comments I'll be leaving shortly are entirely my own. –
Epicgenius (
talk)
13:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Lead:
Para 1: "The second generation of the Aston Martin Vanquish is a grand touring car produced between 2012 and 2018 by the British automaker Aston Martin." - This wording makes it sound like the second generation is a grand touring car (whereas the first generation isn't), even if this is not the case. I suggest rephrasing to "The second generation of the Aston Martin Vanquish, a grand touring car, was produced between 2012 and 2018 by the British automaker Aston Martin."
Para 2: "previewed by a concept car called the "Project AM310"" - I don't know how it is in British English, but in American English that would be a very strange way to use the word "previewed". Usually we'd just say that the Vanquish's prototype was the Project AM310.
Para 2: "The Vanquish is based upon the same architecture of the DB9," - I would condense to "The Vanquish is based upon the DB9's architecture," since "same" is redundant here.
Para 3: "A more significantly modified version, called the Vanquish S, was launched in 2016" - Could you mention a few examples of these modifications?
In general, there are a lot of sentences that begin with "In [Date]". E.g. " At the 2005 edition", "In 2007", "At the 2012 edition", "In June 2012". If there aren't any other historical details that you can add, then I suggest mixing up your sentence structure. For example, you can put the date at the end of the sentence (such as "Aston Martin unveiled the DB9, a model initially designed by Ian Callum and completed by Henrik Fisker, at the Frankfurt Motor Show in 2004"). Alternatively, you can rephrase to avoid unnecessarily repeating the year. For example, "In June 2012" can be "That June", since the previous sentence already mentions June.
Para 1: I notice that the DB9, Vantage, and DBS are mentioned, but the Vantage isn't further elaborated upon in the text. How does the 2012 Vanquish relate to the Vantage?
Both addressed. The Vantage relates to the Vanquish in the way that they are both based upon the VH platform. The VH platform is used by the Rapide, DBS, DB9, Vantage, Vanquish, and a few others. Using this platform means that the cars share a significant number of their parts. I didn’t mention the Vantage later because there wasn’t need to.
750h+03:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Design and technology:
Para 1: "The torsional rigidity of the car was enhanced by 25 per cent in comparison to its predecessor" - Why not "The car has 25 percent more torsional rigidity than its predecessor" or something like that?
done
Para 1: "This allows the engine to be mounted 0.7 inches (18 mm) lower than in the DBS" - Out of curiosity, does this contribute to the weight or stability of the car at all?
didn't find any sources, most just gave the height change.
Para 2: "It is a two-door coupe available in both two and four-seating configurations" - I would add a hyphen after "two", since this is short for "two-seating". I.e. "two- and four-seating configurations".
done
Para 2: "a convertible version, known as the "Volante", was also produced" - Also in two- and four-seat configurations?
done
Para 2: "according to the Sunday Times, the car has a fuel economy rating of 298 grams per kilometre (16.9 oz/mi)" - I'm thinking this could be split out into its own sentence. When I first read this, I accidentally read it as "fuel consumption" rather than "fuel economy"; splitting the sentences would make it clear that these are two separate figures.
done
Para 3: "give the car a 0 to 97 km/h (60 mph) acceleration of 4.3 seconds" - As an American, this is worded strangely. Usually we say "allow the car to accelerate from 0 to 97 km/h (60 mph) in 4.3 seconds" or something similar. However, I know this might be different in other parts of the world.
I don't think it matters too much
Para 3: The above also applies to "sufficient to give the car a 0 to 97 km/h (60 mph) acceleration time of 3.6 seconds".
above
Para 4: "power front seats with memory" - Does this mean that the car will automatically adjust the position of the front seat, based on where it was positioned previously?
"deliveries began in late 2013" - Perhaps this could be split out into its own sentence. Alternatively, you could reword this as "Aston Martin debuted the Vanquish Volante—the convertible version of the Vanquish—at the 2013 edition of the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance,[59][60] and it began deliveries late 2013." As it is, the phrase "deliveries began in late 2013" seems like it doesn't really fit with the rest of the sentence, especially since this is passive voice, whereas the rest of the sentence is active voice. However, this is just a recommendation.
done
"The suspension system was adjusted to accommodate the added weight." - I feel like it would be better to place this sentence directly after the sentence about the vehicle's weight, rather than three sentences afterward.
done
Vanquish S
"The seats can be upholstered in Bridge of Weir Caithness leather." - For clarification, this is a modification offered by Aston Martin themselves, right?
yep
Vanquish Zagato
"Introduced at the May 2016 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este, the Vanquish Zagato Concept was a collaboration between Aston Martin and the coachbuilder Zagato." - The end of the sentence has a
MOS:SOB issue. I would reword it so it's clear that "coachbuilder" and "Zagato" are separate links, e.g. "the coachbuilding company Zagato".
done
"On June 21, 2016, Aston Martin announced plans to produce the Vanquish Zagato in a limited series of 99 units ... deliveries were also initiated in 2017 and 99 units were produced" - Depending on how this is interpreted, it's either confusing or repetitive.
The former were Aston Martin's initial plans, the latter were what actually gave to fruition
It seems like Aston Martin initially wanted to produce 99 Vanquish Zagatos, but ultimately produced 99 Vanquish Zagato Volantes, 28 Vanquish Zagato Speedsters, and 99 shooting brakes?
yep, and also 99 coupes
Also, is there a difference between these three?
body styles (as pictured in the multiple images template)
Discontinuation:
This is a fairly short section. Is it possible to merge it with one of the sections above, e.g. History?
Airship said that it went a bit quickly from production commencement to discontinuation, so I think it's best left like that
I've had a look at the reception section and don't see any major issues. I had one minor issue.
Per
WP:WHYCITE, I would recommend that you add a citation at the end of each quote, even if multiple quotes are cited to the same source. For example, the first two sentences of paragraph 2 contain two quotes from Mike Duff. I would put the reference after both sentences 1 and 2, instead of after sentence 2 only. Same goes for the first two sentences of paragraph 1.
I saw that this article needs one more spotcheck since the first one by Mike Christie was inconclusive.
...and an appearance at the Monterey Car Week in August.[26] supported by Jurnecka 2012
The Vanquish's aluminium structure is thirty per cent stiffer and lighter than that of its predecessor, and its bodywork is made of carbon fibre.[27] supported by Pollard 2012
...according to the Sunday Times, the car has a fuel economy rating of 298 grams per kilometre (16.9 oz/mi).[48] supported by the Sunday Times.
However, is "fuel economy rating" the right word or should this say "CO2 emission" or something similar instead? My knowledge of car metrics is quite limited so it might be good to check which technical term is correct.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
17:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm mainly asking because our article
Fuel economy in automobiles uses the units "kilometer per liter" and "miles per gallon" for fuel economy while we use "gram per kilometer", which confuses me. Is there a different sense in which the term "fuel economy rating" is used to measure CO2 since the source says "CO2: 298g/km"? My background in the relevant terminology is weak so I might need your help to untangle this confusion.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll try explain this best I can. The term "fuel economy rating" typically refers to how efficiently a vehicle uses fuel, measured in units like kilometers per liter or miles per gallon. On the other hand, CO2 emissions are usually measured in grams per kilometer. In the Sunday Times article, it seems they are referring to the car's CO2 emissions when they mention "298 grams per kilometer". I have changed it to CO2 emission-rating if that makes it more understandable.
750h+12:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
...The vehicle was initially available exclusively with a six-speed 'Touchtronic' automatic transmission manufactured by ZF Friedrichshafen.[53] supported by Siler 2014
Aston Martin introduced the Vanquish S, an updated version of the Vanquish, at the Los Angeles Auto Show in November 2016.[63][64] supported by both The Verge and Los Angeles Times.
Andy Palmer, the chief executive officer of Aston Martin, stated that the Vanquish S "[took] things a step further, confidently asserting itself within the Aston Martin range and distinguishing itself from the new DB11".[67][68] supported by both The Irish News and Kingston 2016a
deliveries were also initiated in 2017 and 99 units were produced.[75] supported by Kingston 2016b
Jeremy Clarkson, a prominent automotive journalist and television presenter, appreciated the car's styling, noting that "it's a lovely car [...] flowing and smooth when you want it to be, raucous and mad when you don't and utterly, bewitchingly beautiful always." Clarkson also praised its "delightful" interior, though one of his colleagues, A. A. Gill, disagreed, complaining that "it's like being in one of those executive-desk drawer dividers [...] I feel like I’m a roll of Sellotape".[81] supported by "2015 Aston Martin Vanquish". The Sunday Times
Mike Duff of the magazine Car and Driver stated that the interior of the Vanquish S features "beautiful materials and [an] elegant design[,] mostly distracting occupants from the reality that there really isn't very much to play with". Duff also held concerns with the Vanquish's usage of the VH platform, noting that "there's plenty of the stuff you'd find on a mainstream car costing a tenth of the [price]".[84] supported by Duff 2016
For the second quote, I would suggest including the last part of the quote (without the initial "there's") to make it clearer to the reader that he is talking about things missing, i.e., ...noting that "plenty of the stuff you'd find on a mainstream car costing a tenth of the [price of] a Vanquish S just isn't there"
done
At the 2005 edition of the Geneva International Motor Show, Aston Martin debuted the Vantage, a sports car designed by Callum and Fisker.[12][13] the part about the motor show is covered by "Global convergence under way in the automotive world" The Los Angeles Times, the part about the design is covered by Vale 2022, p. 444.
At the 2012 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este in May, Aston Martin revealed a concept car called the Project AM310 concept.[17][18] supported by Kozak 2012 and Lindberg 2012a
The Vanquish, designed by Marek Reichman,[28] supported by "The brains behind the world's most beautiful cars". The Windsor Star.
Length 4,720 mm (185.8 in)[4] supported by Gall 2012.
Model code AM310 supported by "Aston Martin reveals AM 310 Vanquish". Calgary Herald.
The first vehicles were delivered in early 2017.[73] supported by "Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato coupe is go". Bangkok Post.
Spot-check upon request; I see Mike Christie's comments above but I'll do one on request only. What is the logic behind giving some page numbers in the "References" section a link to Google Books and others none? Also it doesn't seem like the article titles are shown consistently. What makes the books cited and Edmunds.com reliable sources? "Aston Martin Vanquish S Volante 2017 first drive" is throwing a "not used" error. If
Car and Driver is a magazine, why is it in the websites section?
Road & Track,
Motor Trend,
Car (magazine) and
Autoweek too seem to be misplaced there.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
15:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
When you say "What is the logic behind giving some page numbers in the "References" section a link to Google Books and others none?", the ones with Google Books links are actually books, whilst the ones with page numbers that don't link to Google Books are magazines. Edmunds is reliable; it has been used by other FAs and has been used by the
New York Timeshere and
here, and the books are reliable; James Taylor is a journalist who has written for
Car and has also written various books;
Andrew Noakes has written for several car magazines; and Matthew Vale has written many books and magazines like
Classic & Sports Car. All of these books were reliably published. I have removed "Aston Martin Vanquish S Volante 2017 first drive". The magazines listed in the "magazines" section are print magazines; the others are online magazines.
750h+15:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've changed "Websites" to "Online magazines and websites" and I've changed "Magazines" to "Print magazines" if that helps.
750h+09:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about volcanic activity at a group of volcanoes in northwestern British Columbia, Canada, that has existed for the last 7.5 million years or more. Volcanoguy14:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
750h+: I think your opinion is flawed. You haven't provided any evidence that this article fails 1c you just have a feeling that it does. I'm not aware of anything that claims some sources can't be used more than others. Souther 1992 is a 320 page document so of course it's going to be cited a lot. Volcanoguy17:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
750h+: Citing an author (or even a source) frequently does not fail 1c. The article not being well researched would do so. @
Volcanoguy has written for Wikipedia about this volcanic complex and has said this author is the one who has researched it most. it is logical, then, that this author would be more cited than any others.
Do you plan to do a source review, or is this high-level comment the extent of your work on this FAC. If you are not intending to do a source review, I will proceed with it. –
Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (
talk)
00:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. Regarding concerns about 1c of
WP:FACR the reason this article cites Souther a lot is because he was the only volcanologist who studied the MEVC in detail. As a result, his publications are significantly more detailed than others published since 1992. I've searched Google Scholar and elsewhere thoroughly for information about volcanism of the MEVC and added the relevant sources. I'd dare anyone to prove me wrong. Volcanoguy14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review by Arconning
File:MEVC map.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:EdzizaTopo.jpg - Public Domain
File:Raspberry Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Little Iskut Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Armadillo Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Nido Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Spectrum Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Pyramid Formation cross section.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Ice Peak Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Pillow Ridge Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Edziza042909-- 113-16.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Edziza Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Outcast Hill cross section.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Tahltan River mouth.png - Public Domain
File:Kakiddi Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Tennena Cone.jpg - CC BY 2.0
File:Nahta cone from east june 2006 (Spectrum Range).JPG - CC BY-SA 3.0
File:Mess Lake Lava Field.jpg - Public Domain
File:Edziza obsidian.jpg - Public Domain
All images have good alt-text and are relevant to the article.
Images have proper licenses, images with links to their sources are live.
Recusing to review. I will note here that this seems a very long article given the topic, and I will be watching to see if an appropriate summary style approach has been adopted.
There are a lot of helpful maps, which I like, but perhaps the article could start with a
Template:Location map style map locating the feature in Canada or North America for the reader?
"The first magmatic cycle between 12 and 5.3 million years ago ... the second magmatic cycle between 6 and 1 million years ago". One cannot help but note the 700,000 year overlap.
Why are "Mount Edziza volcanic complex" and "British Columbia" linked in the lead but not the first sentence of the main article?
I think it's optional to relink things in the main article, no? I'm pretty sure I remember reading that in one of the guidelines unless something has changed. Volcanoguy14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The rule used to be that links should appear at first mention in both the lead and the article. This changed relatively recently to allow subsequent repeat links in the article "where readers might want to use them".
"Felsic pertains to magmatic rocks that are enriched in silicon, oxygen, aluminum, sodium and potassium." Grammar: you can have 'Felsic pertains to magmatic rocks that are rich in ...' (as in note b) or 'Felsic pertains to magmatic rocks that are enriched with ...'
"making it the second largest eruptive centre in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province". This seems a slightly clumsy way of introducing the MEVC as part of the NCVP.
"is thought to result from rifting of the North American Cordillera driven by changes in relative plate motion between the North American and Pacific plates." Only likely to be understood by aficionados. Either simplify or unpack.
I don't see what's so hard to understand in this sentence. Rift even outside of geology means to break/crack and from my experience people usually know what a plate is. I would also like to note that other reviewers in previous FACs didn't find this sentence a problem (I used it other articles). Please explain what is so technical about it. Volcanoguy16:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am hitting a surprisingly high number of issues given that I am only four paragraphs in. I note that the article has not been through either PR or GoCER, both of which would have been of benefit. I shall take a break, then pick a couple of random sections to sample, to see if it is just a rocky (pun intended) start.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
14:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I question whether some of the things you brought up are actual issues rather than just nitpicking. See my comments above. Volcanoguy15:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Given the responses and rereading my own comments I am leaning oppose, but will see what things are like elsewhere.
What's wrong with my responses? I don't have a problem with changing the text I just think maybe you're going a bit overboard on that one sentence about rifting and the plates. Volcanoguy18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Second magmatic cycle and Nido eruptive period
The map is most helpful, perhaps label the two members?
"such that the lava flows formed two separate lava fields at each end of the volcanic complex." Do you mean that, four lava fields in total, or should it be 'such that the lava flows formed two separate lava fields, one at each end of the volcanic complex'?
"Three major volcanoes of the Tenchen Member were active during the Nido eruptive period, all of which have since been reduced to eroded remnants. Alpha Peak was the oldest of the three major volcanoes ..." I don't think it is necessary to repeat "three major volcanoes" in consecutive sentences; perhaps 'them' in the second?
"365 metres (1,198 feet)". Seems a bit
false precision, perhaps insert a "|sigfig=2"? There seem to be other conversions in the article where a false degree of precision has been introduced. A "sigfig sweep" should catch them
"An eroded remnant of this volcano comprises a prominent rock pinnacle". Can one use "comprises" here? Several things need to be involved to be comprised. Perhaps 'forms'?
A feature which puzzles me is the summary of each eruptive period in "Second magmatic cycle". I would suggest ending this section at "... into three distinct eruptive periods". The subsequent text immediately describes them.
The eruptive periods of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex are represented by the geological formations making up the complex that's why they're mentioned. Not all of the subsequent text is mentioned in the eruptive period sections. For example, the "Nido eruptive period" does not mention the fact that the Nido Formation is exposed along the Mess Creek Escarpment, nor does it mention the fact that the Nido Formation lava flows appear to have originated from several separate eruptive centres along the eastern margin of the MEVC. The "Spectrum eruptive period" doesn't mention the fact that the Spectrum Formation is almost entirely underlain by the Nido Formation and consists mostly of trachyte and rhyolite. The "Pyramid eruptive period" also doesn't mention the fact that the Pyramid Formation overlies the Nido Formation. Volcanoguy15:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fifth magmatic cycle
"passive basaltic lava flows". What is a passive lava flow?
"Therefore, the MEVC has been demonstrated as a potential source for these two tephra layers along with Hoodoo Mountain, Heart Peaks and Level Mountain." I am struggling a bit with this sentence. I think it is "demonstrated". Is it being used in the sense of 'suggested'?
Citation 165 leads
this page. The cite is used to support:
"Fission track dating has yielded an age of 950 CE ± 6,000 years for the Sheep Track pumice" which I cannot see mentioned.
It is stated earlier in the article that only one eruption is known to have produced pumice during the fifth magmatic cycle and that was the Sheep Track eruption from the southwestern flank of Ice Peak near the end of the Big Raven eruptive period. In the "Eruptive history" tab being linked it clearly says that the eruption that occurred 0950 ± 6000 years ago produced pumice and came from the southwestern flank of Ice Peak. Click the date to see the details. Volcanoguy18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"A small but violent VEI-3 eruption burst from the southwestern flank of Ice Peak near the end of the Big Raven eruptive period" which I cannot see supported.
"Willow twigs preserved in ejecta from Williams Cone have yielded a radiocarbon date of 610 CE ± 150 years." The source goives the date of the last eruption as 950 CE and does not mention willow twigs, carbon dating nor an error bar.
Citation 110 leads to
this page which is used to support:
"Eruptions during Big Raven time continued within the last 2,000 years, but the precise age of the latest one is unknown." The source states both "Last Known Eruption 950 CE" and "ending with felsic and basaltic eruptions as late about 1,000 years ago."
That's for the last known eruption of Mount Edziza, not the volcanic complex as a whole. The latest eruption of the complex may have came from The Ash Pit near the Spectrum Range since it may be the youngest feature. The source for the Spectrum Range gives unknown for the last known eruption. Volcanoguy19:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"These cones are of Holocene age and occur on Mount Edziza, in the Snowshoe and Desolation lava fields and adjacent to the Spectrum Range." Cones in the Desolation lava fields is not supported.
"Prior to collapse, the summit of Mount Edziza was at least 610 metres (2,000 feet) higher than its current elevation of 2,786 metres (9,140 feet)." Only the current elevation is supported. Possibly the missing support is in Souther p 21, is it possible to make that available to me?
Supported by Souther 1992. There's no link to Souther's document you have to download it from the Canadian government website; see the doi provided for the source. Volcanoguy19:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Overall: well written, reasonably graspable by a non-expert IMO, and if a little lengthy, within the bounds of summary style (bar the seeming redundancy noted in "Second magmatic cycle"). The source to text discrepancies need to be explained.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
17:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Apologies, but have run out of time to get on with this review; I shall be away from the internet for the next week. If the nomination is still open when I get back I shall carry on. If it is considered for closure before then could the closing coordinator note that while I have not reviewed enough of the article to be able to support, I have seen nothing which would cause me to object to it being promoted.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
17:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"MEVC". Should be in brackets after the first mention in full.
It's in brackets after the first mention in full in the introduction. Do you mean it should also be bracketed in the article body? Volcanoguy23:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Volcanism of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province began 20 million years ago, having resulted from rifting of the North American Cordillera". I am not sure about the grammar here. Maybe '20 million years ago, a result of rifting', or '20 million years ago, resulting from', or '20 million years ago, which resulted in rifting'?
"five cycles of magmatic activity, each having produced less volcanic material" → 'five cycles of magmatic activity, each producingd less volcanic material'.
"40% of the total eruptive volume, having resulted from prolonged fractional crystallization" → '40% of the total eruptive volume, resulting from prolonged fractional crystallization'.
Comparing article source/citation list to original sources. Listed only if question or problem found.
Sources:
Lakeman, Thomas R.; Clague, John J.; et. al. (2008) – publisher in Wikipedia article given as "
NRC Research Press" which Wikilinks to a redirect to Canadian Science Publishing. Canadian Science Publishing seems to be the modern-day name (since 2010 according to its Wikipedia article) of the publisher, and is the name of the publisher used on the website where the article is located. Are you using NRC Research Press because it was the name of the publisher in 2008? If so, this is consistent with the instructions for the publisher parameter in template cite journal, which reads, "If the name of the publisher changed over time, use the name as stated in the publication or used at the time of the source's publication." Since I don't have the original journal article in front of me, just want to make sure it states the publisher as NRC Research Press.
Souther 1992 – It doesn't appear that Geological Survey of Canada is the publisher. It appears to be the first part of the work, which is Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir, 420. I think using cite report template is a better choice, report (using title param) is The Late Cenozoic Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex, British Columbia. With parameters I have set in this example, you get something that I think better reflects the publication.
{{Cite report |last1=Souther|first1=J. G.|author-link1=Jack Souther|title=The Late Cenozoic Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex, British Columbia| work=Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir |series=420| year=1992|isbn=0-660-14407-7|doi=10.4095/133497}}
If there is a publisher, you could/should add that parameter as well. The detailed
metadata page doesn't actually show a publisher. Perhaps it is Natural Resources Canada? If you can figure that out, add a publisher, too.
Souther, J. G. & Symons, D. T. A. (1974). Stratigraphy and paleomagnetism of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, northwest British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper, 73-32.
https://doi.org/10.4095/102538
So in the cite report template, I think you want work to be Geological Survey of Canada, Paper and series to be 73-32. Publisher possibly Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
Ref. 3:
map of Telegraph Creek – what does the A502 in your citation represent? I don't see it on the map.
A 502 is actually the name of the map; the series is 104 G. They're both provided in the top right corner of the map. Volcanoguy17:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Eewilson: It appears they have it the other way around on this map. On the Dease Lake topographic map they give 104 J for the map and A 502 as the series; you can see this
here. I'm not sure if the Telegraph Creek map details in this article should have 104 G for the map and A 502 as the series despite the map claiming otherwise. Volcanoguy00:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Done except I put Geological Survey of Canada in |work= and Open File in |series= since Open File and 1732 are together separately from Geological Survey of Canada in the report. Volcanoguy19:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ref. 13: Edwards, Benjamin R.; Russell, James K.; Jicha, Brian; Singer, Brad S.; Dunnington, Gwen; Jansen, Robert (2021). "A 3 m.y. record of volcanism..." is available online with a CC license. Maybe add the DOI to your citation template.
https://doi.org/10.1130/2020.2548(12). Or possibly use chapter-url since it's an open access chapter. Because this is a chapter in a book, the book editors need to be cited as well. You can find them in detail in the Front Matter PDF accessible at this link:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/books/book/2278/Untangling-the-Quaternary-Period-A-Legacy-of
Ref. 113: Skilling, I.; Edwards, B.; Hungerford, J.; Lamoreaux, K.; Endress, C.; Lloyd, A. (2006) – same question about page number(s) as with other conference (103). What is used as the source?
Ref. 182: Lamoreaux, K. A.; Skilling, I. P.; Endress, C.; Edwards, B.; Lloyd, A.; Hungerford, J. (2006) – same question about page number(s) as with other conferences (103 and 113). What is used as the source?
"five cycles of magmatic activity which were characterized by 13 periods of eruptive activity". "which were characterized by" does not make sense here. Maybe "in"?
"The 1,000-square-kilometre (390-square-mile) plateau". Is it almost exactly 1,000? If it is approximate then I suggest {{Convert|1000|km2|mi2|-2|adj=mid|abbr=off}} to round to 400.
"This volcanic complex comprises a broad, steep-sided, intermontane plateau that rises from a base elevation of 760 or 816 metres (2,500 or 2,675 feet).[5][9][10] A northerly-trending, elliptical, composite shield volcano consisting of multiple flat-lying lava flows forms the plateau. Four central volcanoes of felsic[a] composition overlie the plateau" This is confusing. You appear to say first that the whole complex is in one plateau, then that the plateau is one volcano, then that other volcanoes overlie the plateau.
The plateau is a part of the volcanic complex so "is on" wouldn't work either. Maybe change "comprise" to "includes" or "contains"? Volcanoguy19:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"having increased the rate of magmatism in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province" You are describing here the start of the volcanism, so what does it mean to say that it increased?
"Volcanism at the MEVC about 7 million years ago increased the rate of magmatism in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province from 100,000 cubic metres (3,500,000 cubic feet) per year to 300,000 cubic metres (11,000,000 cubic feet) per year". In other words, volcanism in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province occurred at a lower rate until the MEVC started erupting about 7 million years ago; the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province was already an area of volcanic activity before the MEVC existed. Volcanoguy02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"An eruption recurrence interval of 379 years has been calculated for the MEVC by dividing 11,000 years by the number of demonstrable Holocene eruptions". Presumably you mean the Holocene MEVC, but you imply the whole of it.
Magmatic cycles section. You do not need to keep repeating "second most productive", "third most productive" etc, just say that each cycle was less productive than the previous one.
You say that the first cycle occurred in three successive periods, the first from 12 to 5.4 mya, the second 7.2 mya, the third between 7 and 6 mya. Successive periods at the same time does not make sense.
It's a complex rather than a single volcano. Multiple volcanoes of the complex were active at different times, some longer than others. Volcanoguy00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You have several different dates for the start of the MEVC, in the lead 7.4 mya,in the 'Eruption rate and composition' section 7 mya, and 12 mya in 'Magmatic cycles'. In the lead you have 7.4 and 6.1 mya for the first cycle, in First magmatic cycle, you say "restricted to the Late Miocene between 12 and 5.3 million years ago". This is ambiguous whether you are giving the period of the first cycle or the Late Miocene, but in any case it is the cycle which is relevant.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
19:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dudley Miles: Changed "restricted to the Late Miocene between 12 and 5.3 million years ago" to "restricted to the Late Miocene between 7.5 and 6 million years ago", same in the lead. Note that in the "Eruption rate and composition" section it gives about 7 million years ago, which is an approximate date provided by the cited source rather than an exact one. In the "Raspberry eruptive period" section it says the "minimum age for the timing of Raspberry volcanism is 7.4–6.2 million years"; 7 million years would fall in that range. Volcanoguy19:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Volcanism of the Nido eruptive period was limited to the northern and southern ends of the MEVC". So the periods were not in specific areas or at successive times, so what does distinguish them? This is not explained.
Most of the periods occurred at successive times it's just that some of the older dates are not accurate. I've changed some of the dates around so please check to see if it's better. A few of the other periods like Arctic Lake, Klastline and Kakiddi occurred in specific areas. Volcanoguy01:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"The first age comes from basal basalt of the Kounugu Member overlying basement rocks and, if correct, implies that the Nido eruptions may have initiated during the Raspberry eruptive period." According to your dating the whole second cycle occurred during the Raspberry eruptive period.
"The next eruptive period, the Pillow Ridge period, occurred when the MEVC was still overlain by an ice sheet." You say above that the ice retreated during the previous Ice Peak period.
"Lava fountaining at the extreme northern end of the Arctic Lake Plateau created the Outcast Hill cinder cone which blocked westerly flowing streams to create a temporary lake against its eastern side." You do not need to say that a lava lake was temporary. Maybe change "temporary" to "lava" for clarity.
"both tephra layers may have been deposited shortly after the last glacial period". "after the last glacial period" is another way of saying the Holocene. I think it is better to stick to that term for clarity.
"during the height of the neoglaciation".
Neoglaciation is a term I have not come across before. According to the article on it the height was the
Little Ice Age, and if that is what you mean I think it would be much better to use the more familiar term.
There are very few dates in the Fifth cycle section, and unless I have missed it you do not make clear whether the eruptions in different fields were in different periods or approximately contemporary.
Most of the volcanic rocks produced during the fifth magmatic cycle have not been dated that's why there aren't many dates. Volcanic activity in the Desolation and Snowshoe lava fields occurred more or less simultaneously but I'm not sure about the Mess Lake Lava Field. Volcanoguy12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You mention the
Last Glacial Maximum and
Last Glacial Period. It would be helpful to add dates in brackets at first mention. I am not familar with the terms for North American glacial periods, but it would also be helpful to link to earlier ones when mentioning earlier eruptions through glacial deposits.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
08:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've added the timing of the Last Glacial Maximum, not sure about the Last Glacial Period since there doesn't seem to be an agreement on when it began and ended. Volcanoguy15:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I see that Eewilson has already commented on some of the sourcing, but adding here for completeness. #1 seems to be a reasonably well cited thesis, so it probably passes muster. "The Mechanics of Subglacial Basaltic Lava Flow Emplacement: Inferring Paleo-Ice Conditions" and " The Late Holocene White River Ash East Eruption and Pre-contact Culture Change in Northwest North America" are a bit more iffy, though, as I don't see many cites. Regarding the completeness criteria, perhaps
there are sources here that can be used. Why is "Stratigraphy and paleomagnetism of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, northwest British Columbia" not used as a source?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
15:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Those are PhD theses which are generally considered reliable. Masters theses on the other hand are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence per
WP:SCHOLARSHIP. As for "Stratigraphy and paleomagnetism of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, northwest British Columbia", it's an an outdated source. It seems the MEVC hadn't been subdivided into geological formations until the 1980s so I'm not sure where that source can be used in the article. Volcanoguy16:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not to mention the article already has 9,000+ words of readable prose. The more information the article has the more likely it will need to be cut down. Volcanoguy18:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. It examines competing theories about how people should act in general and in specific domains while considering the assumptions on which the theories rest. Thanks to
750h+ for encouraging this nomination and all the helpful suggestions during their GA review and to
Patrick Welsh for their peer review.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I’m sure others are gonna mention that an image at the top-right would be nice for the page, like Aristotle, but at the same time I get not having one.
I agree, it would be nice to have an image but I'm not aware of a representative image of ethics in general. Using an image of a philosopher for a general topic article can be tricky because it may favor a specific tradition. Maybe we could use the scales of justice but this is not that typically used for ethics per se. The image in
Ethics#Basic_concepts was used earlier as the lead image but it was stated in the peer review that it was too complicated for the lead.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
”Ethics or moral philosophy is the philosophical study of moral phenomena.” - thats a bit self referential. Philosophical study could probably just be “study”, but I’m not a fan of just linking “moral” and letting the wiki link do the lifting. The second sentence of the lead is better, since that’s a better Explain-it-like-I’m-5 description for the topic.
I moved the part about "moral philosophy" to the next sentence to make it less self-referential. I kept the "philosophical" to distinguish ethics form the non-philosophical study of moral phenomena, like moral psychology.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
”It is usually divided into three major fields: normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics.” - the “usually” sticks out to me (as does “fields”). Perhaps something like “The primary branches of ethics include…” I think “branch” is better than “field”, since that’s used in normative and metaethics articles.
”Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations, for example, by exploring the moral implications of the universal principles discovered in normative ethics within a specific domain.” - not sure if I’m reading it wrong, but is the “for example” needed?
This corresponds to the top-down methodology which is useful to establish the connection with normative ethics. With the "for example", we are on the safe side since some theorists also use a bottom-up methodology.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
”Moral psychology is a related empirical field and investigates psychological processes involved in morality, such as moral reasoning and the formation of moral character.” Three mentions of “moral” plus “morality.” Is there any way you could rewrite a bit to not use the five letters “moral” so many times? Like, could moral reasoning and moral character be piped to just “reasoning” and “character”?
The fourth paragraph seems like a repeat of the lead and what comes later, so it seems pretty redundant to mention normative/applied/metaethics again, particularly since you don’t go into the definition of “normative” or “meta.”
I shortened the passage and merged it into the first paragraph. I don't think we can fully remove it since the lead section is supposed to summarize sourced text in the body of the article and the other sections don't discuss this division.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I was briefly looking for the etymology, and I think that should be higher up in the definition section.
I moved it up as the third paragraph, which fits well since the following paragraph also discusses terminological issues.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Normative
”For example, given the particular impression that it is wrong to set a child on fire for fun, normative ethics aims to find more general principles that explain why this is the case, like the principle that one should not cause extreme suffering to the innocent, which may itself be explained in terms of a more general principle.” - eek, well, of course! As for why I brought this up, is the “for fun” part needed? Like, I’m not sure if it only applies as normative ethics if the argument is whether it is wrong to have fun doing that, or if it’s just wrong in general. Also, “given the particular impression that it is wrong” feels a bit off, but I’m not sure a better way to word it. Maybe it could be shorter and carry the same message? Like, “For example, the principle that one should not cause extreme suffering to the innocent explains why it is wrong to set a child on fire.” I feel like it has the same message, but it’s clearer and more succinct.
The example is taken from Kagan 1998 p. 1, which explicitly mentions that it is done "for the mere pleasure". The difficulty here is probably to find a concrete example where everyone agrees. Without the "for fun", there could be cases where it is acceptable, possibly if it is not done for pleasure but to prevent a highly contagious supervirus in child from spreading.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
”One difficulty for systems with several basic principles is that these principles may conflict with each other in some cases and lead to ethical dilemmas.” Such as the Trolley problem? I feel like it’s one of the best known ethical dilemmas, but maybe that’s just because I watched The Good Place. I see it appears later under “moral knowledge”, but it might be useful earlier in the article.
I usually try not to repeat examples in the same article. The prime example for this one would be David Ross and his prima facie duties. I'm not sure if it's necessary, but if we wanted, we could include an example along the lines of the second paragraph of
The_Right_and_the_Good#The_Right.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
”Different theories in normative ethics suggest different principles as the foundation of morality.” - try rewording to avoid saying “different” twice
”A more recently developed view additionally considers the distribution of value: It states that an equal distribution of goods is better than an unequal distribution even if the aggregate good is the same.” - recently as of when? 2020s? 20th century? After the fall of the Roman Empire?
The image caption: “Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are the founding fathers of utilitarianism.” - is there a source calling them the founding fathers? It feels a bit opinionated right now. A more neutral caption would be “Portraits of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who developed the field of utilitarianism.”
”Utilitarianism was initially formulated by Jeremy Bentham and further developed by John Stuart Mill.” - some date reference might be nice. Was this randomly out of nowhere, or part of a broader philosophical trend of the 1700s?
”Some critics of Bentham's utilitarianism argued that it is a "philosophy of swine" whose focus on the intensity of pleasure promotes an immoral lifestyle centered around indulgence in sensory pleasures.” - few issues here. First, you should attribute the quote, if it’s even necessary at all to refer it to swine (I’m guessing an oblique reference to pigs having long lasting orgasms?) It feels a bit out of place without the context. Also, could you avoid saying “pleasure” twice in the same sentence?
”Today, there are many variations of utilitarianism, including the difference between act and rule utilitarianism and between maximizing and satisficing utilitarianism.” - I’m not a fan of using “today”. Is that going to change to yesterday in 24 hours? I’ll have to Chex back and find out :P Alternately, perhaps something like “In the centuries since Bentham and Mill, variations of utilitarianism have developed, including…”
”For example, according to David Ross, it is wrong to break a promise even if no harm comes from it.” - maybe provide some context for who Ross is? You did that for Bentham and Mill, so that would be helpful. Also, maybe get rid of “for example” if you add something like “According to Scottish philosopher David Ross” (or however you think he needs to be introduced)
You don’t get into the difference of agent vs patient centered. Is that patient, like, having patience? Or a doctor’s patient?
I tried to clarify the relevant passages. They now read Agent-centered deontological theories focus on the person who acts and the duties they have ... Patient-centered theories, by contrast, focus on the people affect by actions the rights they have. Should we add a footnote to clarify the differences between patient as being affected vs having patience vs a doctor's patient?
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
”Divine command theory sees God as the source of morality.” - as an atheist, I’d rather not have “God” used here so matter of factly. Could you reword it to make it more neutral? God isn’t even linked here, and it’s written as if it’s an accepted fact that God exists.
”This position can be understood in analogy to Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that the magnitude of physical properties like mass, length, and duration depends on the frame of reference of the observer.” - idk if this is needed. I thought the previous sentence made complete sense already, and then when I got here I was wondering why it was here.
”An influential debate among moral realists is between naturalism and non-naturalism.” - you don’t really get into the debate, so is “influential” appropriate?
”Another thought experiment examines the moral implications of abortion by imagining a situation in which a person gets connected without their consent to an ill violinist. It explores whether it would be morally permissible to sever the connection within the next nine months even if this would lead to the violinist's death.” - ok this needs way more context. You should probably mention that the thought experiment is that it’s a pregnant ill violinist apparently? I was quite confused for a bit why it suddenly turned musical.
I added an extra sentence to clarify that this is an analogy about the relation between mother and fetus without any fetuses present in the imagined situation. The musical turn is indeed confusing. This is part of the original formulation of the thought experiment but it's not essential that it is a violinist.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Applied ethics
Why is military ethics bolded in the middle of the paragraph?
This is because of the redirect per
MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. I added a corresponding comment
Related fields
”For instance, the question of how nurses think about the ethical implications of abortion belongs to descriptive ethics.” - why nurses and not doctors who would actually be administering the procedure?
Because that's the example of descriptive ethics used in the source. With a corresponding source about doctors, we could also change it.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
History
Some of this is covered elsewhere in the article, which makes me wonder, perhaps this should be the second main section, after “Definition”? The article on philosophy, for example, starts with “Etymology” and has a history section before getting into the branches.
In principle, it could be done. Many overview works on ethics focus on the branches, concepts, and schools of ethics rather than the chronological development of the discipline. This indicates that the history is not the most important part of this article and should not come right at the beginning. Another difficulty would be that the history section uses various concepts that are explained in the other sections. If we wanted to have the history first, we might have to include a more detailed discussion of them already there, which could lead to various repetitions.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
One last comment. It’s a long read, at 8,941 words. Considering that this is an overview of the subject, and the many many links to various topics, I feel that the article should be condensed wherever possible. Perhaps remove redundant examples. Or, like the stuff in the history section that’s repeated elsewhere, you could trim it by having the history section first, and then removing the duplicate mentions of certain people.
Given the scope of the topic, I think we are not doing too bad length-wise. For a comparison, we are still below the 9000 mark of
WP:SIZERULE. Except for the big names like Kant and Bentham, I don't think there is much overlap between the history and the rest. I'll keep a lookout for opportunities to condense the material as I respond to other reviews.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I really appreciated your work on the article, and I enjoyed the read, so it’s my ethical duty to finally wrap up my review that I’ve been working on for… several hours. So here it is. Lemme know if you have any questions, @
Phlsph7:.
Hurricanehink mobile (
talk)
20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Amazing you've tackled this article! First impressions are good. Except for a small module on morality among primates at uni and failing to read the The Ethics of Ambiguity, I know nothing of the topic, so feel free to disregard anything you're not sure about / disagree with.
In the lead, the order is applied ethics before meta-ethics. Would it make sense to follow this in the article too? Metaethics is a more scary difficult subject, so we may want to start easier in the body too.
There has already been some discussion on the section order on the talk page and the peer review. Initially, meta-ethics was first to go from abstract to concrete. Then, because of the difficulty of its topic, it was moved to come after applied ethics. Then it was requested to have it before applied ethics since it "deals with much more general issues likely to be of interest to more readers". I don't feel strongly either way since there are good arguments for each approach. The order in the lead section was mainly chosen because it's easier to present the topics this way in a single paragraph.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As a general note: I'm moving in the direction of a support, but do want to do a second read to see if I can come up with more ideas on how to make the article understandable to a sufficiently broad audience. In particular, the bits around Kant are tough to explain, and not quite there yet in my view. I'll be on holiday, busy with work, and then hosting parents, so I might not come back till the 8th of July. I don't think I'll forget, but ping me if I do.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
19:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm happy to hear that the article is moving in the right direction. I hope you enjoy your small wiki holiday. In the meantime, I'll see what I can do about the subsection "Kantianism" and I hope we can overcome this stumbling block.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Second read
Have been listening to
In Our Time over the holidays and their episodes on moral philosophy over the last years. They were all about individuals of the
wartime quartet (embarrasing red link, but Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch etc), so hope I can say slightly more sensible things on the second read on the topic of language and virtue ethics.
The main branches of ethics include normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics. --> Do we need both "main" and "include" (rather than are). Are there further main branches?
This is the most common division but some theorists prefer a different approach. Using this more careful formulation avoids upsetting them.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Instead, he argues that there are universal principles that apply to everyone independent of their individual desires. --> is individual needed in the sentences? their desires may be sufficient.
It asks whether moral statements can be true, how moral knowledge is possible, and how moral judgments motivate people. --> the examples --> I wonder if the first example makes sense for those who have not been schooled in
truth tables and with a basic background in logic. Maybe the example of whether there are objective moral statements is more accessible. I find the second example somewhat vague to. What does it refer to?
For the first example, I used objective moral facts instead. The second example refers to what is discussed in the subsection
Moral knowledge, that is, foundationalism, coherentism, and the like. We could use a more specific example, but that would negatively impact generality.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Virtue theorists see the manifestation of virtues, like courage and compassion, as the fundamental principle of morality. --> A pedantic point, but the episode on
Philippa Foot made a distinction between a value theorist (who does the theory) and a value ethicist (who believe the above). Feel free to ignore, as alternative wording may make things uglier.
I'm not sure that this distinction is generally accepted but it is an interesting point. I changed our formulation to "Virtue ethics" to be on the safe side without introducing verbal gymnastics.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ethics is closely connected to value theory, which studies the nature and types of value. --> This feels tautological. Can we say anything concrete about this?
Descriptive ethics provides value-neutral descriptions of the dominant moral codes and beliefs in different societies and considers their historical dimension. --> do we need the word value-neutral here? I don't think pure value-neutral discriptions exists, as most words in language are not perfectly neutral.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
08:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I removed the term. Its main point was emphasize that descriptive ethicists try not to pick sides about which moral code is correct.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Brilliant, thanks. That's a support from me. Hope that a new reviewer will also look at how to simplify and make the article more concrete.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
09:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Head of Aristotle.jpg, File:EMB - Buddha stehend.jpg, and File:Head of Laozi marble Tang Dynasty (618-906 CE) Shaanxi Province China.jpg are all CC-BY-SA photos of a PD statue.
File:Jeremy Bentham by Henry William Pickersgill detail.jpg, File:John Stuart Mill by London Stereoscopic Company, c1870.jpg, File:Immanuel Kant - Gemaelde 1.jpg, File:Little boy.jpg, File:1914 George Edward Moore (cropped).jpg are all PD photos.
File:Philippa Foot 1939.jpg is not PD in the US. I've nominated it for deletion.
File:JuergenHabermas.jpg is CC-BY-SA
File:Trolley Problem.svg is CC-BY-SA
File:Cesarean section.jpg is CC-BY-SA
File:Battery hens -Bastos, Sao Paulo, Brazil-31March2007.jpg is CC-BY
Drive-by: Don't have time for a full review, but saw this while reading the page which stuck out and thought I'd add a comment An exception is J. L. Mackie's error theory, which combines cognitivism with moral nihilism by claiming that all moral statements are false because there are no moral facts - all error theory is an exception, not just that espoused by J. L. Mackie. Maybe Mackie should be mentioned in the history section instead. Relatedly Moral skeptics reject the idea that moral knowledge is possible by arguing that people are unable to distinguish between right and wrong behavior isn't that what they're arguing for, not the argument itself? I guess there isn't room to include questions about our access to moral facts or the (non)explanatory role of ethical concepts, but this could be worded better at least.
Shapeyness (
talk)
19:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Shapeyness and thanks for taking a look at the article. I moved Mackie to the history section and I switched the explanation in the sentence on moral skeptics around.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Spot-check upon request. Is there a logic why some page numbers are linked and others aren't, and some references give sections and others page numbers? I don't think that Springer DOI links need archives, and I am not sure that Google Books archives are useful, either. Some books with ISBN links have retrieval dates and others don't. Looks like sources are from prominent university publishers and journals ... but I notice that they seem to be mostly Western sources; even if sources about non-Western ethics are used they seem to be Western sources. Can't speak much about whether the sources picked are representative.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello
Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for doing the source review! I usually use section titles for web sources and page numbers for books and journals. For some books in ebook format, I also use section numbers if they do not have page numbers or if the page numbers depend on the reading device. If I'm aware of a Google Books page offering a preview of the page, I usually add a link to it. But this is not possible for all books, which is why some page numbers have links while others don't.
I removed the Springer DOI archives. Let me know if you think the Google Books archive links also need to be removed. The problem is that IABot adds them automatically, so all the links would be re-added the next time it runs. I count 91 archived Google Books links so removing them by hand each time after IABot runs would be time-intensive.
Some books with an ISBN have a website added in the template, for example, because the website provides a preview of the book. These books have access dates for the website. Access dates are also automatically added by IABot. I included several sources from non-Western publishers before the nomination, such as Sinha 2014, Satyanarayana 2009, Nadkarni 2011, Murthy 2009, Fernando 2010, Dalal 2010, Dalai Lama 2007, Armour 2001, Junru 2019, Ntuli 2002, and Pera & Tonder 2005. High-quality English philosophy sources from non-Western publishers are a little hard to find but I can try to find more in case the current ones are not sufficient.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
terms of consequences but in terms of outcome with outcome being defined ==> " terms of consequences but in terms of outcome, with the outcome being defined"
it is an act consequentialism that sees ==> "it is an act of consequentialism that sees"
I kept it since "act consequentialism" is a technical term in this instance (it contrasts with rule consequentialism).
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In this regard, they are desirable as a means but, unlike happiness, not desirable as an end. remove the second "desirable"
They may include principles like to tell the truth, keep promises, and not intentionally harm others. ==> "They may include principles like telling the truth, keeping promises, and not intentionally harming others."
someone has a duty to benefit another person if this other person ==> "someone must benefit another person if this other person"
I kept the term "duty" so it is clear to the reader that this sentence is about the relation between duties and rights.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
for example, because of weakness of the will. ==> "for example, because of the weakness of the will."
As ever, kudos for taking on one of the site's biggest and thorniest articles. I am very much not a philosopher, but I hope the below is useful.
Deontologists say morality consists in fulfilling duties, like telling the truth and keeping promises.: is the duties part of this always true? As I understand it, deontologists believe (and I'd use a word like that, rather than say, which is imprecise in this situation: someone might say something that is not fully in accordance with their beliefs) that the act itself determines its moral value -- granted, that can often (always?) be squeezed into a duty to e.g. obey God, follow key moral principles, promote one's own spiritual health, and so on, but what's the value in making that additional step here?
Both characterizations are found in the literature and are used side by side. Descriptions focusing more deontology itself tend to talk about duties. Descriptions focusing on the contrast with consequentialism tend to talk about acts being good in themselves. Here are some examples:
* From
[27]: Deontology asserts that there are several distinct duties ... All [deontologists] agree ... that there are occasions when it would be wrong for us to act in a way that would maximize the good, because we would be in breach of some (other) duty.
* From Crisp 2005: According to deontology, certain acts are right or wrong in themselves.
* From the entry "Deontological Ethics" of the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy: By the middle of the twentieth century, “deontology” acquired its more specific meaning, which refers to a particular conception or theory of our moral duties.
* From the entry "Ethics" of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy: [According to deontology,] some principles of right and wrong, notably principles of justice and honesty, prescribe actions even though more evil than good would result from doing them.
The last source talks of "principles" rather than duties. We could also use this more general term but it would make the sentence more abstract.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Happy here, then -- if it's good enough for the grown-ups in philosophy, it's good enough for us. Do any of their formulations rule out e.g. "the duty to maximise human happiness", though? Given that we are making an explicit contrast with consequentialism here, I think it might be helpful to get some form of words that says "it's about the act itself" in here. UndercoverClassicistT·
C07:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's a good idea about mentioning the other characterization as well: why choose when we can have both? I added a short phrase.
The point about a "duty to maximise human happiness" is interesting because it mixes deontology and consequentialism/utilitarianism. Some deontologists have this principle as one of their duties among others. For example, this is the case for David Ross's duty of beneficence, see
The_Right_and_the_Good#The_Right.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I must admit that I get a bit lost working through the idea of a deontological duty to ensure the positive consequences of your actions by manifesting a virtue -- that seems to be all three ethical schools at once! -- but that's probably not the sort of thing we want to bother with in the lead. Is there anything to be said further down about "hybrid" philosophies, though, insofar as they exist, such as religious codes -- deontological -- that insist upon certain virtues? Again, I appreciate that I'm coming in with no expertise and that the answer may simply be "no". UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There would be something to said but I'm not sure that we should say it in this article. We hint to it in the section "Normative ethics": The three most influential schools of thought are consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics.[15] These schools are usually presented as exclusive alternatives, but depending on how they are defined, they can overlap and do not necessarily exclude one another. The standard treatments of these schools of thought usually only address this on the sidelines, if at all.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
10:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd suggest reorganising the second paragraph of the lead so that we don't blur together modes of ethical study (e.g. Normative ethics, applied ethics, metaethics) with schools of ethical thought (e.g. deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics).
The paragraph currently says:
Normative ethics aims to find general principles that govern how people should act. According to consequentialists, an act is right if it leads to the best consequences. Deontologists say morality consists in fulfilling duties, like telling the truth and keeping promises. Virtue ethics sees the manifestation of virtues, like courage and compassion, as the fundamental principle of morality. Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations, such as abortion, treatment of animals, and business practices. Metaethics examines the underlying assumptions and concepts of ethics. It asks whether there are objective moral facts, how moral knowledge is possible, and how moral judgments motivate people.
We could change it something like:
Normative ethics aims to find general principles that govern how people should act. Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations, such as abortion, treatment of animals, and business practices. Metaethics examines the underlying assumptions and concepts of ethics. It asks whether there are objective moral facts, how moral knowledge is possible, and how moral judgments motivate people. Influential normative theories are consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. According to consequentialists, an act is right if it leads to the best consequences. Deontologists say morality consists in fulfilling duties, like telling the truth and keeping promises. Virtue ethics sees the manifestation of virtues, like courage and compassion, as the fundamental principle of morality.
The main change is that the passage on consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics was moved to the end and one additional sentence needed to be added to reintroduce normative ethics. I slightly prefer the first option but the second option could also work.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I like the paragraph as you've written it on second go -- I think making the link between normative ethics and deontology/consequentialism/virtue ethics clearer is a good move. This version is much clearer as to the categorisation of the things we're talking about. UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
the Ancient Greek word êthos (ἦθος), meaning "character, personal disposition". .... The term morality originates in the Latin word moralis, meaning manners and character. I would pick a lane for how we handle glosses in formatting -- two different styles on display here in the same paragraph.
A matter of taste, perhaps, but I'm not sold on "says" as a verb with an abstract idea as its "speaker": I can wear "the Pope says..." or even "the Bible says...", but I struggle with "Catholicism says...". Suggest "teaches", or alternatively talking about the people who believe it.
The main advantage of the term is that it is simple to understand and keeps the text accessible. We could use alternatives terms like "affirm", "assert", and "state" if it is an issue. Some of our sources also use the term: from
[28]: A consequentialist theory says that ... virtue theory says that ...
That's fair enough: I don't really have a concrete, policy-based objection here, and different people have different stylistics tastes -- I wouldn't want to impose mine any more than I'd want reviewers to impose theirs when I've got an article are up for review. UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A core intuition behind consequentialism is that what matters is not the past but the future and that it should be shaped to achieve the best possible outcome: could this be expressed more concisely thus?
The act itself is usually not seen as part of the consequences. This means that if an act has intrinsic value or disvalue, it is not included as a relevant factor. Some consequentialists try to avoid this complication by including the act itself as part of the consequences.: I need a little more explanation here as to why this is a problem, or a complication.
Are there any suitable images for the consequentialism section? Perhaps not unrelatedly, I notice that we haven't talked about any concrete people or movements until we get down to utilitarianism (bar a very brief and slightly isolated mention of Mohism). Can we do anything to set the scene about where these ideas came from, and how influential they were (or weren't) until Bentham came along?
The term "consequentialism" was first introduced in the 20th century by
G. E. M. Anscombe. Her image would be a good choice but, as far as I'm aware, we have no free image of her other than
an odd drawing. Most of the well-known consequentialists are utilitarians. We could use
Henry Sidgwick or
Peter Singer but they came after Bentham so it might be odd to present them before him.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would definitely get Anscombe's name and chronology into the Consequentialism section, even if her image is tricky. From the article of the same name, it does seem that most consequentialists are late C19th and later (which, again, I think is worth flagging up), but then we also have Machiavelli mentioned there, and William Godwin. UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
utilitarianism, which states that the moral value of acts only depends on the pleasure they cause.: pleasure or suffering, surely, unless we're talking about particularly sadistic utilitarians?
I added this clarification. Utilitarians sometimes use the term "pleasure" in a wider sense to encompass both the positive and the negative but this could be confusing to the reader.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Traditionally, consequentialists were only concerned with the total of value or the aggregate good.: not a fan of the word traditionally: we mean, here, "before the 20th century", not that it was a matter of any kind of tradition. I think it's wise to be precise.
. An important distinction is between act and rule consequentialism: this is a case for suspended hyphens: act- and rule-consequentialism, or else for repeating consequentialism. It's not obvious, to a reader who knows nothing about the topic, that the distinction isn't between rule consequentialism and something else called act.
I went for the second option. Hyphens would also work but we would have to change the spelling of all the other instances as well. The terms are used both with and without hyphens in the literature.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
At the risk of being terribly boring, this is a special case where you use hyphens irrespective of whether they are "normally" used for that term (so: "I made chocolate- and strawberry-cakes for the party" -- without the hyphens, you only made one type of cake), but it does look pretty weird when you do, so I think trying to rephrase to avoid the need is a good move. UndercoverClassicistT·
C07:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
For example, if not lying is one of the best rules, then according to rule consequentialism, a person should not lie even in specific cases where lying would lead to better consequences: might be clearer in the positive: if telling the truth...?
More to follow -- I am very impressed by the clarity of the article so far, and how ably it helps me keep sight of the wood without getting too distracted by the trees. UndercoverClassicistT·
C19:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Unlike consequentialists, deontologists hold that the validity of general moral principles does not depend on their consequences: again, is that always true? Do any say, for example, "we should always follow the rule of not harming others because doing so leads to the best outcome/avoids us going to Hell?" Or is that when you've crossed the line and become a rule utilitarian? I know we say According to moral philosopher David Ross, it is wrong to break a promise even if no harm comes from it, but Ross means from breaking that specific promise, not (necessarily) from people generally breaking promises. I don't think many deontological theorists would argue that the world would be rosy if everyone broke the/their rules.
I think you have point here. It's true for the typical forms of deontology and sources often present it this way, including the source of this statement. I changed it to "does not directly depend". This would also cover the duty of beneficence by Ross discussed earlier, so we should be fine.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
save the life of several others: save the lives, I think?
Can we give any examples of agent-centred and patient-centred deontological theories?
Many of the main deontologists combine elements of both, which makes it a little difficult to provide clear-cut and accessible examples of well-known philosophers. The examples often have to be qualified in some way, as in our example later: contractualism is often understood as a patient-centered form of deontology.Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
He states that moral action should not follow fixed goals that people desire, such as being happy. Instead, he argues that there are universal principles that apply to everyone independent of their desires.: I'm not sure I've quite grasped the meaning of "fixed goals that people desire", since he does say that people should follow fixed principles, and that wise people should generally desire to follow them. Is "fixed" quite right here, or is he saying that people shouldn't make decisions willy-nilly based on what feels right in that particular moment, but rather should follow consistent rules in every situation?
I tried to reformulate it to get the idea better across. The main point is that, for Kant, it's not about desires or outcomes but about following principles, even if one does not like the principles and the outcomes they lead to.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd put a date on Kant. I'm not sure what I feel about putting him before divine command theory and the social contract, both of which are much older -- I think the structure works well, and I'm not sure that a strictly chronological one would be better, but it does slightly paper over the fact that deontological ethics, for most of its history, looked nothing like what Kant was talking about.
I added the dates. The chronological approach is only really found in the history section of this article. One of the reasons for having Kant first is that, as far as deontology is concerned, he is significantly more important.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Should we have a brief bit in the Kant section about post-Kant Kantian ethics?
I think that's true if you wouldn't describe anyone later than Kant as both a) important and b) Kantian -- so I can see, for example, why you wouldn't include Hegel or Nietzsche up here, but has anyone calling themselves a Kantian sharpened or otherwise shifted Kantian thought, in the same way that Mill did for utilitarian thought, or someone like Aquinas did for Christian ethics? UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Before Hegel, there would be Fichte and Schelling in the tradition of German idealism. There are also Schopenhauer, the Neo-Kantians, John Rawls, and Christine Korsgaard. However, I don't think the relation here is as close as the one between Bentham and Mill. For example, the
article "Deontological Ethics" of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has its own subsection dedicated to Kant and mentions him in various other places, but it doesn't mention any of the ones listed above except for Rawls in one instance. Rawls fits better into the paragraph on social contract theory, where our article currently mentions him.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
On my recurring point about putting names on ideas -- I know that it's perhaps a dangerous game to choose a few out of a huge number, but if Kant gets a mention (and a picture!) for the categorical imperative, should e.g. Rousseau and Rawls get a name-check for the social contract?
I added a short sentence. We could add a picture but we would probably have to remove Habermas's picture so it doesn't get too crowded.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
16:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Similarly, I think we should put dates on the various schools of virtue ethics: when we say "Eudaimonism is the classical view", what do we mean by classical? Most readers will know that Aristotle was an ancient Greek, but not all will be able to date him beyond "a long time ago", and I think it's helpful to note that practically all of our surviving Stoics are centuries later than he is.
I reformulated the passage to avoid the term "classical". I added dates for Aristotle and Stoicism. Originally, I mostly tried to have the historical context in the history section and use the remaining sections to focus more on the theories themselves rather than their historical context.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
16:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would tread very lightly around "Indigenous belief systems" (isn't Greek philosophy an indigenous belief system of Greece?): I think we're on the right side of the line at the moment, but there's a real danger of tokenising or flattening them, or as presenting them as somehow simpler or less serious than "proper" philosophical movements, simply because we haven't found out the names of the people who came up with them.
At the moment, I'm happy to grumble ineffectually on this one: I'm not personally a fan of the divide between "indigenous" art/culture/storytelling/philosophy/whatever and "proper" Western equivalents -- where possible, I think it's best to try to handle them together and to place them on equal footing. However, there's a difference between "I would do it differently" and "the way it's done here is wrong": as I said, I think we're on the right side of the line here, and are following a perfectly justifiable approach. UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Metaethical theories typically do not directly adopt substantive positions on normative ethical theories: it's difficult to avoid sounding abstruse in an article on metaethics, I know, but perhaps this would be clearer as something like "do not generally pass judgement on the quality of a given normative ethical theory" or something like that?
Ethics is concerned with normative statements about what ought to be the case, in contrast to descriptive statements, which are about what is the case: this is
Hume's guillotine, isn't it? Philippa Foot, in particular, would be quite upset with us affirming it so baldly. Indeed, the article on the is–ought problem has a very chunky section of "responses" dedicated to people quibbling it.
It's closely related to the is–ought problem or Hume's guillotine, which states that one cannot deduce a normative statement from a descriptive statement. I added a corresponding footnote and slightly modified the text.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Obligation and permission are contrasting terms that can be defined through each other: to be obligated to do something means that one is not permitted not to do it and to be permitted to do something means that one is not obligated not to do it: I'm not really seeing how this definition is any different to the everyday meaning of those terms, and in turn what it's value is in this particular article?
Maybe I'm underestimating our readers, but I'm not sure that they are aware of this precise relation. If we want to go deeper into it, we could give them the formula in deontic logic: and . But i'm not sure how helpful this would be.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In body text, I think that notation would be unhelpful, though I can see a better argument for it in a footnote (similar to how, for example, we often handle quotations in non-English languages: just give the translation in the text, give the original in a footnote). UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
When used in a general sense, good contrasts with bad: italics on good and bad per
MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Likewise, in the following, evil and bad.
To be morally responsible for an action usually means that the person possessed and exercised certain capacities or some form of control.: present tense here, surely?
it is an objective fact whether there is an obligation to keep a promise just as it is an objective fact whether a thing has a black color: I'd stick a comma after promise for readability. I would also suggest picking a different example: after all, colour vocabulary is notoriously cross-culturally tricky (famously, in Homer, the sea is wine-coloured), and indeed many people have experience of arguing with a partner as to whether a shade of paint is really red rather than terracotta... that's before you ask if someone's skin is "black", which is a famous example of how linguistic categories are socially constructed.
It implies that if two people disagree about a moral evaluation then at least one of them is wrong. This observation is sometimes taken as an argument against moral realism since moral disagreement is widespread in most fields: as written, this sounds a bit limp to me. If you give two people a difficult mathematical problem, they are likely to disagree on the answer, but nobody would argue that this means it doesn't have one, only that the problem is hard. In the same way, the fact that people disagree on whether climate change is real or the existence of an afterlife is not good evidence that neither argument has a true answer.
I think the key point in this argument is that the disagreement is widespread. Personally, I agree with you that the argument is not a solid proof against moral realism. However, it still carries some force. For example, if everyone agreed on all moral evaluations, people would be less likely to doubt moral realism.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You're probably covered enough by "has been taken as" -- the structure of the eyeball has been taken as proof of the existence of God, after all, even though it's famously bad evidence for it. It's certainly not unrelated to the point it's trying to prove. UndercoverClassicistT·
C17:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
suicide is permitted: suggest amending permissible: as written, this reads as a legal or a social statement rather than a moral one.
A different explanation states that morality arises from moral emotions, which are not the same for everyone: I would name Emotivism, rather than relegating its name to the link (
WP:EASTEREGG might apply here).
They are opposed to both objective moral facts defended by moral realism and subjective moral facts defended by moral relativism: I'm not sure "are opposed to" means "don't believe in": I'm opposed to animal cruelty, but I'm fairly sure it exists. Suggest "they reject the existence both of objective moral facts..."
Moral nihilism, like moral relativism, recognizes that people judge actions as right or wrong from different perspectives. However, it disagrees that this practice involves morality and sees it as just one type of human behavior: and/or as filling a social function? As we've written it, it sounds as though moral nihilists all think that making moral judgements is stupid and/or pointless: do any of them say something like "moral judgements are arbitrary, but the fact that we make them is important and interesting for our psychology/how our societies work?"
I think the more common view among moral nihilists is that moral beliefs/practices are harmful. Nietzsche frequently makes this point. It's quite possible that some moral nihilists see morality as a useful fiction but I'm not sure that the article should get too much into this.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
According to the traditionally influential view of natural law ethics, morality is based on a natural law created by God: traditionally, again -- but is it always "God"? Not, for example, "the gods", "a deity", "a divinely ordained natural law" or similar? To me, with the capital, we're narrowing ourselves to the Judeo-Christian one (and possibly the Muslim one, but not all readers will agree).
You are right that this is a narrowed perspective. This is mainly because the view was mostly developed in Christian philosophy and is presented this way in the sources. For example, Murphy 2019a says that "the paradigmatic natural law view holds that (1) the natural law is given by God" and talks about "God’s will", "God’s eternal plan", and "God’s choosing". I reformulated the sentence to remove the "traditionally".
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If we're going to implicitly case natural law as a Christian belief, we should be explicit about it and say something like "according to the Christian view of natural-law ethics". On the other hand, if we're not comfortable tying it to Christianity, we need to make sure that our framing works for non-Christian forms. UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The sentence now reads: For example, natural law ethics, an influential position in Christian ethics, says that morality is based on a natural law created by God.Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-naturalism accepts that moral properties form part of reality: not sure about accepts that in this kind of phrase (
MOS:SAID) -- this implies that the statement is true: "he accepts that she is dead" rules out, in normal speech, the possibility that she isn't. There are one or two other instances. Here, we could solve it by moving "argues" to this position.
Cognitivism only claims that moral statements have a truth value but is not interested in which truth value they have: not sure only... but... is idiomatic: it works fine if you cut only, or go for "have a truth-value: it is not ..."
The semantic position of cognitivism is closely related to the ontological position of moral realism: I think the division between semantic ideas and ontological ideas is important to clarify this bit, and it would be worth spending a sentence or so at the outset to outline what makes the cognitivism–noncognitivism spectrum different from the realism–nihilism one. "Position" might be slightly ambiguous: it can mean "placement" (so 'semantic position' means 'where something is positioned in terms of semantics' -- something can, for example, have both a horizontal and a vertical) or, as here, "attitude of mind", where the options are usually mutually exclusive.
I reformulated it with an expanded explanation to bring in the contrast between the meaning of moral terms and the existence of moral facts.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's good, though I think the end of cognitivism is closely related to the ontological theory of moral realism about the existence of moral facts is now awkward for prose and slightly unclear. Suggest a full stop after moral realism; you could then do something like "Moral realists believe that moral truths exist, so moral realists [must? generally?] therefore follow the cognitivist principle that moral statements can be true. However, error theory combines cognitivism with moral nihilism by claiming...."? UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A different interpretation is that they express other types of meaning contents: other types of meanings? If "meaning contents" is intentional, I think we need a bit more handholding as to what it, well, means.
According to this view, the statement "Murder is wrong" expresses that the speaker has a negative moral attitude towards murder or dislikes it: or disapproves of it? "Dislikes" can mean "derives negative pleasure from it", and we often dislike doing things we have positive moral views of (going for a long run in the rain, for example).
the statement "Murder is wrong" expresses ... general moral truths, like "lying is wrong", are self-evident: are we capitalising the first words of these compound-noun phrases? It's not consistent at the moment.
Maybe we can go for the rule: start with uppercase if the text between quotation marks can stand as full sentence. I tried to implement it, I hope I didn't miss anything.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Moral skepticism is often criticized based on the claim that it leads to immoral behavior.: again, this isn't a particularly good criticism (atheism gets the same charge levelled at it), particularly as moral sceptics would presumably say that immoral behaviour doesn't exist in any way that human beings can recognise it? However, perhaps we're covered by presenting this as a "some people say...".
Strictly speaking, we are just reporting what others say. The criticism-section of Sinnott-Armstrong 2019 starts with Opponents often accuse moral skepticism of leading to immorality.
This is pedantic, but is that our source material? If so, we need a slight rephrase: we can't use that for moral skepticism is often criticised. Conspiracy theorists often say that lizard people rule the world, but that it is not often said, because there are not many conspiracy theorists. Bringing opponents, critics etc back will solve this. UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
people can act against moral judgments: suggest adding their own moral judgements, so that we're clear we don't mean "people can do things that are disapproved of by their peers".
psychopaths or sociopaths, who fail to either judge that a behavior is wrong or translate their judgment into action: the word sociopath is no longer considered meaningful in psychology: psycopathy, on the other hand, has quite a strict meaning, mostly centring around a lack of inhibitions and empathy. These might be philosophical psychopaths in the vein of philosophical zombies, but I'd suggest avoiding the weeds by just going for "people who fail either to judge...". Surely, though, quite a few of those metaethical theories we've just covered would take some sort of issue with the statement "he has failed to judge that his behaviour is wrong"?
I removed the mention of socipaths. DeLapp, § 5. Psychology and Metaethics explicitly discusses psychopaths from the perspectives of internalism and externalism so I think it should be fine to keep the term.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
16:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(How) does Delapp define psychopaths, in this context? If they simply use the word to mean "people who don't believe that (e.g.) hurting others is wrong", that's out of whack with the usual/"proper" meaning. Again, my point about zombies: philosophers will often use the word to mean "imaginary people who look like you and I but don't have any internal life", and that's fine, but we shouldn't do so without explaining that we're doing it, because our readers will take zombie to mean "brain-eating dead people". UndercoverClassicistT·
C20:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delapp does not define the term, I don't think this is meant as a special philosophical technical term. Rosati 2016 also discusses the relation to psychopaths. I reformulated the passage to ensure that all claims are attributed. An alternative would be to remove the sentence.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If I may, I think we've got it backwards -- it's not that these philosophers particularly care about applying their findings to real psychopaths, but they seem to be using imagined psychopaths as illustrative examples to craft their theories. How about something like When considering people who consistently break moral codes –termed "psychopaths" by Delapp and Rosati – internalists argue that they must not know that their behaviour is wrong, or else that they feel little motivational force to translate their moral knowledge into action.
If nothing else, I'm a little uncomfortable deferring to philosophers for a definition of psychopath, which is after all a medical term -- we wouldn't, for example, present a philosophers views of taxonomy as authoritative over those of scientists, if they were relevant to their arguments on bioethics, but we would frame them as "givens" in that argument: something like "the ethicist John Smith believes that Venus flytraps, because they eat food, should be considered animals and so have animal rights". We wouldn't say "Venus flytraps are animals" and cite Smith. UndercoverClassicistT·
C12:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure that this is the definition Delapp and Rosati use. There are a lot of sources on the relation between psychopathy and moral motivation, such as
[29],
[30],
[31], and
[32]. I think we shouldn't assume that they all talk about imagined psychopaths rather than real ones.
Our sentence currently says: The debate between internalism and externalism is relevant for explaining the behavior of psychopaths, with some moral theorists suggesting that psychopaths do not know that their behavior is wrong while others propose that psychopaths know it but feel little motivational force to translate this knowledge into action. We could replace "the behavior of psychopaths" with the more general term "psychological deviance". The other mentions of psychopaths are all attributed so we state nothing controversial in wikivoice. But given the difficulties in making progress here, it might be best to just remove the sentence.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
15:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I suppose my issue here is: if this is a discussion about actual, diagnosed psychopaths, it's not great to have that discussion entirely among philosophers rather than psychiatrists. If it's simply an attempt to probe the bounds of a theory, and correct a potential objection to motivational internalism ("some people do things that are wrong"), we shouldn't unnecessarily use terminology that has a precise meaning and doesn't quite fit with the way we want to use it. However, if the latter, I'm not sure why we need psychopaths here at all, since psychologically normal sinners would seem to be just as much a problem to the motivational internalists. From a psychiatrist's point of view, psychopaths commit antisocial actions because they have less empathy, less fear and fewer inhibitions than most people, but that's not quite the sort of conversation we're having here. UndercoverClassicistT·
C16:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
it may not be clear how the Kantian requirement of respecting everyone's personhood applies to a fetus and what the long-term consequences are in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number: we've crossed into two different belief systems here: I'd make that clear, and amend to something like "or, from a utilitarian perspective, what the long-term consequences..."
which may not be universally applicable to other domains: at the moment, a tautology: I'd advise cutting universally, as it wouldn't be nothing if e.g. lessons from medicine could also be applied in sport, but not in romance.
In either case, inquiry into applied ethics is often triggered by ethical dilemmas to solve cases in which a person is subject to conflicting moral requirements: clearer and more concise if cut thus?
Bioethics is a wide field that covers moral problems associated with living organisms and biological disciplines: suggest cutting is a wide field that -- I'm not saying it's wrong, but we haven't described other fields in this way, and I don't think we should give the impression that bioethics is any wider than other fields.
These differences concern, for example, how to treat non-living entities like rocks and non-sentient entities like plants in contrast to animals and whether humans have a different moral status than other animals.: optional, but perhaps more readable with a comma before the final and.
Medical ethics ... has its origins in the Hippocratic Oath: I would be careful about giving the oath too much credit, especially early on: it's a big deal in modern medicine but wasn't really in the ancient world. I would be happier saying that this is one of the earliest known texts to engage directly with medical ethics (though exactly how old is a slightly tricky one), rather than claiming it as a fountainhead for everything that came after. There are a couple of Late Antique texts which are much more straightforwardly ethical codes (rather than contracts of obligation), particularly the {{lang|la|
Formula Comitis Archiatrorum, much more obviously foundational to what has followed, and which aren't, at least as far as I know, recognisably derived from the Hippocratic oath. One thing that does need to be clear here is that the oath is only the oldest surviving work in its field -- it's almost certain that older discussions of medical ethics have been lost.
One debate focuses on the moral status of fetuses, for example, whether they are full-fledged persons and whether abortion is a form of murder: "one debate" reads oddly, since we already had this conversation a section or so earlier: I think there's value in approaching the same issue from another perspective, but perhaps nod to the fact that readers have already seen it?
At the end of life, ethical issues arise about whether a person has the right to end their life in cases of terminal illness and if doctors may help them do so.: could cut at the end of life, and (if you like) broaden this statement: plenty of recent discussion has focused on people who are not, medically at least, anywhere near the end of life, but nevertheless want help in getting there.
many stakeholders are directly and indirectly involved in corporate decisions, such as the CEO, the board of directors, and the shareholders.: all of these are directly involved in at least some decisions: could we swap one of these for a group that are indirectly involved? Or are we counting shareholders as the latter?
I think the shareholders fit more in the indirectly-group: they do not make the day-by-day corporate decisions but other stakeholders are often keen on making them happy.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Military ethics is a closely related field: lose the bold here.
MOS:BOLDREDIRECT has Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section, or at the beginning of another section (emphasis mine): that doesn't apply here. UndercoverClassicistT·
C17:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Right, but we use that in titles, not descriptions of parts of a work. Here, the same logic applies as with the "p" in e.g. "p. 4": unless we're going to write "Smith 2024, Page 3", we should decap both. UndercoverClassicistT·
C17:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
An entity has intrinsic value if it is good in itself or good for its own sake: is this only entities, or can it be e.g. actions and virtues?
In philosophy, "entity" is often understood as one of the widest terms. In this sense, it would include actions and virtues.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
axiological hedonists say that pleasure is the only source of intrinsic value with the magnitude of value corresponding to the degree of pleasure: better with a comma before with, but consider and that the magnitude of value corresponds to...
deontological theories tend to reject the idea that what is good can be used to define what is right: I'm not sure I totally understand this one -- can you give (here or in the article) a case study? Kantians think reason is a good, so can be used to derive what is right; Christians think God is good, so following God's law is right, surely?
Good example of a theorist, but I must admit I'm still confused as to what that means in practice. Is this just another form of Hume's guillotine -- the idea that when we say "kindness is good" and "it is right to show kindness", we're making two different kinds of statements, and one can't be used to infer the other? UndercoverClassicistT·
C09:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's one way to express it. Roughly simplified, as I understand it: an action can be (1) right and good, (2) right and not good, (3) not right and good, (4) not right and not good. According to consequentialists, we only need to know what is good in order to know what is right. So good and right are not really independent and the options (2) and (3) do not apply. Deontologists disagree. This is a rough simplification so we would probably need various disclaimers but I hope the basic idea is clear.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
10:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That sounds like an important distinction, especially as far as (2) and (3) are concerned. I suppose that's (for example) the idea that it could be right under religious law to stone someone for wearing mixed fibres, even though not much good comes of it (except abstract ideas like purifying the community and warning off potential sinners?) Any way of getting that into the article without going too deep into the weeds? UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We allude to this fact at various places, like the contrast between following duties vs the value of consequences, the example of not breaking a promise even if no harm comes of it, and the recently added footnote. When overview sources mention this fact, they usually do so in passing without going much into detail.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
15:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this section would be clearer if we brought back one of those concrete examples (like, for example, the idea of breaking a promise being wrong even if it brings good things as a consequence), but happy to defer to you. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Some theorists, like Mark Rowlands, argue that morality is not limited to humans: I find it interesting that Rowlands got a name-check here but nobody got one in bioethics or Just War. Perhaps consider sticking Singer and Augustine/Aquinas up there? We seemed to be channelling the latter in particular.
I would put some dates on the different societies in the first couple of paragraphs of History -- we've whooshed through about 3,000 years but given the casual reader the impression that this all took place at basically the same time.
The ancient and medieval paragraphs on ethical history are impressively multicultural, but once we get to Hobbes, we don't really have anyone outside the European cultural sphere -- in fact, if you take out Brits and Germans, we've got almost nobody at all. Is there anything we can do to widen the scope?
If we simply follow the overview sources on the history of ethics, this is roughly the picture we get. We could mention figures like Wang Yangming and Mahatma Gandhi. I could try to do some research to see if we can come up with more but they probably wouldn't be covered in a typical overview of the history of ethics.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
15:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Neuroethics" is an interesting inclusion in the "see also" -- I assume we don't have any of the other many x-ethics fields down there because we've name-checked them earlier. Should we therefore build some mention of neuroethics into e.g. the bioethics section?
We could but I'm not sure that it's important enough. For example, Gordon's overview article "Bioethics" does not mention neuroethics.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
16:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Must admit I struggle to see an argument by which it's important enough for a "see also" (when no other field, discipline etc is), but not important enough for any mention at all in the text -- but this is a very minor point. UndercoverClassicistT·
C14:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
On that note, is the
Ethical movement really notable enough to take the top spot in the See also, or indeed any spot at all? It seems like a very small operation.
That's all for a pass through, though I appreciate I've given you a lot to work with -- hopefully, mostly questions and gentle steers rather than a massive set of demands. Greatly enjoyed the article. UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I do -- I've made a few tiny copyedits and replies above, but nothing that would forestall a support. Excellent work on a vital article, and thank you for an interesting and collegial exchange on the review points. UndercoverClassicistT·
C14:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You're a braver editor than me taking on such a task, and well done for even daring to do it. (I haven't read the likes of Rawls, Mill, Bentham et al since my university days, but I'll struggle through to see what I can find). -
SchroCat (
talk)
20:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is primarily the work of PSA, who did a phenomenal job gathering information on this song. They approached me off-wiki last month asking to collaborate on helping to build the article, and we are both of the belief that it is ready for FAC. This song is from
SZA's smash-hit album SOS, and while it was never released as a single, it still became the first-ever top 40 hit for its featured artist, the one and only
Phoebe Bridgers. Cited by several critics and by SZA herself as an example of the album's experimentation with genres outside of R&B, the song revolves around themes of relationships faltering due to a lack of meaningful connection, with recurring themes surrounding artificial intelligence. I have greatly enjoyed collaborating with PSA on this one, and we both anticipate the community's feedback. (Disclosure: for my part, this is a WikiCup nomination.)
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
14:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments from Mike Christie
Oppose on prose. I was the GA reviewer, and I said when I passed it that "the prose is a little awkward in places but I think this meets the GA standards". FA prose standards are higher. Here are a few examples of wording that I think needs to be improved.
"Elsewhere, it appeared on national charts in Australia, Canada, and Portugal." "Elsewhere" is redundant; the list of places tells the reader it's elsewhere.
"many praised the two performers as a fitting match despite their discographies' different sounds, whereas a few found Bridgers an unnecessary addition". "Fitting match" is redundant; "discographies' different sounds" is an odd figurative use of "discography" -- it's their music that has a characteristic sound, not the list of their music; "unnecessary addition" is a bit vague.
I've replaced "fitting match" with "good fit", "discographies' different sounds" with "the differences between their respective musical styles", and rephrased the "unnecessary addition" bit.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"From April to May 2022, SZA told media outlets that she had recently finished the album": strictly speaking this means she did nothing else but say this during that time, which is not what you want to say.
"SZA created a list of possible collaborators for the album. The roster included artists like": "roster" is not the ideal word; it means a list of people who have a given duty.
"Having been categorized as an R&B artist throughout her career, which she believed was because she was a Black woman,[12] SZA sought to prove her musical versatility and combine the R&B sound that had been a staple of her past works[13][14] with a diverse set of other genres and soundscapes." A bit wordy. And we start by saying she thought she was only categorized as an R&B artist because she was Black, and then say R&B was the main genre she had been working in. What does "soundscapes" add here that we don't get from "genre"?
"The turnaround time for completing "Ghost in the Machine" was fast." A time is short or long, not fast (in some usages, such as athletic events, you can say "a fast time", but that's not this usage). I really should have caught this in the GA review.
"Time's Andrew R. Chow wrote that she asks for help even if she feels drained from the romance, which he added was one of the album's recurring themes": a bit hard to parse. Does she feel drained from the romance or not? If she does, why "if"? I think you want "though". And what is the recurring theme? Feeling drained from romance? Or just romance?
I've replaced this part with "Time's Andrew R. Chow wrote that there are multiple instances on the album where SZA expresses desire to remain in a relationship despite feeling drained from it, and cited 'Ghost in the Machine' as an example".
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Mike Christie, thank you for the constructive criticism. I believe that I have addressed the specific points you have mentioned (replies inline), and will be giving the article a few combs-through to identify other possible issues with the prose. Cheers,
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"appeared on the national charts in Canada, Australia, and Portugal" → can't rely on refs in other sections
I have to admit that footnote looked odd to me. I've replaced it with direct citations to the sources that were already present in §Charts.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
18:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As a counterpoint - I have always believed that if a given information is cited somewhere in the article, there is no need to cite it again elsewhere in the same article, which is coincidentally the logic behind citations in lead sections. Plus, listing a bunch of peaks in quick succession in one paragraph disrupts the flow and makes the whole thing off to me. This feels like a matter of preference anyway, and I have reinstated the status quo.
PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...)
05:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I wasn't saying the article needs to provide the exact peaks, but I don't agree that a note from one section to a different section suffices as a citation. The guidance seems to be mostly about an opening sentence acting as a summary for a paragraph, or the lead acting as a summary for the paragraphs of the article.
Heartfox (
talk)
18:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
overall I think there are slightly too many references to the album. context is great but I think some sentences could be cut. Like "She posted the album's track list on Twitter on December 5, 2022." is really unnecessary I think.
I've tried to trim some of the references to other songs (thinking it over, I'm not sure if "Kill Bill" needed to be namedropped, let alone twice, though I believe at least one of those instances was my error) and extraneous references to the album itself.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
18:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"As a member of Boygenius, she also won Best Rock Song and Best Rock Performance for "Not Strong Enough" and Best Alternative Music Album for The Record" → this level of detail is also unnecessary I think
"In a Billboard cover story published", "In an interview with Nessa of Hot 97", "In an interview for CBS News Los Angeles", "SZA told Alternative Press" → all this seems unnecessary. I don't care where stuff was said, I care about what was said.
"In the middle of the demo was an open instrumental section where Bisel thought Bridgers would fit" → Bisel thought Bridgers would fit in an open instrumental section during the middle of the demo
I'll get to this sometime soon (likely within the next few days, I'm a bit burnt out right now). Thank you for the review(s) of Windswept Adan, by the way! Consider this my way of paying you back. :)
joeyquism (
talk)
19:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dylan620: Hello again! I've noted some of my concerns below; feel free to refuse with justification:
...with imminent release being considered a possibility as early as 2019... - Is this clause particularly relevant? I feel that the same information is conveyed or to some extent implied by the preceding clause (After numerous delays). I'd suggest removing it, or rephrasing it to where it does not sit awkwardly in the middle of more pertinent information.
While some tracks had an "aggressive" sound, certain others were balladic, soft, or heartfelt. - Would it be worth it to note if "Ghost in the Machine" falls into any of these descriptions? I've noticed the gradual buildup to the mention of the subject, and while I do find it engaging, I feel as if this is sort of extraneous as it stands, as there have been no mentions of the track prior to this sentence. That being said, I recognize that it does provide more context as to how SOS sounds.
I've added another citation to support categorizing "Ghost in the Machine" as a ballad and removed "heartfelt" as not mentioned by the source (even though I'd personally describe the album that way).
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
For A. D. Amorosi of Variety... - I feel like this is a different way of wording "In his opinion, [...]". I'd personally avoid this kind of phrasing by indicating that the following text is something that he wrote, and is not something that readers should take as fact, which is how it reads to me right now (I acknowledge that I cannot speak for others here). Something like "Writing for Variety, A. D. Amorosi wrote that the production..." would suffice.
and is not something the readers should take as fact – this is intentional, as I wanted to convey that it was Amorosi's opinion that the production sounded like those instruments (neither of which are mentioned in the credits). Nevertheless, I think your suggested phrasing works better, although I did replace Writing for... with In a review of SOS for... so as not to use "writing" and "wrote" only a few words apart in the same sentence (with respect to your mention of
WP:ELEVAR below, which I found enlightening).
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The turnaround time for completing "Ghost in the Machine" was short. - This is sort of just my personal preference, but I'm not a fan of short sentences. If they're not at the beginning of a paragraph (in which case, I would encourage them, as they punch a lot harder), they disrupt the flow of the reading experience. I'd suggest conjoining this with the following sentence through a semicolon, or breaking the paragraph it belongs to in two with this sentence being the first.
The Alternative Press article states that "SZA wanted to weave in the voice of a 'highly conversational' person, or as she explains, someone with a conversational approach to their music like Mac DeMarco, Connan Mockasin or Kevin Parker of Tame Impala." Do you think this warrants inclusion in the article? This seems like valuable information for describing the conversational style of the lyrics. Let me know your thoughts on this. Do note that I did not do a spot or source check; I initially checked this link out to see if there was more to the quote "I feel like there's so much debate about what's good, what's bad, what's this, what's that?"
I think this could be worth including, though I'm not quite sure where. Maybe in §Music_and_production, where Bisel suggests to SZA that she invite Bridgers to feature? The Alternative Press article certainly implies this to be a reason that SZA felt like Bridgers would be a good fit.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think your instinct is correct here. I'm thinking perhaps some integration with the sentence In the middle of the demo was an open instrumental section where Bisel thought Bridgers would fit, so he suggested to SZA that she include Bridgers as a feature; SZA agreed.; perhaps before or after would be alright too.
Replaced the period with a comma and added having sought to include a "highly conversational" guest musician such as Bridgers.Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
23:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
SZA, tired of online drama, sings about... - I think this reads strangely, but I'm not sure of how I would amend it. Leave it be for now, but I just wanted to note that I didn't think this phrase flowed very well.
I got rid of the online drama clause because it felt redundant to part of the paragraph directly above it, and replaced sings about wanting... with yearns for....
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
...the song arrived at its peak of number 17... - Can be conveyed more simply as "the song peaked at number 17"; I'm citing
WP:ELEVAR here. Not trying to attack, but don't be afraid to use the same term twice within close proximity of each other at the expense of sounding a bit like you're droning; I struggle with this as well at times.
As I alluded above, I had not previously considered that "elegant variation" could be a problem, but I totally understand where you're coming from. I've edited the sentene to reuse the "debuted and peaked" wording.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
CJ Thorpe-Tracey for The Quietus... - "For" can be replaced with "of", or the clause can be phrased as something like "For The Quietus, CJ Thorpe-Tracey wrote that he felt..."
I have definitely not adhered to the "no style policing" expectation, but I do feel that some of the prose can be improved to further benefit the reading experience; additionally, most of the concerns that I had before were addressed by the other reviewers and corrected. Overall, I think it reads quite nicely; it just needs some touch-ups to really flow. I'll let you know if I have any further comments; as of now, I have no established position on where I stand for support or oppose. As always, feel free to let me know your thoughts with a reply. Hope you're having a great weekend, and I look forward to hearing back from you soon!
joeyquism (
talk)
21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your edits,
Dylan620! I have left one more comment above regarding the placement of the SZA quote from the Alternative Press article; once that is addressed, I'll read over the article a few more times and likely support. Thanks, and have a great rest of your day!
joeyquism (
talk)
23:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
So you don't mention anything about the song's chords, which is just two chords - Gb major 7 to Ebminor (sometimes Eb major). Can you find any references to its chords or tempo, as in beats per minute? It feels like a steady tempo throughout the whole song.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any sheet music uploads by the song's publisher. I did find
this at musicnotes.com, but it's an arrangement by a third party, which I assume doesn't pass muster for inclusion (though of course I hope I'm wrong here).
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Dylan pretty much said what I was going to say. Musicnotes.com composition is not guaranteed to be the same composition as the original studio version's, so the information was decisively left out. - Elias
This was addressed at
GAN: "credits are assumed to be cited to the album's liner notes, which
WP:ALBUMSTYLE tells me usually does not need an explicit citation". I have removed the citation accordingly. - Elias
It took some digging, but I've found
an image on Discogs where the text is clear enough to be of use for verification.
All in all, the writing is pretty good in my opinion.
I also used a random number generator to spotcheck references.
37 - I don't know if this reference accurately. It doesn't mention " she believes has been overtaken by self-centeredness and lack of empathy. ", nor does it mention that Sadhguru was "the founder of the Isha Foundation". Otherwise the reference seems formatted fine.
I mulled over whether to cite the Isha Foundation tidbit to a Vox article linked in the source, or to remove it outright; I opted for the latter because at the end of the day I'm not sure how relevant it is to the topic at hand. (
PSA, feel free to correct me here.) I've also removed the sentence you quoted (partly per your concerns, and partly because I think it might have been a little redundant to the sentence before it) and moved the paragraph break to start the next one at "The song also discusses artificial intelligence".
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a
WP:SKY/
WP:NOTCITE situation IMO. Namedropping Sadhguru without context because the description would otherwise have to be cited is like saying I should cite that SZA is an American singer-songwriter in the prose for GiTM. The articles about those people already cover those descriptors. - Elias
40 - "The lyrics were interpreted by publications as being about her then-boyfriend, Irish actor Paul Mescal" the references more hint it was a breakup. Was it?
46 - this reference doesn't cover the information at all, which is supposed to be about the album being released on 12/9/2022
This had been a supplementary reference for the "three years of delays" clause of that same sentence - I've pulled the ref (and a couple more) forward to that comma.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
56 - the source says "Versatility largely wins out. Only SZA could find room for Travis Scott on a slow jam ballad, Open Arms, as well as Phoebe Bridgers (Ghost in the Machine)," - I guess "wins out" covers the information, but it seems to be a bit biased in my opinion in its current wording.
This was supplementary to ref 57, but I've restructured the sourcing in that paragraph, and separated this ref as citing how the song contributes to the album's diversity.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not really? I don't see how "cohesive" is a biased word to use. - Elias
I was mostly remarking how " many praised the collaboration as successful" was biased, since I didn't think source 56 would call that praise. The Guardian said "Clocking in at 23 tracks, SOS might well register as a distress signal, with SZA searching for a through line connecting her album’s multiple producers, its grab bag of genres and disparate featured guests," "it treads a fine line between swashbuckling versatility and a lack of cohesion.", and "Better sequencing might have smoothed the bumps." The Guardian review very much read as mixed, not quite as successful. To include it with " many praised the collaboration as successful despite the two artists' different musical styles" feels contrary to the source, and makes me worried that the article might be biased in its point of view. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
21:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I've attempted to resolve this by pulling the ref forward to §Background and using it a source for the song's contribution to the album's diversity.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
14:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
60 - yea that covers it
68 - that covers it
76 - that works
So maybe it's only a few references I checked, but I'm not satisfied about the current state of referencing, and or bias. Would you mind checking these instances, and where possible, improve the referencing, or change the wording? ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
19:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I replied, mostly still the same few concerns, regarding the beats per minute, the credits (mostly want to verify just for FAC purposes), and about the one source being contradictory to what's written in the article. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
21:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm happy to support now. I can see that there aren't a lot of good reliable links out there about the song's composition, which is a shame, but it's understandable. You've addressed my concerns satisfactorily. Best of luck finishing up this FAC! ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's an essay.
WP:VERIFIABILITY is a policy and I think it's probably best to include the citation - what's the harm in having it, given people are likely to pick up on the unsupported nature when this is on the main page. -
SchroCat (
talk)
20:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Some of your capitalisation is a little awry – short prepositions like "out" should be lower case
I think I've addressed this – I did capitalize a preposition (ref title 12 at time of writing) that directly followed an en dash.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
20:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It may be best to archive those sources you've not done so far (this is a suggestion, not compulsory)
I've added an archived URL for the BBC Glastonbury source, but the others that don't already have archives are that way because those references are generated by templates.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
20:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A search shows no missing sources from books or journals
@
Dylan620 @
SchroCat, I am incredibly sorry this is late, but there are some things I have to say: in title case, when a preposition is part of a phrasal verb, the preposition is capitalized (see
MOS:TITLECAPS). For "SZA's Out for Blood", "out" here functions not as a preposition but an adjective, which is why I capitalized the word. Wrt the certifications, it is the standard for music articles to use the
Certification Table Entry template so that updating certs and certification dates is easier. An inconvenience if you want archive links and consistent capitalization, but the people who regularly update this stuff are probably going to be unhappy this was changed. I might raise the archiving issue at
the template talk eventually. For now, I have recapitalized the prepositions and reverted to the templates.
Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 please make some noise00:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Gog: I attempted to address the capitalizations for the certification refs by replacing the table-generating templates
with this, which seemed to work. According to
Elias above, it is customary to use the relevant templates ({{Certification Table Top}}, {{Certification Table Entry}}, and {{Certification Table Bottom}}) because they make it easier to update the certifications; the entry template uses sentence case for its refs, which unfortunately contradicts the title case used for the other refs in this article. Is it still okay to use the templates in this case?
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
19:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would advise making the alt texts more visually descriptive -- they are all for pictures of people, and yet tell us nothing about what those people look like. However, consensus is that the FA standards don't impose rigid criteria for alt text, as long as an attempt has been made.
No lead image, but also no obvious candidates -- the song doesn't seem to have been yet released as a single, so the standard practice of using the sleeve art under FUR can't be used here. UndercoverClassicistT·
C19:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Much appreciated,
UndercoverClassicist. We're on a similar wavelength with our views of alt text. I'm currently working on preparing
Timeline of the 2011 Pacific hurricane season for FLC, and have tried to make the track map and satellite photo alt texts as descriptive as possible. A picture is worth a thousand words, as the old saying goes. I'll try to think of something to spruce up the alt texts here.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
20:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
References: article titles should either all be in title case or all in sentence case. Regardless of how they appear in their originals.
Huh, I thought I caught this already? Went back and double-checked, and it looks like the only ref titles not already in title case are those generated by {{Certification Table Entry}}. Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure how to fix it. I tried substituting the template so I could convert the ref titles afterward, but the result was a huge mess, so I self-reverted.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
23:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, it looksas if cites 79, 80 and 81 are autogenerated to be non-MoS compliant.
"inhumane behavior of other people". Grammatically, shouldn't that be either 'the inhumane behavior of other people' or 'inhumane behavior by other people'?
"the perceived lack of meaningful human connections". This seems to hang in space. Do you mean '... on the internet', '... in modern life', or something else?
Went with "in her life" because it feels congruous with the source, which mentions her not feeling connected to others or herself.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
19:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"including "Ghost in the Machine"." Do you mean something like 'including one for "Ghost in the Machine"? Or perhaps 'including "Ghost in the Machine" for the Best Pop Duo/Group Performance award'?
In this part, (During the build-up to the album's release, SZA created a list of possible collaborators for the album), I would avoid repeating the word "album". I am unsure what the word "build-up" is referencing, as in promotion for the album or something else? Did SZA actively and publicly reach out to other artists for collaborations while promoting the album? Maybe I am just being dense at the moment, but I would like some clarification about this.
I've replaced build-up to the album's release with making of the album and removed the use of 'album' after 'collaborators'.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The image of
Rob Bisel includes the year that the photo was taken while the images of
Phoebe Bridgers and
SZA do not. I would be consistent with whether or not this information is included in the captions.
I am uncertain about "hushed" means in this context, (on hushed electronic production). I think something like "muted" would work better in this context.
I'm not quite sure if I agree with this. According to Wiktionary, the definition of '
hushed' is Very quiet; expressed using soft tones, while the contextually relevant definition of '
muted' is Quiet or soft. They're similar, but 'hushed' feels just that little more specific and fitting, especially since the production actually does make use of soft tones.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have just never seen "hushed" used in regards to music, particularly with production, but I could be wrong. When I think of the word "hushed", I more so associate it with voices (i.e. the "hushed whispers" example provided in the Wiktionary entry). It is not a major point, but personally, I just have never seen the word used like this before. However, since no one else has mentioned this, I could just be over-thinking it.
Aoba47 (
talk)
21:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would avoid the use of "meanwhile" in this context, (Meanwhile, Alex Hopper of American Songwriter and Andrew R. Chow of Time). The word implies that this action is occurring at the same time as the events of the previous sentence so it does not really work in this case. I would use a different transition word.
That is a very good point and one that I wish I'd thought of myself. Reading it again, I'm uncertain if a transition word is actually necessary here, so I've chucked 'meanwhile' without replacing it with anything.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but I do not think "personally" is needed in this part, (SZA personally contacted Bridgers), as that could be understood without that word.
I hope that this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with the FAC, and I hope you are having a great start to your weekend.
Aoba47 (
talk)
19:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the replies and for the kind words. The "hushed" part is not a major issue and will not hold up my review. As I have said above, I just have not seen that word used in this kind of context, but that could very well just be me. I will look through the article again sometime tomorrow if that is okay with you. I do not imagine that I will find anything further, but I just want to double-check.
Aoba47 (
talk)
21:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for addressing everything. I do not see anything further for me to comment on. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I am glad that I was able to help with this FAC.
Aoba47 (
talk)
15:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't believe the co-nominator Dylan has had an FA before. As such, this would need a spot-check of sources for source-to-text integrity. I see that Hurricanethink did some spot-checks but given that his check returned some problems, I'd like to see some additional feedback.
SchroCat, you said in your source review you'd be willing to do it if requested. Does the offer still stand?
FrB.TG (
talk)
09:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, I've done just over a third of the citations. I've been really picky on a couple of these, but I think I need to be, as you seem in a couple of places to slightly over stretch what the source has said, even though you're in the same sort of ball park. There's also the possibility I missed a bit, particularly in those multiple citation points, so I'll let you point out where I've not seen what I've been asking for.
FN1-5: What, in the five sources, covers "themes like heartbreak" and the acclaim for "SZA's vocal performance and songwriting and for the musical style"?
Ref 1 (at time of writing) praises Ctrl's "raw, candid writing" and calls it "one of the high marks of the confessional R&B of the past decade"
Ref 2 (at time of writing) calls that album "one of the decade's best" and highlights her voice and songwriting (the latter of which is presumably referred to when the reviewer remarks on "her emotional aptitude for being vulnerable and playful at the same time")
Ref 3 (at time of writing) describes the praise Ctrl received for melding R&B with elements of other genres, including "indie, alternative, [and] trap"
Ref 4 (at time of writing) implies that Ctrl is "wonderfully experimental" (more specifically, it describes SOS as an "expansion" of this, and, not counting singles, Ctrl was her last major release before SOS)
Ref 5 (at time of writing) praises Ctrl's genre malleability and lyricism
I will concede that none of these sources verify "themes like heartbreak". My next edit will be to rectify this by incorporating some sources I found on the
Ctrl article. Will report back shortly.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
01:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
So there are now ten sources to deal with three and a half lines of text? We're into
Wikipedia:Citation overkill territory here. I think you need to rationalise this by either removing those that are just doubling up on what others say, or using the relevant citations at the end of each sentence. Please try to remember that the text should follow what the sources tell us, we shouldn't be hunting down and adding sources to justify what we think is correct.Do these new sources state that the album "received widespread acclaim", or are they just examples of positive reviews? If the latter, they fall foul of
WP:SYNTH. -
SchroCat (
talk)
06:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
FN6: OK
FN7-9: What, in the five sources, covers that she "sought to prove her musical versatility by imbuing her established sound with elements from multiple genres". The sources all say there are multiple genres, but I think I'm missing the statement that it was a conscious decision to "prove her musical versatility"
FN10-11: What, in the five sources, covers that she "envisioned it being an amalgamation of various disparate musical styles"? The two sources say the album has several disparate musical styles, but not that she envisioned it.
FN12: Empire doesn't talk about diversity but versatility, which is a different thing
File:Ken Doherty.jpg: CC-BY-SA 3.0 & GNU Free Documentation License.
File:Mark Williams at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-05 01.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0
Some of these images have the persons facing right: this is usually recommended to be left-justified according to
MOS:IMAGELOC, although I have been told that this is not strictly a FA criteria requirement.
Images have proper alt-text.
It might be worthwhile to note that these are not images of them at this specific event in the captions — I initially thought so until I saw the dates myself. I believe that falls under prose though, so Support on image review.Generalissima (
talk) (it/she)
19:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Lee! I've listed some things that I noticed below; feel free to refuse with justification:
Before Gog comes through, you should change the reference titles to be all in title or sentence case - there's
an extension to assist in this if needed. Additionally, appropriate web/news links should be archived if they can (I'm sure you are familiar, but I would suggest using
IABot here).
I only just learned about this script the other day. I've run it, but it does cause some issues with mobile view, so I have to install it each time I need to run it, which isn't ideal. I do run IABot, however, due to some localising, some news sites cannot be archived through IABot (the Eurosport.co.uk links), so I've archived where I can. Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)11:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Overview looks great. Snooker terms that I would have otherwise not been familiar with are wikilinked appropriately, and are described in a way that is clear and isn't overwhelming. I would, however, suggest moving the footnote [a] to be after "modern era".
This was the fifth maximum compiled at the world championships; the first since O'Sullivan at the 1997 World Championship. - I'm not sure of the use of the semicolon here. I think "and the first" with a comma would read a little bit better.
...whilst Hunter perhaps drew on his two Masters finals wins to motivate him in the deciding frame. - Could you provide the text in the original literature that corroborates the "perhaps" in this sentence?
Mark Williams defeated seven-time champion and close friend Stephen Hendry 13–7. - I'm not sure of the relevance of including "close friend" here; it seems a bit extraneous.
The final was officiated by the Netherlands' Jan Verhaas, the youngest referee at a world final. - Has this been superseded by anyone else? I would word it a bit differently if so (something like "then the youngest referee to oversee a world final until [name] in [year]") but I understand if this is not appropriate.
Thank you for alerting us of this! In that case, I would say that the proposed revision would be better suited here, if you can find a source for Paul Collier's age in 2004.
joeyquism (
talk)
15:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I honestly found very little wrong with this article; most of it is already very well-written and comprehensive. As someone unfamiliar with snooker, I feel like I learned a lot from your clear elaborations. After these initial comments are addressed, I'll give it another read and see if I find anything wrong - if not, I will likely come back to take a supportive stance. Apologies if I came off as pedantic; however, I do hope that this review was at least a little bit helpful. Thank you for all your hard work, and I hope you have a great day!
joeyquism (
talk)
02:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
12:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Lee Vilenski, I note that you are away on holiday. I hope that you are enjoying yourself. I note that you have not commented here for five weeks. While RL obviosly comes first, can I point you towards the rule "Nominators are expected to ... make efforts to address objections promptly". I will give you another couple of days, but this nomination is in imminent danger of being archived for inactivity, which would be a shame.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
17:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article feels rather "thin" to me in comparison with other World Championship tournament articles that have Featured Article status. For instance, the summary section mentions nothing about the qualifiers and doesn't even mention who the debutants were in that year. The first-round summary mentions just 4 matches out of a possible 16 and the second-round summary also mentions just 4 matches out of a possible 8. And some of these mentions are just "this guy beat that guy." I would have liked the summary to go into a bit more depth and detail in order to convey more of a flavour of the tournament.
Lead
"This was the 27th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship had been held at the Crucible, marking the 26th anniversary of the first staging of the event at this venue." This feels both confusing and redundant. How about "This was the 27th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible, where it was first staged in 1977."
"became another first-time champion to fall to the Crucible curse" ... another? Of how many?
O'Sullivan's maximum break and his achievement in becoming the first player to make multiple Crucible 147s are surely lead-worthy?
In my view, the lead should mention who the debutants were that year and also give the century break total for the tournament.
Overview
This section mentions the popularity of snooker in China, Hong Kong, and Thailand, using references from 2015 and later. But this article is about the 2003 tournament, and so we seem to be talking about stuff that hasn't quite happened yet in the sport. Yes, the main stage featured two Asian players (Fu and Wattana), but Ding Junhui had not even turned pro yet, and so it seems premature to be talking about China in particular.
I would suggest moving the sentences about Joe Davis and the tournament moving to the Crucible to the start of the paragraph in which they feature.
"It was the ninth and last ranking event of the 2002–03 snooker season on the World Snooker Tour." Note that the brand "World Snooker Tour" was introduced as part of a 2020 rebrand of World Snooker. It didn't exist in 2003. People typically referred to the "main tour" at that time.
"The number of frames needed to win a match increased to 13 in the second round and quarter-finals, and 17 in the semi-finals; the final match was played as best-of-35-frames." It seems confusing to mix "best of" and "first to". "The second-round and quarter-final matches were the best of 25 frames, the semi-finals were best of 33, and the final was best of 35" would be more consistent.
"This was the fifth maximum compiled at the world championships and the first since O'Sullivan at the 1997 World Championship." This makes it sound like O'Sullivan himself is a maximum break. I'd suggest "This was the fifth maximum compiled at the World Championship and the first since O'Sullivan's maximum at the 1997 event."
"a 132 break in his first round match" -- hyphenate first-round match.
"Ebdon lead 4–3 ..." Should read "Ebdon led 4–3"
Quarter-finals
"The quarter-final was played" -- should be "The quarter-finals were played"
Semi-finals
"A condensed version of the match was showcased on BBC Two on 28 April 2020 in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship which was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic." How relevant is this? Or is it an example of recentism bias?
Final
"Jan Verhaas, the youngest referee at a world final." The article should probably note that while this was true at the time, Verhaas (then aged 36) is no longer the youngest to referee a world final. He was superseded in the 2004 final by Paul Collier (then aged 33), who in turn was superseded in the 2020 final by Marcel Eckardt (then aged 30).
"Williams took an early lead in the final, leading at 6–2 after the first session, and extended the lead to 10–2 in the second session." Overly verbose. "Williams led 6–2 after the first session and extended his lead to 10–2 in the second session."
"On the resumption in the third session, Doherty won six frames in-a-row" -- I'd suggest "In the third session, Doherty won six frames in a row" (do not hyphenate "in-a-row").
"The win allowed Williams to become world number one again, the first player to regain the position under the current ranking system and only the second overall after Ray Reardon." This may need clarification. The "current" rolling ranking system (in 2024) is different from the annual ranking system that was in effect up to 2010. And the sentence suggests that Reardon regained the number one position under another, different ranking system. All this is confusing, even to someone familiar with snooker history.
Are there particular reasons why this is significantly shorter than the article for, say, the 2002 edition of the tournament?
Why are there no details about the qualifying competition? I don't think we want full results as there were so many of them, but looks like there was some bizarre set-up with different pre-qualifying competitions for non-WPBSA members, WPBSA members (non-tour), and WPBSA challenge tour members, followed by six qualifying rounds.
"There were a total of 120 entrants from the tour" - not verified by the source, and I don't think it is accurate.
Prize fund has the Highest pre-TV break prize but not the money awarded for Last 48/64/80/96/128 round losers.
The article doesn't mention who won the Highest pre-TV break prize.
"The next two frames were tied" - I don't think this is the intended phrase.
"However, Fu won the match 10–6" - is this supported by Almanac p161? (I'm guessing not)
"a 42-minute final frame" - can some context be given, or the duration removed?
I dislike "all-Scottish clash", but support for this is in the source.
"defeated seven-time champion Stephen Hendry" - why only mention his titles at the fourth instance of his name?
I see HH above queried "A condensed version of the match was showcased on BBC Two on 28 April 2020 in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship which was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic" - I'd suggest removing it.
"He was only the third player to win these three events in a single season and is the most recent player to have achieved this" - suggest rewording as the source is from 2003 and he may not always be "the most recent player to have achieved this"
"With three of his matches going to a deciding frame, Doherty played 132 out of a possible 137 frames in the tournament, a record for the modern era, with only his quarter final win over Higgins having been decided by more than two frames" - not all supported by the source. Adding Downer's Almanac as a source should sort this.
Main draw - I checked a couple of the references against the dates and they didn't verify all of the info (e.g. dates on which matches were played.) Perhaps these are redundant as you have cited the Crucible Almanac, which I'm sure has all of the session dates.
I know opinions vary about the best way to present the scores from the final, but personally I dislike this one which has the scores twice.
Caption "Ken Doherty was six frames behind, but won 17–16." - maybe add the round, or the opponent?
Ref 3 - "worldsnooker.com. World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association" World Snooker and WPBSA are, and I think were in 2003, related but different organisations.
Some other citations are inconsistent, e.g. "Peter Ebdon "I'm Delighted". BBC." but "Williams Takes Centre Stage". news.bbc.co.uk"; the snooker.org citations
I've corrected the authors for the Snooker Scene articles and made some other tweaks to them - please check that these changes are OK.
Lead "The championships were sponsored by cigarette manufacturer Embassy." is not included in the body, so is uncited.
Format: "It was the ninth and last ranking event of the 2002–03 snooker season on the World Snooker Tour." not supported by sources. The BBC source is about a different season, and the snooker.org source has "WPBSA ranking tournament (#8 of 8)"
Tournament summary - you could add a cuegloss link to "sessions" at the first instance.
Jozo Tomasevich was a Yugoslav-American economist and historian whose works on Yugoslavia in WWII continue to be widely cited today despite his first book on the Chetniks being published nearly fifty years ago. According to the German historian Klaus Schmider, it is a tragedy that he died before completing the third volume of his planned series on Yugoslavia in WWII which was to be focussed on the Partisans. Even his second volume had to be published posthumously in 2001, with editing by his daughter. I have used his works right across my WP contributions on WWII on Yugoslavia, and his work forms the foundation on which many more recent historians have built. This is my second nom of a historian of WWII in Yugoslavia after
Radoje Pajović. Have at it.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Consider adding the ISBN for Tomasevich and Vucinich 1969. Is this the one: 9780520015364? Also, Google Books shows Vucinich here was an editor and not an author.
Are there any details on his collaboration with Wayne Vucinich?
Not beyond him contributing a chapter to the book. They taught at different universities in California and I understand they were close colleagues and co-received an award in 1989, and I'd love to know more given the Vucinich brothers were Serbs and Tomasevich a Croat, but they appear to have got along very well.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure military biography is the right WPMH task force here, you should consider removing it and retaining only the historiography task force tag.
Has anyone endeavored to publish the Tomasevic papers at HILA or Volume 3 of his series? I found one article on this from the Washington Post but it was paywalled.
Hi @
Peacemaker67, above comments all OK. A minor issue I forgot to spot last time: we need page numbers for a couple of the sources, namely Baletić 1997, Prosecutor versus Vojislav Šešelj 2008, Irwin 2000, Auty 1976, Dragnich 1976 and Campbell 1976. The other sources are only one pagers, so those don't have any problems, but these one have multiple pages, so you will need to add the page numbers for them.
Matarisvan (
talk)
08:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
G'day
Matarisvan. Strictly speaking, the short "review" citations do not need a page, as the page range given in the long citation is only 2-3 pages long, and anyone wishing to
verify them need only read a page or two, and in any case their comments should be read in the context of the whole review. I have added pages for the Baletić and Prosecutor vs Vojislav Šešelj short citations, as they are longer pieces of work. Cheers,
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
07:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
His final book was the second volume of the series – War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration – which was published posthumously in 2001 after editing by his daughter Neda.
after usually means -> in the time following an event or another period <-> in which case, it soumds like the book was edited after its publication - what am I missing?
In an obituary in the Slavic Review, Tomasevich was described as "a master of scholarly skills, a person of bountiful erudition, wit and human dignity".
<>I hate quibbling further, but now means at the present time, at this moment or very soon. So, how about dropping the word, or replacing it with something like this: -> Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and in (year) became part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia.
Pendright (
talk)
22:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In 1938, he was the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and moved to the US,[3] thereby "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University".
"availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University" -> If this is a direct quote, should there be attribution-if not, then should italics be used?
In 1937, Tomasevich married Neda Brelić, a high school teacher. They were happily married for 57 years and had three children – Anthony, Neda Ann, and Lasta. In 1976, Tomasevich contributed an essay to a book in which he conducted a sociological and historical analysis of his extended family reaching back to the early nineteenth century.
Somehow,Chronologically, these sentences seem out of order?
The first appeared in German in 1934 and was titled Die Staatsschulden Jugoslaviens (The National Debt of Yugoslavia).
during 1934
The following year, he had Financijska politika Jugoslavije, 1929–1934 (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia, 1929–1934) published in Serbo-Croatian, covering much of the same material but more accessible to Yugoslavs.[1]
Does 1929-1934 need to be repeated?
which covered
A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization – described Novac i kredit as an important work that filled a large gap in Yugoslav economic literature, and also gave a vivid picture of then-current economic theory.[9]
International marine resources and Yugoslav peasants
The first [book] was International Agreements on Preservation of Marine Resources, [that was] published by Stanford University Press in 1943.
Suggest the above changes
The second book, Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia [was] published in 1955, was [and] described by Vucinich as "a study of monumental scope [which] has been widely recognized as the most comprehensive and accomplished study in the field".
In 1957, Tomasevich received a San Francisco State University grant for Slavic and Eastern European studies.[12]
Suggest -> In 1957, Tomasevich received a grant from San Francisco State University for Slavic and Eastern European studies.[12]
The first volume focused on the Chetnik movement led by Draža Mihailović, which was subtitled The Chetniks and appeared in 1975.
In the context used, what does appeared mean?
Soon after it was published, the book was reviewed by Phyllis Auty, professor of modern history at Simon Fraser University.
Replace the comma with "who was a
The third volume in the planned trilogy, which was to cover the Partisans, was 75 per cent complete at the time of his death,[1] and remains unpublished.
"Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich published two books on economic matters; one focused on marine resources and the other on the peasant economy of Yugoslavia and both of them received positive reviews." - the last part seems like an add-on, and makes the sentence a bit too long. Perhaps - "Tomasevich published two well-received books on economic matters"?
The book was positively reviewed, and twenty-five years later was described as still the "most complete and best book about the Chetniks to be published either abroad or in former Yugoslavia" - the quote doesn't seem important for lead. First, it's unattributed - I see in the body of the text that it was from the Croatian historian Ivo Goldstein, but that doesn't mean his quote should be in the lead. Could you write the same meaning without the quote?
the so-called Independent State of Croatia. - "so-called" seems a bit biased and pointy for my liking. Could you word it differently?
it is often described in this way (eg by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and others), as ironically it was far from "independent", being essentially an occupied quasi-protectorate propped up by large numbers of Axis troops.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
04:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Jozo completed his secondary education in Sarajevo – then part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia – before moving to Switzerland to study at the University of Basel where he earned a doctorate in economics. " - when? This is a pretty important part of his life that you glossed over. Is there anything more about this part of his life?
Some more year/date references would be nice for "Early life" section. For example, "After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco." - When?
"Before the outbreak of World War II – and then known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California." - again, when? The war broke out in 1939, so there could be a variety of dates.
The article is fine, but it seems to focus too much on what other people think about his writings, and too little about his actual life. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
17:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There are still a lot of unknown parts, which I'm not a huge fan of, like when American citizenship happened, what he died from, any siblings' names, the mother's name, when he went to SF, even the birthday. I get that a lot of this information isn't available, but it's a shame when you Google his birthday, and it says "March 16", but that there's no reliable source for it. The article is decent, for sure, but it's a shame that so much is unknown. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Since the name is only partially anglicized, it might make sense to figure out what was the pronunciation. We don't happen to have one at
Jozo, while we do have one at
Josip, but in case of Tomasevich it would specifically make sense to note how the Americans pronounced his first name because it's not clear it would have been the same as the original. --
Joy (
talk)
20:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I may be nitpicking here, but the first paragraph of the Early life, education, career and family section and the first sentence of the second paragraph of the same section may give impression to casual readers that Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia existed at the same time.
In "His widow Neda died in Palo Alto..." I'm wondering if either "his widow" or "Neda" is redundant because she's already introduced in the same paragraph as his wife. Striking this, as I realise that he had a daughter of the same name.
Regarding Financijska politika Jugoslavije (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia) - is that the English translation of the title the book is known as generally? I'd expect Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia to be translation of "Fiskalna politika Jugoslavije"... or that the English translation of the title is "Financial Policy of Yugoslavia". That is, of course unless the offered English translation is common translation of the title.
Overall, I'd say the article appears comprehensive, i.e. I feel I have no question to ask that is not already answered by the prose.--
Tomobe03 (
talk)
16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's a mention of Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia in Splivalo, Josip (1958).
"Naučno djelo našeg profesora u Americi" [Scientific Work of Our Professor in America]. Naše more (in Croatian). 5 (1).
University of Dubrovnik: 52.
ISSN0469-6255. The short article might be illuminating because it says that the book consists of three parts. The first one provides a review of historical development of of Yugoslav peoples and their common characteristics in economics. The second part reviews agriculture during the WWI and the third one examines agriculture in the interwar period. The review of historical development gives (at least to me) an impression that there's the point where Tomasevich's interest started crossing from economics alone to history. The article also indicates that
Joseph S. Davis wrote a foreword for the book.--
Tomobe03 (
talk)
08:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Josip "Jozo" Tomašević was born in 1908 in the village of Košarni Do on the Pelješac peninsula in the Kingdom of Dalmatia , which was then part of Austria-Hungary . [1] probably a nit, but the source doesn't categorize Dalmatia as a "Kingdom", nor does it say anything about Austria-Hungary.
Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and is now part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia . [1] I'm guessing you've just got the wrong citation because the source doesnt say any of those things.
Before the outbreak of World War II – and then known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California. He was on the scholarly staff of the Food Research Institute within Stanford University . During the war, he worked with the Board of Economic Warfare [1] ... After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco. The source says
Before World War II he moved to California where he was a member of the scholarly staff of the Food Research Institute at Stanford University. During World War II he was affiliated successively with the Board of Economic Warfare and UNRRA in Washington, DC. After the war he was with the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco.
so I'm a little concerned about
WP:CLOP. I get that much of this is just a chronological history and full of proper names, but it still seems a bit too close to the original. Also, while the source does use the spelling "Tomasevich", I think it's a bit of
WP:SYNTH to say "then known by the anglicised ...".
and then the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration in Washington, D.C. from 1944 to 1946. After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco. [1] [7] Maybe I'm just not familiar with how harvard refs work, but I had to dive into the wikisource to figure out that OAC meant "Online Archives of California". And once I got there, it doesn't say anything about Washington, D.C.
His preference was for a position combining teaching and research, so in 1948 he joined the San Francisco State College (later San Francisco State University). Tomasevich taught there for twenty-five years until he retired in 1973 – except in 1954 when he taught at Columbia University . [1] The source says
Preferring a professional assignment combining teaching and research, he joined San Francisco State College—now San Francisco State University—in 1948 and stayed there until his retirement in 1973. In 1954 he taught at Columbia University for one year.
This seems like CLOP again. I wasn't sure about this so I asked for a second opinion from my wife (who writes and reviews scientific papers professionally). She agrees that while it's not word-for-word, its the same sentence and paragraph structure with just a few words changed here or there, which is, as
WP:CLOP puts it, "superficial modification of material from another source".
In 1937, Tomasevich married Neda Brelić, a high school teacher. They were happily married for 57 years and had three children – Anthony, Neda Ann, and Lasta. In 1976, Tomasevich contributed an essay to a book in which he conducted a sociological and historical analysis of his extended family reaching back to the early nineteenth century. He became an American citizen. [9] This appears to be mis-cited; it's in [1], not [9].
I'm going to stop at this point. Most of the sources used are off-line, which is fine. But in almost every case, when I spot-checked a source that was available to me, I found problems. This does not give me confidence that the rest of the sourcing is correct. Perhaps I'm just being too picky, so maybe somebody else should do some more spot-checking.
Here's some more:
Tomasevich died ... in Palo Alto, California.[10] The source just says he was a resident of Palo Alto, not that he died there.
A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv , by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization ... [12] This is not in English so I'm unable to read it, but I'd wager that a review written by Lamer in 1940 says nothing about Lamer's future employment.
The first book was International Agreements on Preservation of Marine Resources , that was published by Stanford University Press in 1943 ... [1] The cited source says 1949. WorldCat
does indeed say 1943, but you're not citing WorldCat.
Soon after it was published, the book was reviewed by Phyllis Auty , who was a professor of modern history at Simon Fraser University ... [16] The source does identify Auty as being from Simon Fraser University, but doesn't say anything about being a "professor of modern history".
The third volume in the planned trilogy ... and it remains unpublished. [22] Nit: this should be qualified with {{asof}}.
No concerns about the prose. I made minor edits to the article: feel free to revert.
In the "Sources", Mazzoni, Mario M. (1989) and Vaquer, José María; Eguia, Luciana; Carreras, Jesica (2018) have titles in all caps, which per
MOS:ALLCAPS should be in sentence case.
"Subduction of the Nazca Plate beneath the South American Plate" is said in the lede, but I think the article body says that the subduction is under South America, with no mention of it being a plate. Should this be more explicit in the body, maybe wikilinked in the body?
In the lede: "The formation of the APVC has been linked to the existence of a giant magmatic body in the crust of the Andes." From what I gather from the body, this magmatic body is the
Altiplano-Puna Magma Body. Should this be wikilinked in the lede? And should the lede specify that the body is in the Central Andies (and not underneath the whole thing?)
Panizos, Vilama, Cerro Guacha and last Uturuncu, which shows evidence of ongoing activity - which one does "which" refer to? If it's Uturuncu, then "the last of which" is better
Cerro Panizos[b] proper is a 5,228 metres (17,152 ft),[8] 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft) high[9] lava dome in the southeastern semicircle - my lack of geology knowledge will show, but why are there three different heights here? Isn't this referring to the height of Cerro Panizos?
In para 1, all those references constantly interrupting sentences confuse me- I know that it's ok MoS-wise, I just prefer to keep them to the end. There are so many present here that I worry about others getting confused too
Ditto for some others, like the parentheses in para 3 of "Geology"
A branch of the Inca road system passed over the volcano, which features several archeological sites - what does which refer to? The road system as a whole? The volcano?
Numerous ignimbrites were emplaced between 25 and 1 million years ago - usually when I see a date range written out like this, the smaller period goes first and the larger period second
The last eruptions took place 271,000 and 85,000 years ago at Uturuncu and Cerro Chascon-Runtu Jarita complex, - and the Cerro Chascon-Runtu complex...?
Some of the sources have no translated title, like Guzmán et al and Mazzoni and others (I would add the titles myself if my Spanish was any good, but I trust you can since you cited them)
All good on everything, though I do have one comment on the refs. Is citing each individual part of a sentence differently a typical thing in geology articles? I ask this genuinely- in the biographies and other articles I've written, having multiple refs at the end of a sentence is just fine, and IMO makes it more readable.
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) (
not me) (
also not me) (
still no)
11:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think that's a question of article topic and more of who writes articles. I prefer this style b/c it's easier to verify (and correct) statements when you only have to check one source.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
05:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"it produced the large volcanic calderas Panizos, Vilama, Cerro Guacha and Uturuncu". The
Uturuncu article claims the latter as a stratovolcano rather than a caldera.
"Panizos is the source of two major ignimbrites, the older Cienago Ignimbrite and the more recent Panizos Ignimbrite." Shouldn't the comma be a colon?
"The volcano is a 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide" → 10-kilometre-wide (6.2 mi).
"surrounding a 10–15 kilometres (6.2–9.3 mi) wide lava dome semicircle" → 10–15-kilometre-wide (6.2–9.3 mi).
"Cerro Panizos proper is a 5,228 metres (17,152 ft), 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft) high lava dome in the southeastern semicircle." → "5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft)
"The other domes are the 5,480 metres (17,980 ft), 5,490 metres (18,010 ft) or 5,228 metres (17,152 ft) high Cerro Cuevas, 5,504 metres (18,058 ft) high Cerro Crucesnioc/Crucesnioj/El Volcán, 5,390 metres (17,680 ft) high Cerro Vicunahuasi west and 5,540 metres (18,180 ft) high Cerro La Ramada/Cerro Ramada north of Cerro Panizos." Same as above.
"The 5,158 metres (16,923 ft) high Limitayoc". Same as above.
Hydrology and human geography & history
"Panizos can be accessed through these valleys." Since no valleys are mentioned before this sentence it would probably be better if were reworded as "Panizos can be accessed through the valleys of these streams."
Climate, flora and fauna
"The region is a desert, with the only vegetation consisting of cushion plants, grasses and shrubs." It has already been stated at the beginning of this section that the region is a desert.
Geology
"reaching 6,000 metres (20,000 ft) height". I think you mean 6,000 metres (20,000 ft) in height.
"Smaller scale structures at Panizos may reflect north-south and eastsoutheast-westnorthwest trending lineaments". En dashes and "eastsoutheast" and "westnorthwest" should be "east-southeast" and "west-northwest".
Geochronology
"Volcanic activity began during the Jurassic". Volcanic activity of what? The Central Volcanic Zone?
"During the late Miocene, subduction under the Puna". It's not clear what "Puna" is referring to here. Is it the Altiplano-Puna high plateau or the Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex?
"Volcanic activity shifted east into the Puna". Same as above.
"In Bolivia, about 8-5 million years ago Kari-Kari was active, 8.4-6.4 million years ago Morococala, 8-5 million years ago Los Frailes". En dashes.
"Volcanism declined during the past 4 million years". Declined where?
Composition
"And orthopyroxene rare". I think you mean are rare.
"Gold and silver deposits are found on the volcano, and an occurrence of antimony-copper-uranium has been described at Paicone." Has mineral exploration been done at the volcano?
"a total volume >300 cubic kilometres (72 cu mi)". A total volume of more than 300 cubic kilometres (72 cu mi).
"The >650 cubic kilometres (160 cu mi) Panizos (or Panizos II) Ignimbrite". The more than 650-square-kilometre (250 sq mi) Panizos (or Panizos II) Ignimbrite.
"The Panizos ignimbrite consists of crystal-rich". Should ignimbrite be capitalized here since Panizos Ignimbrite appears to be the name of an ignimbrite deposit?
"The Panizos ignimbrite is one of several "super-eruptions" in the Central Andes". See above and may be "is" should be replaced with "represents" since ignimbrite deposits are not eruptions on their own.
"Both units of the Panizos ignimbrite". See above.
Going to note here for @
FAC coordinators:
that I'll be spottily present in the next few weeks, so they can't count on me for source reviews during this time frame. I'll try to keep up with this FAC.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
19:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ahumada 2010: this is not "via ResearchGate" (no link is given), and has incomplete bibliographical data (missing volume/page numbers). Journal is here:
[33], and our article is at Número 13 -> Articulos ->
[34]. (Same as
[35]). The ISSN leads to a non-working search, but I guess that is beyond our control here.
Then why don't you link this as URL if it is your actual source? You are basically saying "hey, you can find this on ResearchGate but you'll have to search for it yourself".
Burgoa 2007: remove "1ed". Why OCLC instead of ISBN? Missing publisher and location.
Make more pretty. "[Geology sheet 2366-I / 2166-III Mina Pirquitas] (pdf) (Report). Boletín;269 (in Spanish)." looks messy. Is the series really called "Boletín;269"?
I assume you are talking about
this PDF? If you are citing this, it should have page numbers to complete the bibliographical data. And it actually seems to be a journal article, not a "report"? (
this journal).
Some have |hdl-access= though, so Guzman 2020, Kern 2016, Perkins 2016 and some others have little green open locks. Other URLs (DOIs mostly) do not have anything explaining access.
I would suggest to remove the via or add the link. From the documentation for the citation templates, I do not think this is how |via= is supposed to be used.
Servicio Geológico Minero Argentino 1996: there seems to be duplicated information in the citation, "(pdf) (Report) (in Spanish)" looks a bit odd, and the link does not go to a PDF. Add publisher location (Buenos Aires)? I understand which file you mean by "Map_PLV" but strictly speaking none of the files has this name.
Aye, the URL points to an intermediary page. I think the parentheses are a matter of the template. Is there a better title for the MAP_PLV?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You could get rid of |format=pdf to make it less visually jarring. I can't seem to access the page at the moment, so I don't have a good suggestion what to do about the file name.
Sources are either scientific journals / books / very few conferences or government map services, all fine in terms of reliability. For formatting issues see above. Happy to do spot checks on request. —
Kusma (
talk)
14:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I won't hold it against the article that OAbot has randomly added some green unlock symbols. Other things are consistent now, so the source review is a pass. —
Kusma (
talk)
19:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My overarching concern is with accessibility to the average reader getting into the article. At the minimum our articles should be basically comprehensible to someone without linking away, and I don't think this article manages that right now. For example, the article starts with <green>Cerro Panizos is a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano consisting of ignimbrites, two calderas (a depression formed by the collapse of a volcano) and a group of lava domes in the Potosi Department of Bolivia and the Jujuy Province of Argentina.</green> This is a really long, hard-to-parse sentence where you explain what calderas are, but not what ignimbrites are (which I would wager far fewer people would have any idea about.) Why not restructure to the shorter <green>Cerro Panizos is a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano spanning parts of Bolivia and Argentina.</green> or similar and then start giving a more detailed explanation of what it encompasses? (Also at first blush I'm not sure why the ignimbrites are the most important thing to mention, anyhow, as part of a volcanic feature.)
Once you're in the body, taking a few more words to explain stuff like ignimbrite (even just "ignimbrite, or volcanic rock") would do wonders.
The Geography/Geomorphology section is a pain to read with the referencing as it stands. Readers shouldn't have to wade through as many as six references or explanatory notes on top of the dense list of units of measurement to try and read things. Sticking all these in a
REFBUNDLE would be a much cleaner and clearer option.
That sounds to me like it'd decrease readability, if people reading about the volcano suddenly fall into a discussion of how long a given time period was.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
07:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think you need the level of detail provided versus giving a general timeframe to orient readers. C.f. Instead of a superscript note that has the precise time period for the Jurassic you can just say the Jurassic Period (c. 201–145 million years ago) or something similar My overall point with the above is that this is a highly technical article with a lot of jargon, but the referencing scheme and long sentences are absolutely making it more of a pain in the ass to grok the important details. Having 3–8 superscripted notes or references in a single sentence is absolutely an example of bad citation presentation, and on the whole the Geomorphology section especially is just downright unpleasant to read to my eyes, and hasn't materially improved since my initial comment.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I get your overall point, but I don't agree that spelling out the numbers - even in rounded form - would make the page more readable. I've instead shuffled the citations around in that section so that they are limited to end of sentence, and split one lengthy sentence. Is it better now? If so, I can apply the same treatment to other sections too. In my experience, some people don't approve of lists of names being in bullet point format in FAC.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
17:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's better, but the readability and accessibility concerns are two separate things; I'm arguing that having to look elsewhere to grok the basic timeframe of what's being discussed is not user-friendly, separately from the presentation being harder to read.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, I tend to subsume this particular "accessibility" concern under "readability" since it concerns how people read the article. Still, I think even so the price to pay is too high. This probably needs a third opinion.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Is the precise height of each dome really important, or can they be summarized as "<listing of domes> ranging from X to Y tall"?
"Volcanic activity in the region began during the Jurassic in the Cordillera de la Costa and has migrated eastward since then" Would be nice to clarify for people when the Jurassic Period was. Ditto for other time periods where the text isn't specifying a general time frame. At the very least, since the Miocene is getting constantly referenced, the time period should be clarified.
Susannah Hoffs is probably best known as a member of popular music group
the Bangles; she co-wrote their hit "
Eternal Flame". Her cinematic career has been less successful than her musical endeavours, which have included several solo albums and collaborations. In 2023 her novel This Bird Has Flown was well-received by critics. All suggestions for improvements to the article are appreciated. Regards,
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
16:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Considering, as per the "Early life" section, her middle name is "Lee", why isn't this mentioned in the lead ("Susanna Hoffs (born January 17, 1959) is an American singer, guitarist," ==> "Susanna Lee Hoffs (born January 17, 1959) is an American singer, guitarist,")
Following tensions and resentment of Hoffs's perceived leadership, the band split in 1989, reformed in 1999 and released albums in 2003 and 2011. add a comma after "1999".
and formed the faux British 1960s band Ming Tea, with Mike Myers and Matthew Sweet comma unneeded
The trio made a number of club and TV... change "a number of" to something like numerous/several/many
I've changed this to "The trio played live at nightclubs in Los Angeles."; sources focus on club rather than TV appearances, but none that I've seen quantify it.
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
16:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
MOS:ROLEBIO, we should only use her most notable roles, which I think is American singer-songwriter and actress and the other sundry roles can be listed in the infobox (which they already are).
and number one "Walk Like an Egyptian" -- and number one single
included the US top-ten hit -- we should avoid using terms like "hit"
and released albums in 2003 and 2011. -- perhaps the albums can be named here, as it appears that have wiki articles.
She is the couple's only daughter; they also have two sons John and Jesse -- I think a colon is needed after sons
and noted that while her mother was religious and kept kosher, -- and said that while her mother...
Her maternal grandfather Ralph Simon was a rabbi in Chicago and her maternal uncle Matthew Simon was rabbi emeritus -- Her maternal grandfather, Ralph Simon, was a rabbi in Chicago and her maternal uncle, Matthew Simon, was rabbi emeritus
she and then-boyfriend David Roback (a former schoolmate from Palisades High School) -- I think you can remove the parenthethical and use commas instead
She said that the first real performance was with the Bangles -- I would link this first instance of the Bangles, and remove the link from "The Bangs" section
the text has been amended by another editor; I've added the link in the Bangles section but let me know what you think.
Meanwhile, Annette Zilinskas joined as the bass player -- link
bass
In 1983, the group signed to Columbia Records -- the group was signed to Columbia Records
The Bangles released their first full album All Over the Place in 1984 on Columbia Records -- The Bangles released their first full album, All Over the Place, in 1984 on Columbia Records
Their breakthrough hit was the 1986 single "Manic Monday" -- I would probably use an alternative wording in place of "hit"
This single was released as a track on the album -- The single was released
and went double-platinum -- and was certified double-platinum
and was their first American gold record single -- unlink "gold record" per
MOS:DUPLINK
Dickerson wrote that "Manic Monday" and "Walk Like an Egyptian" "open the door to a new audience of female fans" -- suggest maybe paraphrasing "open the door to a new audience of female fans" instead.
Reworded, see what you think. I thought "appealing to women and girls" read better than "appealing to females" but there is probably a much better formulation.
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
11:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In the video for "Walk Like an Egyptian" -- music video is more appropriate I think
Writing in the same paper a few months later, Richard Williams also compared Hoffs to Nicks, writing that Hoffs's "dark eyes -- maybe an alternate wording for the second instance of "writing" to avoid being repetitive
The Bangles had another US number two hit with a cover of Simon & Garfunkel's "A Hazy Shade of Winter" -- maybe had another US number two single instead of hit"
indicating "Generally favorable reviews". -- I think this can be in lower case
the album was rated as a "dud" by Christgau. -- Should be capitalized since it looks like the quotation that precedes it ends in period. Alternatively, we can use "It" was rated, since "the album" is mentioned in the previous sentence.
Before leaving Columbia Records, Hoffs recorded tracks with producer Matt Wallace for a follow-up album in 1993–94 – including some songs written by Mark Linkous of Sparklehorse – but the album was not released.[85] -- this standalone sentence could probably be merged into the paragraph it follows.
Billboard reviewed the single, -- Billboard should be in italics
Hoffs contributed vocals to "One Voice", the end credits song for the film A Dog Named Gucci (2016), a track also featuring Norah Jones, Aimee Mann, Lydia Loveless, Neko Case, Brian May and Kathryn Calder. "One Voice" was released on Record Store Day, April 16, 2016, with profits from the sale of the single going to benefit animal charities.[98] -- this can also be merged into the paragraph before it, since it is two sentence long.
Hoffs cowrote songs for the Go-Go's -- co-wrote songs for the Go-Go's (only because you used "co-written" with a hyphen in a previous instance)
about the book included Mark Weingarten in the Los Angeles Times, -- including Mark Weingarten
File:Hoffs-2006.jpg has a weird EXIF - was it cropped from another file? Image placement and ALT seem OK to me. Is AllMusic a reliable source?
The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles can probably be linked. "Film: Susanna Hoffs Stars In 'Allnighter' by Her Mother" and "Mazzy Star: Shining Brightly" does it lack an online version? What is #23, #56, #77 and #95? I think in #31 "Forward" should be in italics. Is "Chris Hunt" a prominent interviewer? What makes ultimateclassicrock.com, Earwolf, RockCellar, Magnet Magazine, Vintage Guitar, Red Roses and Petrol and Stereogum a reliable source? #94 should probably not have Publicity.vanguardrecords.com as the name. #144 is there no better source than an Imgur image? What is #155? #164 is a search link, not really a good source for anything.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
10:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hoffs-2006.jpg -Appears to be a different version of
File:Susanna_Hoffs_2006.jpg, which was uploaded in 2017 by the same user; the 2017 data has further structured data available. I'm not sure whether I need to do anything here.
AllMusic - I've replaced the instances where this site was used for biographical details. It's now only used for attributed reviews and uncontroversial info such as releases. (
WP:ALLMUSIC refers)
The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles - link added.
"Film: Susanna Hoffs Stars In 'Allnighter' by Her Mother" - I only have access via the Wikipedia Library, which I don't think is a helpful link for the majority of readers.
"Mazzy Star: Shining Brightly" - added link to a clipping of the relevant page.
23 - I added "Official website for Stony Island movie" as the website. It's used to confirm what are I believe are uncontroversial details.
55, 56 - added The Times and it's publication location.
Amended the citation for Forward from publisher to website
Although
Chris Hunt's article is rather lacking in citations, I believe he is a suitable source. I couldn't find the original of Rage Magazine.
ultimateclassicrock.com - A
2023 disussion at RSN failed to attact interest.
Gary Graff has written for The New York Times, Billboard, The Boston Globe, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the San Francisco Chronicle so seems a suitable authority.
Earwolf - I'm not sure this is a suitable source. As I couldn't find info about her unreleased collaboration with Mark Linkous in other suitable sources, I removed it. The contribution to the Talking Heads album seems to have been as one of several backing vocalists on a single track, so I also removed that as not very significant.
Magnet - established as a print magazine in 1993. I don't have info about it's editorial team beyond the editor's name; there's a 2014
article in The Philadelphia Inquirer about it, though.
Vintage Guitar - has been published as a print magazine under that name since 1989. It has editorial oversight (see
[37])
''Red Roses and Petrol - is the official website for the movie, used to confirm what are I believe uncontroversial details.
Stereogum - has been running since 2002 and has editorial oversight (see
[38])
144 ARIA charts - removed; I don't think this was particularly valuable info for readers.
Hi, I just saw this. I'll review it. I'm a Hoffs mini-fan, including enjoying her novel and her covers recordings with Matthew Sweet, as well as being a very casual fan of the Bangles' work in general. I'm happy to see this nomination here. I'll try to start the review within the next day.
Moisejp (
talk)
14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Adding comments as I go along:
In the paragraph about When You're a Boy, I was surprised to see "one upbeat assessment" (Globe and Mail review) then two negative reviews, then another positive review, then more negative reviews.
Moisejp (
talk)
07:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Update: I finished my first read-through (making some small edits along the way) and am expecting to support. I'll do another read-through hopefully in the next couple of days.
Moisejp (
talk)
07:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The lead says, "Following tensions and resentment of Hoffs's perceived leadership, the band split in 1989" (suggesting that was the only or main reason) but in the main text several reasons are given for their break-up.
Moisejp (
talk)
23:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Unrelated to my comment above but the following feels slightly out of place to me, and I might consider removing it if it was me. But if you disagree and prefer to keep it, no worries: Larkin wrote: "The Bangles folded in 1989 partly because Susanna Hoffs was being touted as the 'star' in a previously egalitarian band. It is ironic, therefore, that her solo career failed to come close to the success enjoyed by her old band."
Moisejp (
talk)
23:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Minor suggestion to add that in addition to performing of the Lilith Fair album, I believe she also performed on the 1997 tour.
Moisejp (
talk)
23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I enjoyed this article and think it is well written. I was especially surprised to find out she sang on "Wild Wild Life" (the regular single studio version we all know and love?). If you address my five comments above I'm pretty sure I'll be ready to support promotion. Thanks!
Moisejp (
talk)
23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the review and edits. I was also dubious about her singing on "Wild Wild Life", but she is listed as doing that at the AFI Catalog - I didn't use that as the source because its not easily citable because of collapsed pages.
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
12:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This article fails on
summary. It feels both very short and very long at the same time. It's nice there's a section on her equipment, but I wondered what some aspects of her artistry were. I see stated influences here and there, and that's another issue I have. This article could also really benefit having her discography spun off in it's own article. 웃OO03:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your review,
100cellsman. Have you got some examples you could share of articles that better cover these aspects of their subject?. I guess you also think that the filmography should be split off, is that correct? Regards,
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
08:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Butting in (hi all), I would prefer always that substantial discographies / filmographies are spun out, but its certainly not something that would warrant an oppose at FAC.
Ceoil (
talk)
11:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My oppose is still standing for the lack of summary, mostly lack of subheaders that make the article appear very long at a glance and there isn't a place for her artistry or influences. I gave the nominator some promoted FAs to look at for reference. 웃OO15:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Placeholder....I think Mosie's review has lead to a good improvement in the prose, but there are some issues yet. Leaning support but would like some time to run through.
Ceoil (
talk)
11:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't think acting in her mother's films is worthy of the first sentence in the lead's second paragraph...ie would cut Hoffs appeared in the films Stony Island (1978) and The Haircut (1982), both written by her mother, Tamar Simon Hoffs. She starred in the comedy movie The Allnighter (1987), directed by her mother. This seems to diminish her musical achievements.
Ceoil (
talk)
11:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree with the above that the filmography sect should be spun out; its long and takes up a lot of space, but unsubstantial.
Similarly, the lead seems lobsided as to why she is actually notable; and gives too much space to later albums, acting, and cover versions...none of which would be reasons for a keep on notability in an adf if she had not been in the Bangles. I would trim this severly, and focus more on her career before the band broke on MTV...they were HUGE in the UK music press as
jangle pop darlings and that to me is more notable.
Ceoil (
talk)
16:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justifications.
The only part of
100cellsman's oppose I agree with is that the "Solo career" and "The Bangles" sections could use level-3 subsection headers, otherwise we have (in my opinion) too many paragraphs of uninterrupted prose. Dulls the eye, you know?
By contrast, the short "Early career" section doesn't need any subheaders (
MOS:OVERSECTION).
It is also odd that "The Bangs" is not part of the Bangles section. I would suggest the following layout: putting the "The Unconscious" subsection (without header) into "Early life", and having ==The Bangles==, ===The Bangs: first releases and name change===, ===Critical and commercial success===, ===Disbandment and aftermath===.
Support. In terms of the above oppose, I've seen disc, biblio and filmographies both included and excluded from biographies, and there's no set rule for it, except what works best in that specific article, and in this article, I don't see the need for it. I would suggest the sub-division of the longer sections, which I think would be an improvement, but, again, this isn't the basis for an oppose in my book. -
SchroCat (
talk)
11:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments by Edwininlondon
My comments on prose:
"US top-ten charting" + "the Top-40 hit" + "a US top 10 hit" + "the Billboard Top 40 single" seems to lack consistency
at the King David Hotel --> may I suggest to add "in
Jerusalem"?
Hoffs learned ballet ... school, learning --> perhaps avoid repetition of learn by replacing learned ballet with something like "took ballet classes"
co-written by Hoffs's mother --> co-written by her mother
but in a 2012 interview Hoffs said --> but in a 2012 interview she said
Meanwhile, Hoffs played a --> that's 3 times meanwhile in short succession. Perhaps reword
reached number one in the US in December 1986 --> what is missing here, and for Manic Monday as weel, is a global view. They did well in other countries as well
writing that Hoffs's "dark eyes, dangerous pout and fancifully sexy costumes match her sultry voice" were reminiscent of the Fleetwood Mac singer --> not sure this is gramatically correct: maybe if you drop "match her sultry voice"
Amended. The source has "...match her sultry voice in the kind of formula that once made Fleetwood Mac's Stevie Nicks so potent" so I think including all the elements is relevant.
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
10:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(which also charted in the UK at number 44) --> why parentheses?
it reached number 56 in the UK album charts and number 83 in the US album charts --> now the UK comes first. This is inconsistent with earlier approach.
Nice and well-written article. I'm tending towards supporting but I have a few questions and suggestions to make.
The second paragraph in the Personal life section isn't about her Personal life at all. This could be split into another section but it would leave the section very short. Is this really all we know of her non-professional life as an adult? More to come...
John (
talk)
18:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks,
John. I added a little about Hoffs's relationships. I couldn't find anything else relevant. I take your point about that second para, but I don't have a good idea about how to handle it. I thought about retitling the section to something like "Personal life and influence" but that didn't feel right. Regards,
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
12:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
About the short Legacy section, ideas for beefing it up a bit, could you look for sources that may describe Bangles songs she co-wrote, like "Walk Like An Egyptian" or "Eternal Flame", as important songs of the 1980s, or the Bangles as an important or influential band of its era? If it was me I would look in
Newspapers.com and/or
NewspaperArchive, which you should be able to access here [
[40]] and you can filter by year to look at more recent sources. Hopefully there won't be an overwhelming number of hits. I will be too busy in the next week to help you, but if this nomination is still open early next week, I may have time to jump in and assist looking.
Moisejp (
talk)
18:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Will have a look, thanks
Moisejp. Newspapers.com is down for WikiLibrary access, which is very frustrating, coming at the same time as the British Library outages that have prevented me accessing some other newspaper databases. For balance I might have to include
The Sublime Irrelevance of The Bangles as a source too, though... Regards,
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
18:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A while back I had problems accessing Newspapers.com, but when I purged my cookies it worked again, which someone had suggested here [
[41]]. Yeah, Newspapers.com does seem to be working for me even now. Try emptying your cache of cookies and logging in again. Let me know if it works.
Moisejp (
talk)
19:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Here, we determine which articles are to be
featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the
FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the
review FAQ.
Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at
Peer review and adding the review to the
FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to
seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not
significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or
Good article nominations at the same time.
The FAC coordinators—
Ian Rose,
Gog the Mild,
David Fuchs and
FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be
promoted to FA status,
consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and
archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
actionable objections have not been resolved;
consensus for promotion has not been reached;
insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
a nomination is unprepared.
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.
Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.
An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.
Nominations in urgent need of review are listed
here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the
FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}}notification template elsewhere.
A
bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.
Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the
FA criteria and that
peer reviews are closed and archived.
Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to
the FAC talk page for assistance.
Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will
transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.
To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see
the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates
accessibility problems.
If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per
talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
This article is about a fictional species in the Pokémon media franchise, the evolution of mascot
Pikachu. The article discusses the character's design and appearances, as well as reception in the context of it as its own species and in relation to Pikachu from both audience perception and company handling of the character.
The article passed GAN in January of this year, and underwent a peer review in April, with feedback from both worked into the article. Additional discussions to refine sections have also taken place on
the video game character task force to help get consensus on how to approach commonly used terminology and help a reader unfamiliar with the franchise or gaming understand them. One point of issue may be the use of a ScreenRant source in the reception section, however this source is being used strictly for the author Niki Fakhoori's opinion, and they have a long history in gaming journalism for outlets such as Prima Games and RPGFan as illustrated
here (the latter of which recognized as a reliable source by
the Wikipdia Video Game project).
I don't normally look at FANs but given that this is within my main subject area, I thought I'd stop by and leave some comments.
-"Sugimori asked Nishida to design the form, who gave it a "soft and fluffy" appearance. Nishida felt that Raichu's original design was far cuter than people gave it credit for, and wanted to express this in the Alolan form" The wording feels a bit informal here, and I feel this could be better worded.
Reworded for better flow.
-What are Types? (Electric and Psychic) and what do they do? For those unfamiliar with Pokémon this aspect isn't very well-defined.
Added a definition to the opening paragraph explaining this.
-I'd define what an ability is (Clarify it with something like "an in-battle special ability or something like that) for those unaware of in-game terminology
Fixed.
-I'd also clarify what Electric Terrain is, given it isn't clarified what that is.
Fixed,
-"First found in Pokémon Red and Blue, they have appeared in most Pokémon titles since, including every major game." This statement seems to be unsourced.
Reused the Ode to Raichu reference here as he mentions capturing it in every game.
-"and another Pikachu must be obtained instead." I'd reword this to also mention "...must be obtained instead in order to obtain Raichu" or something like that
Reworded
-I'd clarify "the games" Pokémon Sun and Moon in the prose in the Appearances section
Fixed
-I'm not sure how necessary "due to the latter evolving his as quickly as possible" is in the article's context.
Reworded
-I'd utilize a source that isn't Comicbook.com for cite 27 (Verifying Goh's Raichu) given that site is inconclusive in terms of reliability and tends to have low quality articles.
Sadly this is the best source for that matter, as all others omit details. The anime at this point is not heavily discussed in sources and ComicBook.com offered the best material for this matter.
-How reliable are "Visual Entertainment Plandas" and "Gung Ho Bookings"?
Both are the booking companies of their respective talents, and while still primary sources the alternative would have been to cite episode credits directly for Japan or Ms. Mongillo's Twitter, which per the previous FAC attempt was frowned upon. Most voice work in the anime are often either difficult to find secondary credits for or uncredited entirely in the English end.
-"or ending up not using them at all" I'd just change this to "end" for grammatical reasons
Fixed
-"and expressing his confusion at the reaction." I'm very confused as to what this is supposed to mean.
Reworded
-I feel the Comicbook.com source in the Reception isn't really adding much. I know there's other small sources used, but these at least have a reason to be used. The Comicbook.com source just feels unnecessary.
While it's lighter it's used as a glue for that whole paragraph as it helps offer another reaction to how the fandom and company have treated the character. I feel removing this would undermine that paragraph and an idea of how the character was received in that regard overall as the series progressed.
-" to Ash's idealized childlike state instead of maturing in Pikachu's refusal to evolve into Raichu and how this displayed that they drew power from their younger states respectively." I'd cut the "instead of maturing" here because this sentence is very hard to comprehend otherwise.
Fixed.
-The LGBTQ+ source is honestly really cool, but it only mentions Raichu once and is a small part of the article. I'm not sure if this counts as significant coverage in the scope of a FA.
I feel strongly it helps bring a different enough viewpoint to the relation between the two and is significant enough to keep. While smaller sources on their own may not be ideal, they can help cement larger opinions and give the reader a more thorough perspective on how a relationship between two fictional characters can be seen.
-I think this article has potential but does need some work. Fantastic job overall, but do let me know your thoughts on the above or if you need any clarification, since this article still needs some improvements before I'll give my Support vote. (I believe that's how this works? Do correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not as familiar with FA voting.)
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
01:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm traveling right now but I think I'll be able to get some comments up within the next week or so. Haven't looked at Pokémon in a long while but this might be a good start.
The Night Watch(talk)08:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about the strongest tornado to occur during 2022. Injuries, a death, and $17 million in damages were left in the aftermath of this deadly and violent tornado.
This article
passed a GA review back in late-June 2024, with only a small amount of sentence/grammatical changes and no changes or issues with the content. This is my second ever FAC, with my first one (for a different article) failing surprsingly due to a split support/oppose consensus. Hopefully this one holds up to FA standards and we don’t end up with another split support/oppose consensus. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
File:Photo_of_the_2022_Pembroke–Black_Creek_tornado.png: the unique historic images tag is intended for situations where the image itself, rather than what is pictured, is the subject of commentary - that doesn't appear to be the case here. The hidden comment on the image is also confusing, since AFAIK this is a
perennially rejected proposal and not a NFC requirement.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That sounds like something that needs to be brought up at
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, given it passed GA with it being present. For the hidden comment, I presume you mean in regards to the caption: "A photograph of the tornado by Jason Manchester<!--Name should be kept due to it being non-free image.-->" That comment was just associated with "Jason Manchester" being kept in the caption, given it is a non-free image. WP:Weather has very few non-free images and as far as I think, that is the standard practice for them. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)18:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Given it passed peer-review at the GAN and the automatic text addition for
WP:NFCC#8 in the non-free rational states, "For visual identification of the object of the article", you haven't provided a valid reason to object to this image and it appears to me to have no issues. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)18:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Passing GAN doesn't guarantee that something will pass FAC. I don't think this image is correctly tagged or correctly captioned.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
00:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image-related issue discussed above by Nikkimaria has been fixed, with the complete removal of the NFC. I do not agree with this change. Nikkimaria, given this issue has been fixed, would you feel comfortable supporting this for FA? The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)00:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well thank you for the image review. I appreciate you for taking the time! (Personal note: Sad time. All of that to not get a support. :( On the bright side, at least I didn't get an oppose. :D !) The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)00:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ever wonder why Greek and Sanskrit cognates involving gutturals don't always match up like you expect and usually before an /r/ sound? Yeah, me either. But in 1881, a German linguist commented on this oddity and proposed a sound law to explain it. "Largely forgotten by the scholarly world", the law developed newfound interest when Dutch linguist Alwin Kloekhorst gave the law a full defense in 2011, giving Dr. Weise a high honor: naming it after him. As of now, there are no Proto-Indo-European FAs and only one other GA, which is
something I'm hoping to fix. This article may be of interest to you if you speak a language affected by the law, including a Balto-Slavic language, Albanian, Armenian, or any of the Indo-Iranian languages, such as Farsi or Hindi. I would like to extend my thanks, first and foremost, to
UndercoverClassicist who beat this article into shape during its GA nomination, swung by to help out during PR, and overall just gave great feedback. Also thanks to
RoySmith and
Matarisvan, both of whom gave me great feedback at PR as well.
ThaesOfereode (
talk)
01:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Presented at a conference in 2008". Who or what was presented?
Rephrased.
"several different sources on the topic, both referencing Weise and not". This would work better as 'several different sources on the topic, some referencing Weise and some not' or similar.
"while the palatovelar stops generally were made into alveolar sibilants in most cases". You don't need to say both "generally" and "in most cases".
Good catch. Fixed.
"Sanskrit words contain many potential violations of the rule occurring". I am not sure this is grammatical. Try deleting "occurring".
Fixed.
"However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family such as in Sanskrit"> I am a little confused; "such as in Sanskrit", as opposed to what?
In short, there appear to be violations of the law which are explainable by sound changes that took place after the law. In Sanskrit, as an example, /l/ becomes /r/ in many circumstances. Because of this, śr clusters appear to be violations of the law – since ś is largely, if not only, derived from PIE *ḱ – because *ḱ cannot precede *r according to the law. But because these words may be the result of a PIE *ḱl cluster, there is no violation. The examples serve to demonstrate such cases.
In which case I suggest that a bit much is being asked of this sentence. Perhaps something like 'However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family. Examples can be found in Sanskrit, where ...'
Fixed.
Non-actionable comment: I like your two uses of "In other words". Is this deliberate minor humour?
I'd love to say yes, but this is the template phrase of someone used to reading and writing technical jargon trying to make it more accessible. In other words, sadly no. :-)
"The law must have occurred by". I know what you mean, but I am unsure that it works as prose. Perhaps unpack "The law" to say just what it was that "must have occurred by"? Similarly with references to "the law" in the last sentence of the paragraph.
I've changed a few of these up; I think I'm understanding you right. If not, could you offer a suggestion?
Yep, that's fixed it.
And in "there is positive evidence that the law never occurred in Armenian" and similar uses. I am not sure that "the law occurred" etc communicates well to a reader.
Ibid. above
Likewise.
"linguists suggest that this sound change occurred before the centum–satem split." All linguists, most, or some?
Now that I'm looking at it again, I think it's really just Kloekhorst saying that. I've changed it to reflect that.
"Although, because the results of Weise's law seem more extensive outside the Indo-Iranian languages, Kloekhorst notes that it is likely that a secondary wave of depalatalization law took place at a later date in each of those language families." ' Kloekhorst notes that it is likely that a secondary wave of depalatalization law took place at a later date in each of those language families, because the results of Weise's law seem more extensive outside the Indo-Iranian languages' seems easier to parse.
Done.
"See Centum and satem languages § Satem languages for more." Maybe '... for further information' [or 'detail', or discussion']?
I like "further discussion". Fixed.
"Larry Trask also categorizes both". Categorizes both as what?
I am leaning support, but as it is early days for a technical topic I am going to hold off formalising this until I see what other reviewers think. In particular their view of
WP:TECHNICAL "Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience." I think that it passes this, but only just, and would like to see others' opinions.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
12:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Borsoka
Before starting a detailed review, I think the article needs some expansion:
the main text could explain that the sound change is assumed to have occurred in Proto-Indoeuropean;
Proto-Indoeuropean could very shortly be introduced;
Edith Roosevelt was a lifelong companion to President Theodore Roosevelt, from childhood until Theodore's death. Shying from the spotlight as her husband became increasingly famous, she found herself thrown into the role of first lady over a matter of days when Theodore unexpectedly became president of the United States. As first lady, she ruled Washington's social life with an iron fist, holding meetings with the wives of Theodore's cabinetmembers to determine when and how they were to hold events—and who they weren't allowed to invite. Edith took charge of the White House's first major renovation, and she was the first of the first ladies to hire her own employee.
File:Edith_Kermit_Carow_Roosevelt_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Edith_Roosevelt.jpg, File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family,_1903.jpg, File:Edith_and_Ethel_Roosevelt_cph.3b42358.jpg
File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family._"From_a_father_of_five_to_a_father_of_five"_-_Gilbert_Studios._LCCN2015650317.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631530_(cropped).jpg, File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631491_(cropped).jpg
File:Edith_Kermit_Carow_Roosevelt_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.jpg, File:Edith_Roosevelt.jpg, File:Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt LCCN2009631491 (cropped).jpg – These are all from the same source, which doesn't provide that info, and a Google search for each image didn't turn anything up.
File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family._"From_a_father_of_five_to_a_father_of_five"_-_Gilbert_Studios._LCCN2015650317.jpg – Same as the others, but it's from Gilbert Studios, which was apparently owned by
commons:Category:C. M. Gilbert. I don't know whether that's enough to call him the author though.
File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631530_(cropped).jpg – Figured out the author and added to the Commons page
File:Mrs._Roosevelt,_Quentin.jpg – Yeah, that wasn't ideal. I switched the description to the standard format used by the other images, and I swapped the CC tag with a standard PD tag.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
So for all the images with tagging indicating a publication date prior to 1929, is it actually possible to demonstrate that? Or should the tagging be changed?
Nikkimaria (
talk)
00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, they're all from Library of Congress which doesn't provide the publication info, and I haven't been able to verify them separately. Is there an alternative tag to use in this case, or should I just remove the tags (and would the images need to be removed from the article in that case)?
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
03:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about Poverty in ancient Rome. It mostly focuses on defining Roman poverty, philanthropic efforts to help the poor, the social stigma regarding poverty, and Christian perspectives on the Roman poor. Although, there is still information on the lives and material conditions of poor people in ancient Rome. I recently had the article reviewed for GA and the reviewer said they hoped to see the article at FA. Perhaps I am overconfident regarding the quality of this article, but I figured I might as well nominate it.
Graearms (
talk)
20:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
Don't use fixed px size
Suggest adding alt text
File:Mähmaschine.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Duble_herma_of_Socrates_and_Seneca_Antikensammlung_Berlin_07.jpg.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
04:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Brochfael was king of Gwent in south-east Wales in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. He is chiefly known for having been one of the Welsh kings who submitted to the lordship of
Alfred the Great in order to get protection from the oppression of
Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians. Brochfael was involved in a number of disputes with Bishop
Cyfeilliog, who is an FAC below, and was once threatened with excommunication for insulting the bishop.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
19:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
Is there no image of the subject that could be included?
I have previously made alt text a short summary and this has always passed FAC, but recently an editor has been deleting alt texts in my FACs on the ground that it duplicates the label, and another editor commented that the alt text should be a place marker as it only prevents readers from seeing the file name instead of the label. I see from
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images that this is incorrect, so I have gone back to make alt text a short summary. OK now?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
06:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Medieval_south-east_Wales_map_Lloyd.jpg is tagged as life+100, but gives an author date of death less than 100 years ago.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
04:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
in the publishing location, the cities don't need ", UK" (or NY, for Ithaca) after them - there's no ambiguity about which London or Cardiff is being referred to. also, for Oxford University Press, having the location is a bit redundant as it's right in the name. not really a big deal though. overall, citation formatting & consistency is great.
no concerns about reliability; Iolo is nowhere to be found, and all of the sources are from solid academic publishers and authors. i see only three old sources, Haddan & Stubbs 1869, Evans & Rhys 1893, and Lloyd 1911, which are used perfectly reasonably.
in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians: is oppression the right NPOV word here, or are we unwittingly parroting their/Alfred's spin on the situation? From what comes later, it sounds like the Ur-source here is Asser, who isn't exactly a neutral.
That is true, although as a monk of St David's Asser was more concerned with its oppression by the king of Dyfed. However, Asser's description is accepted by historians, and it is hard to see why the kings should have voluntarily submitted to Alfred if Æthelred was not oppressive.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Given the chronological discussions about Gwent vs Glywysing in the body, I'd suggest putting a more concrete date on the map than just "early medieval".
Right, but we have In the seventh century, south-east Wales was one kingdom called Gwent, but by the ninth century it was divided between Glywysing (later Morgannwg and Glamorgan) in the west and Gwent in the east. If we stand by the text of our article, we can therefore say that the map (with Gwent and Glwysing undivided) shows the borders of those kingdoms as they were before the ninth century, at the very least. However, on closer inspection, I have some bigger worries about the map. It has
White Castle, which was built after the Norman Conquest, and
Grace Dieu Abbey, which wasn't founded until 1226. How certain can we be that the other toponyms and, in particular, the borders are accurate for the time we're discussing? UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have changed the label from Early medieval Wales to Medieval Wales in the light of your comments (also in the Cyfeilliog article). The map shows the area of the kingdoms. There is no better map which we can use which I am aware of, and I think it is much better than having no map.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
defeated the Vikings: "the Vikings" weren't (and aren't seen in scholarship) as a single group of people under that name -- we do, however, have the term "Great Heathen Army" for the force that Alfred defeated. Better to use that with some explanation?
I was doubtful about putting in the battle at all as it is only peripherally relevant. I do not think we need to worry about using a term which is widely used by reliable sources.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ceolwulf's successor as ruler of Mercia, Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians at the Battle of the Conwy: needs a comma after Mercians, but consider reworking to streamline the syntax a bit.
Comma corrected, syntax much the same, but perfectly grammatical and readable. I suppose you could argue that the "Lord of the Mercians" epithet is superfluous in a sentence that says he was, well, lord of the Mercians, and just give his name as Æthelred. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ceolwulf was the last king of Mercia. Giving Æthelred's title is intended to signal that he had a lower rank without going into details which are irrelevant to the article.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Can we give any indication of the reasoning and the whys behind the different dates for Brochfael's accession?
I do not think that I can find citations for a more detailed explanation. As so often, historians assume knowledge of basic points. There is only one fixed point for Brochfael's dates, Asser's mention of him in the late 880s. Apart from that, it is a matter of historians' judgements on the dates of charters which mention him, and maybe in some cases who is being referred to. Bartrum dates him 830, which is obviously wrong as he is recorded into the tenth century. Davies dates him c.872-910. Sims-Wiliams does not give an accession date (so far as I know) and says that Owain probably became king of both territitories by 893. As this looks too early and it is ambiguous whether it means he replaced Brochfael or his father as over-king I have left it out.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would give a brief introduction, at least by approximate date, to the Book of Llandaff and the Life of King Alfred.
It is successive sentences. Changed to "several show Brochfael as a royal grantor and witness, so Ffernfael may have been subordinate to Brochfael".
Dudley Miles (
talk)
16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Brochfael's father Meurig gave grants in both territories, and Charles-Edwards and Davies think that he ruled them both as king of Glywysing: we've demoted the dissenting view into a footnote. I know it's two against one, but
WP:DUEWEIGHT is not a vote -- do we have a separate good reason to think Sims-Williams is wrong? If not, I think we need to give the two sides equal billing.
Brochfael and Ffernfael were joint kings of Gwent, and their cousin Hywel ap Rhys was King of Glywysing: this isn't wrong, per the MoS, but the capital on the second king reads oddly, and is inconsistent with how we've approached the same problem in the first sentence (Brochfael ap Meurig was king of Gwent in south-east Wales.. Would suggest decapitalising.
three modii (about 120 acres (50 hectares)) of land: you can avoid the awkward double brackets by replacing the outer set with dashes. This comes up twice.
Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle : this sounds as if we expect readers to know it already. Suggest "One [date?] manuscript of the ASC, known as Manuscript D, states..." Do the others omit this bit, though? That might be cause for concern?
I think Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is self-explanatory, and there is a link for readers who want more information. D is thought to be a northern version dating to the mid-eleventh century, and there is probably a good deal to say on this, but I do not have a source.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a style point rather than a clarity one. I think it's certainly relevant that the source is perhaps over a century later than the events it describes. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
he may have been the father of Gwriad ap Brochfael: and who was he?
This is a difficult one. It is based on Bartrum, whose dictionary covers a vast number of Welsh people in fact and legend up to 1000. It is published by the National Library of Wales and cited by historians, but there are signs of carelessness in some entries. I have changed the comment to a footnote covering Bartrum's speculations.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Davies seems to argue with herself, and give two different dates (and levels of confidence) on Meurig's reign. Why have we given one of those in the body text (implicitly endorsing it) and the other as a footnote?
One is a statement in the text and the other an entry in a table. I have given greater weight to the text, but I am happy to change it if you disagree.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Personally, I'm not sure we can really do that, unless it's clear from context that one is definitely not the author's intent. I don't think we can definitely say that authors or editors stand more strongly by data presented in prose than data presented in tables. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I should have said that the table dating looks more vague. Would you prefer deleting the footnote and having "
Wendy Davies thinks that 874 is more likely and dates his reign as
c. 848 – c. 874 or
c. 850 – c. 870"?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As with the last one, I enjoyed reading this -- a great job of reconstructing a life where the sources clearly make it difficult to know much for certain. UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In the second sentence of the lead I'd lose "while" if I were you, as although the context makes it clear that it just means "and", I feel it safer as a general rule not to use "while" unless you mean it in the temporal sense. There's no real danger here of "the Bishop preached the sermon while the Dean read the lesson" but you might like to consider an "and" or a semicolon instead of the "while".
In the Kingship section "Æthelred's defeat at the Conwy in 881" reads a little strangely to my eye. Somehow without the "Battle of…" before it – as at earlier mention – it looks odd, like saying "the Allies' victory at the River Plate" or "Nelson's victory at the Nile" or "the Allies and Axis forces at the Atlantic". Not wrong, but strikes an odd note, though I most definitely do not press the point, or indeed the one above it.
Well illustrated (a pity about the lack of a mug shot, but I see from the above that one is not to be had) and a good range of mostly modern sources. Meets all the FA criteria in my view and I'm glad to support. I always enjoy reviewing Dudley's articles, but this time I had an uncovenanted bonus when my spell-checker announced that Brochfael should be either Rochdale or Bronchial. –Tim riley talk11:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about an Afro-Cuban religion revolving around spirits that are housed in cauldrons and fed with blood. Much of the tradition derives from the Kongo religion of Central Africa, so there is much here to interest Africanists as well as those intrigued by religions of the Americas. This has been a Good Article since August 2023 and I am now hoping to bring it to FA status, having already done so for two other Afro-Caribbean religion articles,
Santería and
Rastafari.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:WLA_metmuseum_Power_Figure_Male_Nkisi.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured?
In this case, the creator of the original nkisi being photographed will probably never be known; nor will the exact date when it was made, although it is dated to between 1800 and 1950. The object is nevertheless on display in a public museum and the photograph has been issued under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
10:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Goetia_seals.jpg: are these taken directly from the Lesser Key, or are they original works?
The explanation given by the original uploader claims that they are their own original illustrations, but looking closely, the fact that there are numbers right by them suggests that this is actually a scan from a printed edition of the Lesser Key, which will probably be late 19th or early-to-mid 20th-century in date. I think the safest bet is just to get rid of this image from the article.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
10:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Fétiche_du_Bas-Congo.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
I've changed the licensing on this one; as it was published in Belgium in the first decade of the 20th century, we should be able to use the following: "This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1929."
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
09:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've removed this image from the article; while the photograph is late 19th-century in origin, I am unsure when it was first published, which raises issues when trying to determine its copyright status.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
09:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about a
causewayed enclosure near Cambridge, in England. It was excavated briefly in 1975 and 1976, but the project was derailed by a tragedy: David Clarke, who was the director of the excavation, died suddenly in his 30s in the summer of 1976. The project archive lay untouched for three decades; in 2006 what could be found of it was written up, but no new excavation was undertaken -- by that time the location had become a
scheduled monument.
The "Background" section, and a couple of sentences in the lead, are taken verbatim from other articles on causewayed enclosures, as the background information is identical for all of them. See
Offham Hill or
Barkhale Camp for examples. I don't think this should be an issue, but wanted to mention in it as an FYI.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
16:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have a whole lot of comments here - I read some archaeological literature for fun but wouldn't consider myself to have a whole lot of knowledge in this subject base; I wouldn't say my poking around in old farm fields with a metal detector has enhanced my knowledge of archaelogy much either.
"and a single bone each from red deer, dog and horse" - is this the dog remains here the same as the wolf remains noted to have been found in the site?
Hadn't noticed that; good catch. The later review doesn't say so explicitly, but it's clear the case. I've worded it carefully to avoid saying that the review found this to be an error, but I think it'll be clear to the reader.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"and that the dig had not found evidence of a bank associated with the ditch[60]" - misssing a period after this sentence
"Overall the site was found to be "spectacularly" rich in finds, " - as this is a direct quote it should probably have inline attribution to the author who is being quoted
"The site was listed as a scheduled monument in 1976." - is it known if this is due to St Joseph's aerial work, or Clarke's field excavations?
I haven't found anything about it and I don't see anything on the HE website giving the background. I suspect that once the 1975 excavation proved it was a causewayed enclosure the wheels were set in motion, but I don't have anything I can cite.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Unless I am missing something (I don't think I am, because I read it through twice to make sure) Clarke's death, mentioned in the lead, is not covered anywhere in the body...... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
18:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Will give this a look -- very much up my street. A small drive-by for now: the article has
WP:TIES to the UK, so BrE should be used (and so analysed, not analyzed), and the St in J. K. St Joseph isn't followed by a dot. UndercoverClassicistT·
C19:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Glad to hear you're going to review it. I've fixed the full stop after "St". I think "analyzed" is allowed as
Oxford spelling, though I have to confess I came to use that spelling sideways -- decades in the US have corrupted my native British English, and I probably switched from -ise endings without even realizing it.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
19:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I must admit to finding Oxford English bizarre -- it is a perfectly good variety of English, though I'd advise putting up tags to be clear that you're using it rather than "normal" BrE. However, as
User:Tim riley explained it to me, OxE uses -ize when the etymology of the word is from a Greek '-izein suffix (so Hellenize); analysed is from analusis, so I don't think that would apply here anyway? UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We seem to be a bit coy about dating the enclosure: we talk about the dates in which these enclosures were built, but don't at any point try to pin one on Great Wilbraham. Has anyone done so?
Not as far as I can tell. Gathering Time (GT) is the most recent coverage, and they conclude with "The enclosure remains undated. It was not possible to locate any further suitable samples."
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Same point on functions: we talk about what enclosures in general might have been used for, but don't say e.g. it may have been a settlement, meeting place, or ritual site.
I think you mean that it would seem natural to talk specifically about what Great Wilbraham might have been used for, rather than in general times about what causewayed enclosures might have been used for? This is the seventh of these that I've brought to FAC, and I think I've been writing them this way (both the lead and the background section) because I've been imagining them as a unified topic. If you were reading a book with chapters about each enclosure, you wouldn't expect a statement to be repeated in each chapter th at this enclosure might have been a camp, or a ritual site, and so on -- there would be an introductory chapter giving that overview, since the statements would apply to more than just one enclosure. I think it makes sense to take the same approach here -- speak generally about the class of site, then specifically about this site when we're talking about the archaeological or antiquarian investigations.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Personally, I think the situation is reversed when we've got an article about a specific enclosure -- there, I think we would normally be expected to keep the focus on the Great Wilbraham enclosure, and widen the picture only when necessary to add important context. However, this is a matter of taste -- your approach is entirely reasonable. I do think, as currently framed, we've introduced a strong element of doubt as to which, if any, of these functions could reasonably have been filled by Great Wilbraham, though I can also see why that would be intentional. UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
One of the reasons I'd like to keep it as is is that I don't believe there's any consensus on what these enclosures were used for -- it's not as if the function of some has been determined, but not of others. Nobody knows what any of them were used for, so there's nothing that's specific to an individual enclosure that can be said. I have seen a couple of references while looking at Freston causewayed enclosure, which I may tackle next, that imply there are some recent theories, and I'll follow those up in case there's something to be added.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
02:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We do have Clarke (via Evans et al, too) going out and saying that the site was a settlement, or at least a camp, but as far as I can tell largely doing so by assertion rather than argument. How about something like "the site's excavator, David Clarke, considered that it was probably a settlement. The function of causewayed enclosures in general is debated..." and then go into the discussion we already have about military vs civilian, domestic vs ritual (and, if I may, allow for those functions to overlap?) UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Done; I joined it with a "but" as I think (and Evans doesn't quite say) that Clarke was being much too confident in his assertion, and I want the reader to be aware that the excavator's opinion is not definitive here.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
On the dating issue: Historic England has They were constructed over a period of some 500 years during the middle part of the Neolithic period (c.3000-2400 BC). That's quite a way off what we've said -- I can't get to most of the sources, but are we sure that HE have simply made a mistake and there's no debate here?
I can send you any of the sources you're interested in, if you like -- particularly if this is an area of expertise for you I'd be very glad to have another pair of eyes on interpreting the material. I am really surprised by the dates given there. GT (p. 897) has "...probably began ... in the late 38th century cal BC ... The pace began to quicken in the second quarter of the 37th century cal BC ... construction of new enclosures in southern Britain was on the wane from the middle of the 36th century cal BC". GT is authoritative, but earlier sources give similar dates. For example, The Creation of Monuments (Oswald et al., 2001) has a chart showing 3800-3200 BC as the date range, with the core period being 3600-3300 BC.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
including Neolithic flint, and pottery from periods stretching from the Neolithic to the present day, and animal bone—mostly cattle, but with some sheep and pig: the first and here is
a bit poetic/rhetorical, I think.
they would have provided multiple ways for attackers to pass through the ditches to the inside of the camp: if we just said that we don't know what these are, on what basis do we now call them "camps"? Suggest cutting this last bit.
They do get called that in the literature. It sounds like you have access to Evans (2006); you can see from that that Clarke's own notes describe it as a "causeway camp". A friend of mine who is a professor of archaeology, whom I contacted for help with interpreting some of Evans' wording (and who, it turns out, knew David Clarke and was at Cambridge when Clarke died) referred to them as camps in his emails to me (though he's not a specialist in that period). I just did a Google Scholar search and found a 2020 source using the term, though it does seem to be falling out of fashion. Both usages in the article currently are in hypotheticals where there are people in the enclosure, so I probably unconsciously put them in on the basis that these were camp-like situations. Having said all that, I can remove it if you think it's misleading.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
After thinking about it some more I've changed the two instances of "camp" to "enclosure". The article now mentions Clarke's assertion that the site was a settlement, as you suggest, but I don't think that interpretation should be accidentally reinforced by the language (which was your original point). The "causeway camp" usage does seem to be dying out, and Evans, for example, never uses the word camp except when quoting others, so I think the article should follow suit.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The construction of these enclosures took only a short time: can we put a vague number on that -- a few minutes?
The source says "Causewayed enclosures ... were very large and often highly visible sites. They were built in one operation, involving the investment of many days' work by a large number of people." I could make this "a short time (weeks or months, but not years)" if you agree that doesn't go too far past the specifics in the source.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Has there not been any more specific energetics research done here? There's loads of it into Neolithic monuments, where people have attempted to quantify the amount of worker-days involved in constructing the things. "Many days" could be expressed as "in a matter of days", but I'm conscious that the source phrasing is emphasising the large amount of effort, whereas we've turned that around to assert that they were relatively easy to build. UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I haven't seen anything on the energetics but agree that would be worth adding if it exists. (I should probably have a go at the
causewayed enclosure article itself, where that would most naturally belong.) I take your point that Andersn stresses the labour, but the article does currently say "since substantial labour would have been required for ..." -- is more needed?
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think, as Femke says below, we're currently blowing hot and cold -- simultaneously arguing that it was a quick job, and a very big one. Perhaps the missing link is that it was a lot of work, but also that it was done very quickly and efficiently? Maybe spelling that out would be helpful UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Looks good. We might quibble "must have been planned in advance" (emphasis mine) -- people could otherwise have been very efficient because they did it a lot, were very well-organised, or simply had a huge amount of labour power. Perhaps something a little softer like "was probably/almost certainly planned well in advance"? UndercoverClassicistT·
C17:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm OK with weakening it if you want to, but "must" is in the source -- "Before their construction the work must have been planned for some years, the area being cleared of vegetation and big stones, with trees for the posts and palisades selected, prepared and transported".
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
21:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sounds a bit woolly to me (they really think it takes years to shift the rocks and choose some good trees?), but if it’s in a good source, that’s all the justification you need. One could make an unkind comment about academics and their sense of a reasonable speed at which to work… UndercoverClassicistT·
C22:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
On reflection I agree with you. I changed it to "would probably". Incidentally, on one of your other points, I found a mention of causewayed enclosures in the British Handbook of Archaeology as "mid-third millennium BC", which is the same mistake that HE made. The author is John Pouncett, who is a Neolithic specialist as far as I can tell, so it's just odd.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
23:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Any reason not to push the map up into the "Site" section? I found myself looking down at it as I followed the text description.
On my screen it would cause a sandwiching problem with the infobox, which is rather long. It would only overlap by a few lines, but I think any sort of sandwiching is frowned on. I agree it would be more useful a little higher.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
13:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I made the map 20% smaller -- how does that look? Unfortunately that's not going to help the sandwiching since it's the top of the image that will sandwich with the infobox. I moved it up anyway; see what you think.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
included on a list of 16 possible causewayed enclosures: not a major problem, but we had Over seventy causewayed enclosures have been identified in the British Isles: why the figures now?
We're inconsistent about whether to introduce new people: J. K. St Joseph gets no introduction, and while he needs none among British archaeologists, he probably does for the general public. On the other hand,
Christopher Evans (worth a redlink?) gets the small and slightly ambiguous "Cambridge archaeologist".
Added an intro for St Joseph; he was a geologist and I gather never could be fairly described as primarily an archaeologist, so I went with the CUCAP credit for his description. I haven't found much in the way of independent sources for Evans so didn't redlink him but can if you think it's justified. Would just "archaeologist" be better for him? I included "Cambridge" as a nod towards the academic continuity -- I'm no expert on the history here, but I understand Evans has worked a lot with
Ian Hodder, also at Cambridge, who was a pioneer in post-processual archaeology and so a sort of academic descendant of Clarke's. That in turn made me wonder if there is some academic controversy or debate hiding behind Evans' criticism of Clarke and his methods, and again made me want to draw the connection.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
13:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know Evans, really, but a lot of his early work from the 1980s looks very post-processual, and as you say there are a few co-publications with Ian Hodder (who has been at Stanford since the nineties). I think that's a good reason to introduce him, but I might be clear that Cambridge means the university, not just the city (Evans has long had a foot in both camps). UndercoverClassicistT·
C14:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The enclosures in southern Britain began to appear: more natural, I think, as the enclosures began to appear in southern Britain -- current phrasing sounds like they popped out of the ground.
Yes, fair. Done. I'll have to remember to make that change in the other articles that use this text. I see you've been replying above; I'm off for
second breakfast now and will get back to this later today. Thanks for the detailed comments; by the way. I've pushed back on several above but I don't want to give the impression that I'm resistant to your input -- just trying to communicate the details so we can agree on what's needed.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
14:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would generally convert between metric and imperial units -- did Clarke use metric?
New Archaeology, a movement to revise and expand the foundations of the discipline: I think it's worth setting out briefly how New/processual archaeology hoped to change things -- in particular, that New Archaeologists wanted excavations to be run like scientific experiments, explicitly theoretical in their conception, carried out to test hypotheses and with the collaboration of lots of scientific specialists. I think it would be worth name-checking his 1973 "Loss of innocence" paper as well -- he talked a lot there about why a New Archaeology was needed and how "traditional" excavators would push back against it. In a sense, was this excavation a bit like the
University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition or, for a later movement, Hodder's work at
Çatalhöyük, in that it served as a way of taking abstract ideas that had been discussed in theory and proving that they could make a difference in the field?
I looked into this a little while working on the article, but gave up on this for lack of sources. If I find something on New Archaeology, I'm concerned it would be SYNTH to apply the language in whatever I find to Clarke's work here. I think I would need someone talking about Great Wilbraham specifically, so I've made do with Evans' comments. For your second point, yes, I think in Clarke's mind it was exactly that. Evans says "Great Wilbraham also offered the potential to put specific ideas into practice; the chance of taking a systematic approach to data retrieval, analysis, and modelling at site, landscape, and broader scales." I turned that into "it was planned as a way to put into practice some of the theoretical ideas he had propounded over the previous decade". Are you suggesting I should name those ideas in that sentence, for example? I didn't because Evans doesn't and for these abstract discipline theories I am very hesitant to write something that might put words into the source's mouth.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Is there anything in the grant proposal that would be relevant here -- "the value of this excavation is that it will allow us to field-test the methodology of using X, Y and Z" or similar? I do think it's useful to define what New Archaeology was, beyond that it was, well, new, but agreed that it's dangerous to say exactly which aspects of it C. hoped to implement here. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure it does: I still think our definition of New Archaeology is too vague, and putting all the concrete detail into Clarke's proposal makes it sound almost as if he came up with the idea of treating archaeology as a physical science, when in fact most of the theoretical groundwork had been done in the United States by people like
Lewis Binford and
Kent Flannery a decade or so earlier. Clarke was important as an evangelist for the movement, but I'm not sure he did as much to invent it. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Clarke has a contemporary status as a disciplinary 'ancestor', cited in claims of intellectual descent and in accounts that sometimes border on hagiography", according to Evans; combining that with
this obituary in Nature, which explicitly denies that his work is "in the manner of the American New Archaeology", I think you're right. I'm afraid I'm not clear how you think I should fix this. I had left the references to New Archaeology linked and unexplained in the version I brought to FAC because I didn't see clear statements in the sources I had. I can see why you suggested adding more about New Archaeology, but I don't see where to get it from -- particuarly if Sherratt's obituary is right and Clarke shouldn't be seen as only or strictly in that mould.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
22:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We can keep it loose -- try
Johnson's Archaeological Theory here (frustratingly, no page numbers in Google Books, but search "New Archaeology"), which does so and explicitly uses Clarke. I would cite it to amend something like David Clarke was one of the leading figures in New Archaeology, a hetreogenous movement to revise and expand the foundations of the disciplinebring archaeology closer to the natural sciences, and conduct archaeological excavations in a scientific manner. We don't need to get into the weeds of exactly what that meant in practice to each individual archaeologist, but Johnson is clear that everyone in NA agreed on that much. 06:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
because the plan included using it as a training ground for students: this is pretty universal for digs led by university academics, particularly in Cambridge, but I'm not sure we can do much with that fact. Was Alexander not also brought along because, well, he would know which end of the shovel was which? Evans et al refer us to Hammond's biographical sketch for Clarke's fieldwork experience, which I can't immediately get hold of, but as I know it he was certainly more of a thinker and a writer than a digger. More pedantically, Evans et al say that Alexander got involved after the project became a training dig, not strictly because it did.
My read of that was that the operation was getting bigger, and so would need two people, rather than Alexander being specifically brought on because of his expertise with training archaeologists, as our framing implies. Alternatively, since the general point was that Clarke was the driving force behind the operation, the decision to become a training dig might have been intended mostly as a chronological marker, to be clear that Alexander joined at a relatively late stage of the planning process. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
it was planned as a way to put into practice some of the theoretical ideas he had propounded over the previous decade: as above, I think it would be helpful to set out what some of those were.
Great Wilbraham was the only known causewayed enclosure to include peat deposits: this presumably implies that someone had been and surveyed it before this point?
Yes, but as far as I can see Evans doesn't mention it. My own guess would be that it was so close to Cambridge that Clarke probably went there several times while working up the original grant proposal to the BM, and would have noticed the peat (and probably spotted some of the worked flints). That's just a guess though; I don't have anything I can source.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Clarke planned to include interdisciplinary analyses and an evaluation of the surrounding landscape and environment in the project: I would be explicit that this is a definition of "total archaeology".
Sorry if I'm being too timid about this sort of wording, but Evans doesn't say that so as above I'm uncomfortable using a term he doesn't. Again, can you point me at a source that would let me say something like this?
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a funny phrase -- lots of people use it, usually to bash it as ill-defined or impossible, but few people actually go out and say what it means! See
Godja here, p. 216: "total archaeology (an approach to understanding in which all of the disciplines capable of bringing understanding relevant to settlement history are applied)". Alternatively and more critically,
here p. 68: "the ... integration of diverse perspectives ... [and] disparate data generated by an interdisciplinary team of specialists".
Applying this to Great Wilbraham, Evans et al, cited, p. 118: This was intended to be an experiment in what Clarke called total archaeology. Predicated on the excavation of the entire enclosure, it was to involve a full array of interdisciplinary scientific/environmental analyses and intensive sample recovery. The site's proximity to Cambridge and its laboratories is also stressed as a major advantage for rapid response and systematic information retrieval - feedback, of course, being a major tenet of 'new' procedures. Based essentially on the quantity of its finds, Clarke is unambiguous in his assignation of the enclosure as a settlement given its 'heavy domestic occupation', and there is no mention of 'ritual' whatsoever. He is no less clear that one of the keys to understanding the site would come from exploring its situation at the interface of chalk and fen.
The three bolded bits are all key "New Archaeology" tenets (lots of STEM-y specialists, a feedback loop between hypothesis, method and results, and a strongly landscape-based approach to the study of a site). I think it's also important here that Clarke said that the site was definitely a settlement -- we might not want to throw all of our weight behind that in Wikivoice, but we should at least talk about it when we talk about the site's functions. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Looks good, but I realised I missed the obvious earlier on -- the more current term is "
landscape archaeology", and while that isn't quite the same thing (part of the reason for changing the terminology is to be a little more specific and concrete), a link or nod might be helpful. UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would do "total archaeology, a precursor to landscape archaeology", or even just link "total archaeology" to landscape archaeology (come to think of it, I might create a redirect and put a little explanation in the landscape archaeology article). UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
allocated for purchasing collections: purchasing artefacts for its collections, surely -- unless it specifically had this money put aside for buying some aristocrat's entire hoard?
Clarke and Alexander never published their work: this might be a little uncharitable -- we haven't yet, in the body at least, given Clarke's rather good excuse.
but the grant proposal for the following year records some of the details of the two weeks: can we put a date on it?
Unfortunately not -- frustatingly Evans gives no dates at all except to say "three weeks in the summer" for both years. I think Hammond mentions the dig in The Times and I could get a terminus ante quem, so to speak, from that, but it didn't seem worth it.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
15:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I meant for when the grant proposal was written/submitted?
Clarke mentions the September 1975 excavation as in the past in the proposal. The only other date Evans mentions is that the Fortran contour 3D plot is dated January 1976, but I don't think we can assume that was before the grant proposal.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
11:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Finds included animal bone including cattle, sheep, pig, deer and wolf: neater as bones of cattle... to avoid included ... including? OK, presumably there were at least some unidentified bone fragments as well, but I'm not sure they're going to be particularly important.
A pollen column was taken, which covered 5000 years of the peat: I can visualise this, but I need a lot of "help" from having seen something similar done -- most readers will, I think, need a bit more explanation of what's actually going on here.
demonstrated changes in the environment over the life of the site, such as the clearance of the site in Neolithic times and later pasture development: might do a footnote to explain how this works -- presumably, they noted a sharp drop in the proportion of tree pollen in the Neolithic, then certain other changes characteristic of grazing?
I imagine so, but unfortunately this is from Clarke's notes, reproduced by Evans: "Dr. Birks (Dept Botany Cambridge) took a complete pollen column which showed that the peat ran from c. 5000-0 BC recording the neolithic clearance of the site, pasture development and many other interesting features contemporary with, as well as earlier and later than the neolithic occupation." The cite I just added is from a general archaeology reference which goes into a bit more detail about pollen analysis, so I could add a footnote explaining how this works in general.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
15:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Two more trenches were dug the following year, directed by Alexander and Ian Kinnes: Was Clarke hospitalised or dead at this point? I think it would almost be worth bringing Clarke's death to the front of this whole discussion, as a kind of apology and explanation for why we're reconstructing everything out of scraps and plans.
I've moved mention of his death up in response to another of your comments so perhaps this is now addressed? Clarke died at the end of June, but since Evans doesn't give the dig dates for 1976 I can't see if Kinnes was added while Clarke was ill or after he died. Clarke died at the end of the Tripos and the dig was probably in the summer holiday so I would guess everything was planned and ready to go when he died, and Kinnes stepped in. No source for that though.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
16:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Have you got Renfrew and Bahn? Would have thought that any introductory textbook/glossary would do the trick. I can probably dig it out (stratigraphically) if you don't. UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I do, but I discovered in trying to find a definition that modern books don't even use the term any more, so I couldn't use that for the definition. I found a condemnation of spit-digging in Drewett's Field Archaeology and cited that, but had to use the online Oxford Reference for the plain definition.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
11:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
rather than the more modern method of stratigraphic excavation (removing the material in each identifiable layer of soil as a unit).: I am surprised by this -- doing stratigraphy "properly" was a big deal for would-be "scientific" excavators. You might also be being slightly too kind in saying "more modern", implying that it was cutting-edge in the seventies -- back in the twenties,
John Pendlebury is on record as moaning that
his director wasn't paying enough attention to the stratigraphy. In the UK, good stratigraphic methods had been standard for
most of Clarke's life, since at least the 50s, and since the 30s to those who were paying attention.
I completely agree that it's surprising; there are a couple of paragraphs in Evans that can be translated as "Clarke's fieldwork was very poor", though he's polite about it. I've written a couple of articles about pre-war excavations and the question of stratigraphy vs. spits was clearly coming down on the side of the former back then, so to my lay eyes it's astonishing that Great Wilbraham was excavated like this. Particularly since I gather Alexander was very experienced indeed; that has to imply Clarke designed the methodology. But do you think a change in the text was warranted? The only judgemental (as opposed to specific) comment that Evans makes is "Though not wishing to dwell on matters of hindsight, Clarke's approach to the monument, while undoubtedly pioneering, was also (at least in part) inappropriate."
Especially given Evans' comment there (bearing in mind nil nisi bonum), I think we've been too kind. I think Evans elsewhere is explicit that the conception and command of the excavation were very much Clarke's? I would certainly reword "more modern" to something stronger like "generally accepted", "the standard method of stratigraphic excavation" or similar -- we make it sound like there was a genuine choice between a new-fangled approach and a traditional one, when in fact very few archaeologists of the time would have defended Clarke's methods. UndercoverClassicistT·
C16:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I used Drewett to say "unsound" (his word); is that strong enough? I'd like to be able to say "considered unsound even at the time", but I'd need an old source for that. I tried Crawford's Archaeology in the Field (I have the 1960 printing) but he doesn't get that specific about excavation technique.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
11:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe something like Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought, or again Renfrew and Bahn on the history of archaeological methods? We don't necessarily need a source from the time, only one that looks back on when stratigraphic excavation became the norm. Something reflecting on Wheeler and his legacy might also do the trick. UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's a bit in
here (1989), chapters 2 and 3, that makes clear that stratigraphic excavation was a Thing from the 20s and 30s, and that non-stratigraphic excavation was a definite oddity after the 50s at least, but I'm struggling to find a slam-dunk one-liner that can pin it to a single page. Personally, I think there's enough there to cite "the then-preferred method" and reference "for the growing acceptance of the stratigraphic method over the first half of the twentieth century, see Harris 2014, ch. 2 and 3", but that might be a bit loose for some people's tastes. UndercoverClassicistT·
C14:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I just read those two chapters, and at the moment I'd rather not add anything more -- as you say there's no slam-dunk statement that in 1975 it would have been considered poor technique. Also it seems that there was a phase in which digs were conducted by spit but recorded by spit and stratigraphic layer, and Evans seems to say that that's what Clarke intended -- if I'm reading that correctly it's the execution that is bad, as the layer numbers are not clearly identified or correlated across trenches. If so, spit-digging is not the only or even the main criticism.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
14:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Recording of finds below this level was inconsistent between the trenches: can we explain exactly what this meant? Was one trench simply not very good at it, or did different trench supervisors adopt different recording strategies?
The full answer to this is presumably lost in the missing part of the archive. Evans says "Unfortunately, descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous. However, cross-referencing the record sheets with surviving sections and artefact densities suggests that any material given a layer number of five or greater is probably derived from features cut into the chalk marl substrate." Evans says at one point that "Having removed the topsoil, the trenches were essentially spit-dug by 'layers' in metre squares", and there's a photo to support this, but later "These individual squares were then hand-dug in 10 cm spits, with layer numbers given to different soils and feature fills as they were encountered", implying that the layer numbers were stratigraphic. And "buried soils were identified (usually as Layer 3) in several trenches". So it seems to be spit-digging, for spatial control, but stratigraphic layer numbering, without a clear way of connecting the notation from one trench to the others.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As I read descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous, it's more than "different trenches did it differently", as we imply, it's that no trench seems to have done a usable job. I take Evans as saying that no trench recorded finds consistently (with itself) or clearly. UndercoverClassicistT·
C17:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would agree with that. Changed to "Recording of finds below this level was poor within the trenches and inconsistent between them, so it was not always possible for the later analysis to be sure of the original stratigraphic position of the finds."
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
a sample of the peat itself to 7000 BC: no error bars on that?
A few artefacts not made from local stone were identified: suggest made from non-local stone; we currently imply that not many artefacts were made of e.g. bone or pottery.
fragments of stone axes from from Cornwall and Cumberland: not Pike of Stickle, by any chance? Has anyone commented on what they were doing there? Lots has been written about Cumbrian axes, in particular, as having some kind of special status.
All we have is "In addtion to flint, work in 1975 resulted in the recovery of a small number of artefacts made on non-local stone. These have now been lost, but were identified at the time by Professor Forbes of the Department of Geology and included fragments of Group I (Cornish) and Group VI (Cumbrian) stone axes." That's from Evans p. 131.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Done, using another source to cite "greenstone" for the Cornish axes. That source (Schauer) refers to Group VI axes from the Langdale source as if there were other possible sources for Group VI. Taylor (the source you linked) seems unambiguous that they're Langdale axes though, so I've worded it that way.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
15:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Mildenhall ware, a form of Neolithic pottery found in southern England: as ever -- can we put a date on when it was made, other than "Neolithic"? "Made in southern England between 3700 and 3400 BC"?
The names and classification of Neolithic pottery are nightmarish for a layperson like me. I have two references I use for them: Gibson & Woods, cited in the article, which is from 1990, and a 2002 book by Gibson, Prehistoric Pottery in Britain and Ireland. The former is structured as a dictionary; the Mildenhall entry gives no dates but refers to another entry that calls it middle Neolithic. The 2002 book mentions Mildenhall as the eastern version of a set of Neolithic forms that began to appear around 3600 BC. I think I could reasonably combine these to say "mid-fourth-millennium BC", if you think that's worth doing? I emailed Gibson a couple of years ago asking if there were more recent references, and he said no, and proceeded to give me a very helpful explanation of why the evolution of the terminology for Neolithic pottery is so complicated. It stems partly from changes in the understanding of the chronology, and partly from incorporating what were once regional style names into an overall chronological picture. I can't really cite his email though! He had not at that time interested the publisher in an updated version of his book.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
since the excavation was by spits: you might be able to solve this with a better explanation further up, but at the moment it's not obvious why this would ruin the stratigraphy. Technically speaking, this wouldn't be a crisis if Clarke and Alexander had also recorded the stratigraphic context in which it was found (you can, after all, have more than one in a trench without a real problem), but it sounds like they didn't do that or, indeed, establish a system of context recording at all.
See my comments above about this and the quotes from Evans. I will see if I can address this when I find something I can use to define spits -- it does seem as if there was some attempt at stratigraphic labelling.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not a problem, but I might add, "with no record of stratigraphic divisions" just to be extra-clear. It's possible to dig spits and still record stratigraphy properly, if you have the right systems in place. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Isn't this covered by "Recording of finds below this level was poor within the trenches and inconsistent between them, so it was not always possible for the later analysis to be sure of the original stratigraphic position of the finds"?
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strictly, yes, but that's in a previous section. Also, again strictly speaking, our sentence is still a slight non sequitur: it does not follow that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer from the excavation was by spits. In fact, as we've said The sherds were stored in the 1970s in labeled envelopes, identified by layer, trench, and grid square, I think something may be awry: either layer doesn't mean "stratigraphic context" or there's another piece to this puzzle. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The upper four layers included some Mildenhall material, but also pottery from the Late Bronze Age through to the present-day. All layers below this, which were all probably from within the various prehistoric ditches, contained Neolithic pieces, with a few Iron Age and Roman fragments. The outermost ditch found in trench GW II contained Roman material in all layers, indicating that this ditch dated from the Romano-British era: lots of dates would help here. Most people know the Romans were about 2000 years ago, but a bit of precision would be better.
though there was some inconsistency between the data from Great Wilbraham and a trend from the Neolithic to the Iron Age at other sites of the woodland form predominating in earlier sites.: I think this could do with a bit more explanation as to what it means and why it's important.
I've had a go at this. Strictly speaking John Evans doesn't support the "implying ..." part of what I've added, but I think it's a logically obvious statement to make given what he does say about grassland and woodland forms. I think what I've added also addresses your comment above.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Cepea nemoralis shells, most of which had visible bands. This form: The banded form of this species? Just want to be clear that "this form" doesn't mean Cepea nemoralis (incidentally, nemoralis means who lives in woodland groves). UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't apologize -- there's not much on Wikipedia that's more rewarding than having someone who knows what they're talking about engage with one's work. I really appreciate the detailed review.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
02:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think I am now caught up on all your comments. Will go and recaffeinate and take a look at the comments from others below. ~~`~~
Another one, sorry -- I think having Evans et al. 2006 as a subhead to "Archaeological investigations" implies that Evans et al made an archaeological investigation of the site in 2006, which they didn't. Why don't we subordinate that heading to Clarke et al, since it's really a continuation/reassessment of their work rather than a new study? UndercoverClassicistT·
C14:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And another one -- I don't think we actually say in the body that it's near the village of Great Wilbraham.
Fixed. I saw your other points but have to pause till this evening as I'm off to work shortly, but I'll just say I suspect "layer" of being used for both stratigraphy and spit level, either in Evans' description or Clarke's or both. I'll see if I can sort that out this evening.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
11:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Layers
Starting a new section for the layers discussion since I want to quote a couple of things from Evans, which would make a mess of the bullet list above. From Evans:
"Having removed the topsoil, the trenches were essentially spit-dug by 'layers' in metre squares (Fig. 7). Whilst potentially maximising the spatial control of finds, discrete fills were not distinguished, nor - breaking with convention - was any kind of feature numbering system systematically applied." (p. 122)
"Recording was undertaken by dividing each trench into 1 m2 units, each given a unique letter and number. These individual squares were then hand-dug in 10 cm spits, with layer numbers given to different soils and feature fills as they were encountered. In several trenches, alternate squares were dug as a first priority to establish the nature of deposits, quantify artefact densities, and 'record stratigraphy'". A photo of a context sheet from the dig is included. (p. 124)
"... buried soils were identified (usually as Layer 3) in several trenches, and provided the first horizon at which artefacts were collected and recorded systematically. So far as can be established, no cut features were identified above the chalk marl. Unfortunately, descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous. However, cross-referencing the record sheets with surviving sections and artefact densities suggests that any material given a layer number of five or greater is probably derived from features cut into the chalk marl substrate". (p. 125)
A grid diagram is captioned "Trench artefact densities shown by spit/layer depth and metre square". (p. 128) It seems spit/layer only makes sense if they are different indications of depth, so this use of "layer" seems to refer to stratigraphic layer, but there's only one depth dimension given. That dimension is labelled "layer" not "spit", so this seems to be a stratigraphy diagram.
"The material was contained in 499 individual envelopes separated by trench, grid square, and layer. The majority of the envelopes held mixed assemblages reflecting the spit method of excavation." Surely "layer" here refers to spit depth? Otherwise the second sentence makes no sense.
Given the above I think the sentence at the end of the "Reanalysis" section is OK -- it doesn't make any direct assertion about the stratigraphy and just reports Evans' criticism of the recording. You comment above that "it does not follow that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer from the excavation was by spits", but I think the last quote from Evans above says that it was the case. My interpretation would be that the envelopes were separated by trench, grid square, and spit depth, and that layer does not mean stratigraphic layer in that sentence of Evans'.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed -- they've clearly done the vertical divisions arbitrarily (at 10cm increments) rather than stratigraphically. How about in labeled envelopes, identified by layerspit depth, trench, and grid square? I do think, at the moment, the word layer is going to cause confusion with the upcoming since the excavation was by spits this meant that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer, since we need the reader to understand that what we're calling layer and stratigraphic layer are completely different things. UndercoverClassicistT·
C06:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support: that's my last quibble sorted, and on re-read I have nothing but praise for the article. I've certainly prodded and poked it over the course of this review, but I hope it's been beneficial: at least from my perspective, I think we've beaten out some really tricky issues and made it even closer to watertight. Very impressive work. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"The site was rich in finds, including Neolithic flint, and pottery from periods stretching from the Neolithic to the present day, and animal bone..." Two ands in a row?
The third paragraph is really short, which makes the lead unbalanced. Perhaps that sentence could be tacked onto the end of the first paragraph, behind "The Great Wilbraham enclosure was first identified from aerial photographs in 1972."
Done, but I'm not sure it isn't a little misleading -- the linked article is about tracks on embankments above wet places, whereas in "causewayed enclosure" it's a figurative use, more or less.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would link
Cambridgeshire in the body as its only linked in the infobox. Also, just to clarify, are you not linking terms already linked in the lead? I believe that is fine, although I would typically link those terms in the body as well.
Yes, there is
Cambridge. There is also
David L. Clarke, who is linked upon his second mention in the body but not first. Its also inconsistent as to whether he is mentioned with his middle initial or not.
No conversions to imperial units? Either way, the unabbreviated measurement should be given first. "20 m" should be changed to "20metres" and "2 ha" should be changed to "2 hectares".A non-breaking space should be put between each figure and its units as well.
"The site is slightly tilted towards the old river course, with the upper edge of the site at the edge of the higher ground." This is unclear to me. What is the higher ground referring to? In what way is the site tilted? Is that just a way of saying the site is sloped? If so, saying the site is sloped towards the old river course is a clearer way of putting it.
"Great Wilbraham was the only known causewayed enclosure to include peat deposits..." How did they know this. Was the Clarke investigation not the first investigation?
This is not stated in the sources. Most likely Clarke visited the site (it was very close to Cambridge), saw the peat area at the north of the site, and knew that no other causewayed enclosure was in a peat landscape. I can't source that though.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Clarke died unexpectedly in the summer of 1976,[23]and he and Alexander never published their work, but the British Museum grant proposal records some of the details of the two weeks." I think this would be better as two sentences. "Clarke died unexpectedly in the summer of 1976.[23] He and Alexander never published their work, but the British Museum grant proposal records some of the details of the two weeks."
"A magnetometer survey was done, and fieldwalking to recover surface finds, and a trench 80 by 2 m (262 by 7 ft) (GW I in the diagram) was excavated." Two ands in the same sentence.
"...which was stored partly in Cambridge and partly in London." Could be simplified to "which was stored in Cambridge and London." Partly is implied here.
"The cropmark plot used by Clarke to locate the trenches..." Is this referring to the trenches the archaeologists dug or the ditches that are part of the causewayed enclosure?
The section relies quite heavily on older sources. For most of the material, that's no problem, but for two instances, I wonder if newer sourcing exist:
The debate on the purpose of the enclosures. Has there been any development in that debate since 2011? Or in terms of military analysis, since 1930.
I'm not aware of anything more recent, though I have a couple of papers to read that may have more ideas. I think "military analysis" is probably too dignified a term for some pre-war archaeologists guessing at the defensibility of the site! But I think the military possibility has to be mentioned because of the evidence that at least a couple of these sites were attacked.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Over seventy causewayed enclosures have been identified in the British Isles --> Is this number still roughly the same since 2011? I can imagine that satellite techniques may be increased this number.
I don't quite understand the sentence " The construction of these enclosures took only a short time, which implies significant organization since substantial labour would have been required for clearing the land, preparing trees for use as posts or palisades, and digging the ditches". The first couple of times I read this sentence, it seemed contradictory (I read the first bit as implying it was easy to make, the second bit as difficult). Can you reorganise / split the sentence so that this becomes clearer? For instance, by first talking about how much and what work is needed, and then a second sentence about the findings of low constructions times / organisation.
Consider explaining cropmarks the first time it's mentioned. (I assume you've looked into adding an image of the cropmarks of the find, and there weren't any suitably licensed ones available. Would be cool if we could have one).
The Great Wilbraham enclosure was first identified from aerial photographs in 1972. keeping this in the first paragraph of the lede seems somewhat awkward, suggest making it the first sentence of the second paragraph.
Excavation by spits is considered an unsound approach, but in other ways the work was advanced for its time: for example, a computer program was written to render the contour topography of the site in 3D perspective. the phrasing seems a bit odd to me, perhaps While excavation by spits is considered an unsound approach, the work was in other ways advanced for its time: for example, a computer program was written to render the contour topography of the site in 3D perspective.
Ten years ago, geneticist
Ron Davis called
ME/CFS "probably the last major disease that we don't know anything about". A lot has changed since, most notably a global pandemic that led to millions more contracting the illness (15% to 50% of those with
long COVID) and the start of research programmes in many countries. A lot still remains to be discovered. ME/CFS has a long and contested history, making it an interesting but difficult article to write. Comments most welcome :).
Back from vacation and ready to review! I like what you did with the prevalence estimate, it seems to reflect the inherent uncertainties while remaining comprehensible.
Classification looks good to me.
Signs and symptoms
or other symptoms - I'd prefer for this to be either more specific or omitted. Could we for example call these "physical symtoms"?
Symptoms significantly reduce the ability to function compared to before the illness started - since this is not about diagnostics could we let this be implicit?
and 19% have a full-time job - I'm concerned about this for the same reason as the old prevalence estimate.
Causes
but there is not a single gene responsible for increased risk. - is this trying to say that it is likely polygenic or that no candidate genes have been reliably identified?
Glad to see this here at last, and looking forward to reviewing in the next few days. Feel free to bother me if I'm not back by midweek.
Ajpolino (
talk)
23:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Just getting started, but need to step away for a moment. Enjoying the article so far. Some little things:
Lead - I am uninspired by the first sentence. I assume you wanted to keep it short and sweet, rather than merging it with the second sentence? Anything else we can say here? The word "serious" seems unnecessary since you show us it's serious with your description in the following sentences.
My intention was to keep it short and without using big words. The main reason I didn't merge with the second sentence is that is misses the key symptom (PEM), which is best explained after the other symptoms are introduced. As the first sentence can feel definitional to readers, it may be misinterpreted. For comparison, this is what other sources use:
Lead - Similar note for "They are able to do much less than before they became ill." Seems generic; is that not true for many diseases? I think it could be cut, as it's implied much more colorfully by the rest of the paragraph.
Lead - "less than a day to several months." momentarily confusing as it reads like "less than" could also be applied to "several months" (which I suppose it can be). Is "hours to several months" acceptable?
That was my initial wording. It felt a bit too vague to me, and a big jump from hours to months. I've now put in hours or days to severals months to emphasize the more typical crash duration (which is >14hours as I understand).
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Lead - "avoid flare-ups and counseling..." I've never had the strongest grasp of English grammar, but
Sammi Brie has instructed me that a comma belongs here (
her essay on the topic in case it's helpful). Ditto "healthcare settings and care is complicated".
Lead - "severely affected and unable to leave their bed or home" seems redundant? Sentence means the same with "severely affected and" cut out.
That was my failed attempt to introduce a part of the severity classification. That classification is a bit unintuitive anyway, so better to not mention in lead.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Classification - "classified under other disorders of the nervous system". I don't feel strongly about this, but "other" is not very meaningful unless you look at the ICD-11 to see what it's "other" relative to. Would it be more meaningful to the reader to skip a level and just say "classified under diseases of the nervous system"?
Classification - "The cause of the illness is unknown and the classification is based on symptoms which indicate a central role of the nervous system." (1) another spot for the Sammi Brie comma. (2) I had to read this twice to understand. I'd suggest cutting the first clause (we know the cause is unknown because you told us four paragraphs earlier) and maybe tweaking to something like "ME/CFS is classified as a neurological disease as many of its symptoms indicate a central role of the nervous system."
Classification - "may better fit" reads as editorializing (I know it's the source's wording, but it's a short "Perspective" piece from an immunologist. A perspective piece is a good place for her to editorialize; the wording fits less well in an encyclopedia article). Is it fair to replace with "is sometimes labelled a neuroimmune condition"?
Signs & symptoms - "The illness..." I assume you're trying to limit the number of sentences starting with "ME/CFS..." but since the prior paragraph described several illnesses, I think this is a time to specify the subject of your sentence clearly.
I'll do a full review later, but I'd recommend merging the sections "Early political career", down to ""Premier (1971–1974)" into one section titled "Political career".
750h+00:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's 1998. Fresh off of the watery theatrics of Untitled, Alexander McQueen decides he's going to rein it in a bit with Joan. Just a long straight runway, black ashes on it, moody industrial lighting – oh, and a masked woman writhing in a giant ring of fire to cap it all off, of course. Based on McQueen's obsession with Joan of Arc, the collection featured a stark red black and grey palette and androgynous clothing based on priestly garments and armour. Just about everybody loved it, except The Sun columnist Jane Moore, who wrote an irate column after McQueen denied her entry to the show. The strange, ambiguous finale has been variously interpreted as violent, sensual, redemptive, and triumphant. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)03:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review by Generalissima
File:Mcqueen joan finale.gif oooh, a fair use gif! Rare case here, but checks out.
File:Paris-statue-J d'arc 02.jpg - CC-BY-SA
File:Melun-diptychon-detail.gif - PD
File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 45.jpg - CC-BY-SA
File:Daguerreotype of three girls, Carl Gustav Oehme, 1845 (cropped).jpg - PD
File:Joan Look 42 from Alexander McQueen Savage Beauty.jpg - CC-BY
When I first read the lead, I was unsure about this sentence: (Several celebrities attended, including actress
Kate Winslet and model
Kate Moss.) I was not sure if it is notable enough to highlight in the lead and the selection of Winslet seemed a tad random. I would think that McQueen banned several news outlets from the show would be more notable than the celebrity guests.
Yes, good point. Swapped.
The pronoun usage in this part,(Particularly in his early career, journalists often framed McQueen as something of a
working-class trespasser), seems off to me. I would think that the "his" would need to reference the subject of the sentence, which in this case is the journalists and not McQueen. Maybe changing it to "Particularly in McQueen's early career ... often framed him as".
Reworded
For the second paragraph of the "Background" section, the placement of the sentence on menswear in McQueen's collection feels a bit random. The paragraph is mostly about the theatricality of his collections so this does not really seem to fit there.
I think that for this part, (causing his friend Simon Costin to resign), it would be helpful to have some additional context on who Costin is outside of his friendship with McQueen as it is unclear what position he is resigning from.
I don't really think we need to spend much time on Costin, the point is really more that McQueen was being a total ass around this time because of pressure
For this part, (McQueen had worked with Garland before), could you provide a clearer timeline or examples of other things that they have worked on? I only asked because in previous sentences, examples are given, like with Sarah Harmarnee for instance.
I'm not sure much context is needed, as she solely does makeup. I think the reader can infer from the second clause which says it's Palau's first show. If they had worked together on something different absolutely I would put that in there, but that's it.
I think you can cut this part, (one of the last in the show), as it does not add much. The reader already knows that there are 91 looks so they would know that Look 78 would be toward the end of the show.
Removed
Maybe I am just being dense, and if I am, sorry in advance, but I am not fully sure what the quote means in this sentence: (Menkes felt the photo-printed items were "less assured".)
"Assured" in this context means "confident", so basically she's saying she thinks McQueen kinda doesn't seem like he knew what he was doing with them, compared to other stuff which is strong and on-theme.
I am not sure the following sentence really adds much: (Writer Chloe Fox called the finale "spectacular".) The one-word quote does not really clarify or illustrate anything further to the reader, and unless more could be added from this particular reviewer, I think it would be best to keep the focus on the other comments.
Mainly it's just more evidence that the collection is well-regarded by retrospective writers
From what I remember,
Lady Gaga wearing the outfit at the VMAs was quite iconic. Would it be possible to briefly mention the reception to that? I was debating on whether or not that would be outside of the scope of this article. However, I think something brief would help to further illustrate the legacy and impact these looks had outside of the show itself.
Let me see what I can find
Okay, I wasn't able to find a ton of reception, but I was able to find Gaga talking about the meaning of the look, which I liked just as much
Nina Bo'nina Brown wore a modified version of the red lace dress on
season nine of
RuPaul's Drag Race (for
an episode where the contestants wore outfits inspired by Lady Gaga's looks). Do you think that would be notable enough to briefly mention here as part of the show's legacy?
Ah, I didn't know this! I'll have a look and see what I can find.
Now this, I could not find anything for. It's possible my google fu is just weak, but I didn't find anything that really discussed it in any detail, so I'm going to leave it out for now. (But if you have any knowledge of a useful source, please!)
I could only find these two sources, (
this one from
W (magazine) and
this one from
The A.V. Club), which only briefly mention that Nina Bo'nina Brown wore a modified version of the McQueen dress. Since they are only brief mentions, I will leave it up to you on whether or not that would be notable enough to mention in this article.
Aoba47 (
talk)
15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wonderful work as always. I really enjoyed reading through this article. My comments are rather minor and mostly nitpick-y. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I did not miss anything, although I imagine that I will not find anything further. Best of luck with this FAC and I hope you have a great rest of your week.
Aoba47 (
talk)
01:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the kind words! I really do appreciate that, and it is always a joy to work with you. I have added some potential references for the Nina Bo'nina Brown version of the red dress, and I trust your judgement on whether or not that would be enough to warrant a mention in this article. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Great job!
Aoba47 (
talk)
15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What I didn't mention in the PR was that the reason I noticed it at all was that the NY Times crossword had just had THEIRONLADY as an answer. I wonder how many kids these days would even recognize the reference? I'll try to take a look, but I'm trying to get a bunch of other stuff done so can't commit.
RoySmith(talk)15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Negotiations between the British and Irish governments that had begun in 1980 continued, despite the bombing" rm the comma I think
"and the republicans minority" this may be a region-specific grammatical difference, but shouldn't it be "republican minority"?
"...imprisoned at the Maze prison, Northern Ireland, went on hunger strike. The strike was to have Special Category Status (SCS) returned to prisoners" suggest combining into one sentence and tweaking the wording, maybe something like "...imprisoned at the Maze prison, Northern Ireland, went on hunger strike to demand/request/something Special Category Status (SCS) be returned to prisoners" (or maybe "to protest the removal of Special Category Status from prisoners")
Very judicious use of quotes from Mr. English
This article says ASUs were 4 volunteers, the ASU article says 4-10 (and later 5-8). Was it flexible or was it rigidly 4?
The article’s citation doesn’t support the claim, but I’ve been slightly too exact when the source gave some flexibility, so I’ve added ‘normally’, which is more in line with it. -
SchroCat (
talk)
20:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
" the England Department, the IRA's ASU that operated in England" - so (building on above), the IRA only had 4 guys operating in England? (my knowledge of the Troubles is limited, so forgive me if this is on its face a stupid question)
"He was given room 629..." this sentence feels a bit knotted up in itself, and repeats "high level" twice.
"A ball was being held in Top Rank ballroom, a nearby venue," could simplify to "being held in nearby Top Rank ballroom", I don't think you need to clarify that a ballroom is a venue
taoiseach is italicised the first time but not the second time it turns up
"IRA cache found..." I immediately stopped to question how all this was known. I see that it's in the footnote, but I wonder if it might be better in the main text, as stopping to wonder quite took me out of the narrative. (Also, again, possibly a foreigners' question, but why would the ATB leave the cache in place?)
They didn't leave it in place (or at least the sources don't say they did). Does it give that impression? If so, I'll reword slightly. -
SchroCat (
talk)
07:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, I somehow missed that it was found with the timer already absent and made an unwarranted assumption about the chronology. It makes sense now that I read it again properly (I also think having it in the main text instead of the footnote helps that fact be more prominent)
"A decision was made..." followed by "It was decided that..." is a bit repetitive. Can it be written around?
I suggest reordering the paragraph about Magee meeting Jo Berry a bit. Sentence 1 could be combined with sentence 3, possibly something like "...met at Berry's request; she wanted to understand the conflict from Magee's perspective."
Reading over Roy's comments about the background, and having had similar thoughts in my first pass, I agree that it could be reduced slightly. Some of the details of the other attacks could be trimmed. The location of Mountbatten's death isn't important for the narrative of this bombing. "...was killed by an IRA bomb on his fishing boat" gets us where we need to go. Similarly, the Warrenpoint ambush doesn't really need the detail of "with two bombs: the first aimed at a convoy, the second at reinforcements arriving to deal with the incident". You could trim those details and probably merge the paragraph with the one about about Neave. The Sands paragraph I think should stand as-is, because it directly underpins the motive behind this bombing.
I suspect some of the quotes relating to Thatcher's approach could be reduced or paraphrased without losing much. Finally, some of Magee's early biographical details could be trimmed - the petty crime and childhood moves don't really contribute to the bombing narrative.
All that being said, overall, this is a good summary of a difficult topic that I - as someone with only very basic knowledge of the Troubles - found clear and understandable. As usual, this is a fine piece of work and you should be proud of it. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)21:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks
PMC. I've done the immediately actionable ones (although there is a question above) and I'll go over again with an eye to trimming. However, I don't think we're doing the best we can for the reader when we cut too much. I think we need to know Mountbatten was off the coast of Ireland when blown up (otherwise people may assume he was in England and ask IRA activity here, rather than on the island of Ireland). Similarly, the two bombs of Warrenpoint point towards a level of sophistication in IRA planning and execution that a reader wouldn't otherwise grasp. The Troubles was a complex series of events, and by cutting too much we run the risk of ending up with a "Catholics and Protestants killing each other" narrative, which is the all-too-common viewpoint of people. That said, I will go over it again to see what I can do. -
SchroCat (
talk)
07:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Mmm...I still think you could trim to "off the coast of Ireland". Similarly, I think the IRA's technical expertise is well established by the time we get to Warrenpoint - they've already bombed two prominent people to death at that point in the narrative, and now they've managed to kill 18 British soldiers in one go. I won't insist though. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
File:Grand-Hotel-Following-Bomb-Attack-1984-10-12.jpg: I'm confused by the licensing here - is this PD or CC? If PD, what is the source?
Sorry,
Nikkimaria, I missed this yesterday, but was reading up this morning and see you're entirely correct. I've removed it - there are several hundred murals in NI and the rest of the UK resident on Commons, which is going to be fun for someone to tag to get rid of. -
SchroCat (
talk)
08:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oops, my bad. This was a placeholder only as someone on Commons is doing a free version, but it may take a while. Now removed until the free one is available. -
SchroCat (
talk)
06:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. My main worry at the beginning of the PR was that the reasons behind the
hunger strikes were fairly described, even though the bombing itself was a horrific tragedy, and a shameful incident. The article is delicately balanced and fair and am happy to support.
Ceoil (
talk)
04:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
John
OpposeMOS:OVERLINK concerns and I'm not happy with the balance of the article. Why, for example, was Infobox civilian attack chosen? Other similar articles use a different one. The event was part of a war and the infobox should reflect that. Happy of course to discuss further. As it stands it does not represent our best work. "Feet" is the plural of "foot" last I heard!
John (
talk)
14:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) Oh joy. What overlink concerns (you can't just waive around a term without examples of where and why); ditto the "balance"? The IB pre-dated me and the same one is used on other IRA-related events, although there is no consistency in the choice over numerous similar articles. You last point is a straw man. Discuss if you must, but you need to provide examples, not vague generalisations. -
SchroCat (
talk)
14:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think John's comment on the infobox is a good point but maybe more for the talk page than here, as it could get emotive as we hash through. I have thoughts but will post them there.
Ceoil (
talk)
14:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not so sure: there are a couple of possible ones that could be used, but as there is no consistency in other IRA-related articles, there are multiple arguments for and against any of them. It's certainly not really a valid point on which to oppose, but nor is overlinking - particularly as the MoS is flexible on the point nowadays. Any oppose that does vague hand-waving, rather than raising specific points is invalid, but that would spoil the point of his stirring, I suppose. -
SchroCat (
talk)
15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
While I agree on the current infobox choice, I'd like to trash it out on talk anyways as it might become an issue down the line. Overlinking, if an issue, is easily fixed. An oppose at this stage is only a position, its not final.
Ceoil (
talk)
15:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Of course Ceoil, my intention is to help bring it up to standard, and that's an iterative process. Overlinking as you say is easy to fix, and we can discuss the infobox issue in talk as you suggest. The 'foot/feet' issue is really one for primary education and I think that's a deal breaker for me, but we can even discuss that if the willingness is there. See you in article talk.
John (
talk)
17:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It’s already ‘up to standard’ and the lack of actionable points is notable. OVERLINKING isn’t an issue at all (again, if you want to try pushing that false line of argument, then you need to highlight examples after you’ve got up to speed with the guidelines). You’re still pushing a false straw man with the feet/foot point. -
SchroCat (
talk)
17:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I note, without necessarily rejoicing,
User:John's return to WP to dispense his/her wisdom on the rest of us. I think we can ignore specious objections. Suggest we move on to some more constructive suggestions. Tim riley talk17:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments by Dudley
"The Troubles were the conflict in Northern Ireland lasting from the late 1960s until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, between the then majority population of unionists and the republicans minority." I would delete "then". It is clumsy and superfluous as any majority/minority can change over time.
"The strike was to have Special Category Status (SCS) returned to prisoners." The wording implies that you have previously mentioned SCS. I would say when it had been introduced and withdrawn - by Thatcher?
"she wanted a military victory over the IRA and for "integration"". "wanted...for integration" does not seem grammatical to me.
You should explain ASU at first mention.
"He was given room 629, on the sixth floor facing the sea, chosen a high-level room as he thought that would be where Thatcher would stay; a high level for additional security, given striking miners might also occupy rooms in the hotel." This seems clumsy and unclear. You first imply that the hotel chose the room, then that he did. "chosen" grammatically appears to refer to the hotel. What is the relevance of striking miners? Would they have been allowed in but only in lower rooms?
Reworked to clarify. He asked for a high room and was given 629; they thought the miners might invade the hotel and occupy it, so thought Thatcher may have taken a higher level room to avoid it. Hopefully that's all clearer now. -
SchroCat (
talk)
09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"He was given room 629, on the sixth floor facing the sea, he asked for a high-level room". I think there should be a semi-colon or full stop after "sea".
Dudley Miles (
talk)
10:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"That is the way we must respond such vile acts in this democracy". to such vile acts?
"unless a majority of its citizens agreed to join the Republic" "voted to join the Republic"?
"These were the successful assassinations on Mustafa Mohammed Ramadan, a Libyan journalist and Mahmoud Abbu Nafa, a Libyan lawyer. There were then assassination attempts on the British general Steuart Pringle; Michael Havers, the Attorney General for England and Wales and Attorney General for Northern Ireland; Shlomo Argov the Israeli ambassador to the UK; and Rahmi Gumrukcuoglu [tr], the Turkish ambassador to the UK." Were these assassinations all by the IRA? Why did they target foreigners? Also, for clarity I would specify "unsuccessful assassination attempts".
Not IRA assassinations, but the police and security forces were examining a rise in such attempts in general, regardless of perpetrators (although some of these were by the IRA too). -
SchroCat (
talk)
09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you
Dudley, that's very kind. I think I've covered them all in
these edits, but happy to go back over them if you think it needs some more attention. Cheers -
SchroCat (
talk)
09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That much blue makes it hard to read. Do you really need to link both
Margaret Thatcher and
leader of the Opposition? Likewise with the pairs of links for Airey Neave and for Lord Montbatten; each of those have a section in their articles called "assassination", so anybody who wanted to learn more about that would not have a difficult search. And again with
Narrow Water Castle and
Warrenpoint; the first article links to the second. Another example is
I would keep the links for the various people but drop the links for the positions they held. This is not an exhausitve list; I would encourage you to look over all your links and winnow out those which don't substantially add to the reader's understanding of the bombing.
RoySmith(talk)14:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think all those links are valid, which is why I added them in the first place. I'm fairly sure that if this article sits around for a year, or goes onto the main page without many of the links, people would add them. These individuals and events may be well-enough known to many reviewers, but they won't be to the majority of our readers. There will be people from outside the UK who don't understand what "leader of the Opposition" is, so we have to help them. I tend to underlink articles I work on, so it's an odd call to be accused of overlinking, and I think the ones we have here are justified. -
SchroCat (
talk)
14:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The Troubles ... lasting from the late 1960s until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The cited source talks about both the start and end of The Troubles being hard to pin down precisely. Your "late 1960s" wording accurately summarizes the source, but your assertion of a specific end date is at odds with how your source describes it.
Later in that same sentence republicans minority. That looks odd to me; should it be "republican's" (possessive), or just plain "republican" (singular)? Or maybe this is just a British/American usage thing?
On 27 August 1979—less than four months after Thatcher became prime minister—Mountbatten was killed by a 50-pound (23 kg) gelignite bomb on his fishing boat, off the cost of Mullaghmore, County Sligo, in the Irish Republic, which was near his summer home of Classiebawn Castle. This is an overly complicated sentence. Do we need to know this was near his summer home? Do we need to know how much the bomb weighted or what it was made of?
Ive trimmed them off a couple of details, but I don’t think it’s a beneficial move. Different readers want different information from an article without needing to click away to a different article. -
SchroCat (
talk)
20:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
not having to wear prison uniform "a prison uniform"? Or British/American again?
In 1971 he returned to Belfast,[22] and joined the IRA in 1972 after attending a shebeen—an illicit drinking den—in the Unity Flats area of Belfast, raided by British soldiers. If I understand it correctly, his decision to join the IRA was driven not by his attending the shebeen per-se, but by his mistreatment from the soldiers who raided it. The current wording makes that unclear.
Directly after that, He was beaten and detained for thirty-six hours without charge,[29] and in 2001 said ... I think I'd make that a full stop (or at least a semicolon) after "without charge", then pick up with "In 2001 he said..."
Somewhere around the middle of "Patrick Magee" when you talk about how the ASUs came into being, I started thinking, "OK, this is a lot of background, when are we finally going to get to something about the bombing". And then looking down to the next major section head ("Build-up") and thinking, "I guess not for a while". My point being that, for sure, some background is essential. As an American who grew up while most of these events were going on, my understanding of the background is not much deeper than "Catholics and Protestants killing each other". A lot of what you're going over really helps me have a deeper understanding of history, but I think you could trim a lot of this and concentrate on the things that are essential to understanding the bombing itself.
Actually much of the background is essential to understanding the bombing. Sure, I could gut the much of the background section, but readers wouldn’t actually get the full picture of why and how it happened. There are lots of people who think the Troubles were "Catholics and Protestants killing each other", but that would only be a tiny part of the picture, and they’d walk away not actually understanding the circumstances properly.Thanks for the comments which are very helpful: I’ll go through them thoroughly shortly. -
SchroCat (
talk)
15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Magee and his comrade realised they were under surveillance and returned to Dublin it's not clear from this if they had a general suspicion that somebody was watching them, or if they specifically believed O'Connor was an informer.
I remember saying as much to a comrade, who agreed. was this the same comrade who was going to share the flat with Magee?
428 Roberta Wakeham, the wife of John, the chief whip, was killed I had to read this a couple of times to figure out that it was Roberta, not John, who was killed.
she, her husband and Butler were all uninjured. At first, I thought she had brought her own
Butler with her, and it took a while for me to work out this meant
Robin Butler, Baron Butler of Brockwell who was previously mentioned several paragraphs earlier.
cut to ribbons, perhaps fatally one has to wonder how one can be non-fatally cut to ribbons, but that's not something you can fix :-)
Casualties were lighter than expected whose expectations? The IRA's or the rescue personnel's?
Injuries included broken and fractured bones aren't "broken" and "fractured" the same thing?
Magee was staying with republican sympathisers in Cork, I would move this up to the last sentence of "Build-up": " He spent the third night in the room and checked out at around 9:00 AM the following day, traveling to Cork to stay with republican sympathizers there".
But we don't know he did that. There was over three weeks between the two events and all we know is that he was in Cork when the bomb went off. -
SchroCat (
talk)
07:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(I'll pick up with "Reactions" next time).
The attack was condemned by world leaders.[90][h] This included denunciation from Garret FitzGerald ... -> "The attack was condemned by world leaders[90][h] including Garret FitzGerald ..."
was supported by her domestic political opponents, I'd drop "domestic"; it implies that her international political opponents did not support it.
Actually, reading further, it looks like that is indeed the case, so scratch that.
The Washington Post highlighted the possibility that the funds for the bombing may have come from the US This makes it sound like it came from the US Government. I suspect it was really from private organizations in the US sympathetic to the IRA; this should be clarified. Also, do you have a better citation than "The Brighton Bombing". The Washington Post. 14 October 1984. p. D6. I'm a WaPo subscriber and can't find anything in the archives that looks like it could be that.
Republican prisoners in the H Block celebrated the news I don't know what "the H block" is; this is the first time it's mentioned.
police and security services decided to wait until Magee returned to the UK. The British government decided not to tell their Irish counterparts Rephrase; the repetition of "decided to" sounds stilted.
Jumping way back to "Patrick Magee", it says He was soon assigned to be one of the IRA's "engineering officers", the organisation's term for a bomb maker. I'm curious what his qualifications were. Did he have some previous experience in explosives, or some related engineering field? Did the IRA just teach their members everything they needed to know from scratch?
No details were mentioned in the source to say he has any, but I'll go over his autobiography again to see if he highlights why. -
SchroCat (
talk)
He had no experience at all. It wasn't a popular role to hold, given how many IRA members died at the hands of their own bomb. -
SchroCat (
talk)
08:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I remember the bombing and this is a superb account. I was particularly impressed with the section on the explosion, the subsequent devastation and fate of the victims. I timidly made one tiny edit, which is a humble suggestion. I have two more. I think John Wakeham's name should be given in full and perhaps say "almonds" instead of "marzipan"? I am pleased to add my Support.
Graham Beards (
talk)
10:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have only now twigged that I haven't commented here. (Sorry to be late on parade.) I have previously reviewed the article twice, the first time informally and the second time at PR. Such comments – very minor – as I had were expeditiously dealt with, and after a final read-through now I have no further suggestions. Happy to add my support to all the other supports, above. A fine and balanced account of a dreadful story. Tim riley talk10:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about a character from the
Resident Evil game and
film series; who is known for her red dress. This was originally written by
Niemti before I and
HopalongCasualty rewrote it. The article was further copyedited by
JokEobard, which I feel like I should push through.
I set out at peer review that I don't think the treatment of this character's sexuality/sexualisation is where it needs to be -- we have a lot of comments at the start of "Reception" as to her being a sex symbol, a feminist icon, a "bitch" and so on -- but nothing really set out to say where this comes from, other than that she's a woman and wears a (fairly unremarkable-looking, at least in the lead image) dress. There are also quite a few remaining grammar and prose errors. PR is advice rather than commandments, but it seems odd to bring the article here having left a lot of that feedback unactioned. UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi. I already removed and replaced it about their relationship with Leon since I found another source. I felt like the peer review was stagnant already. But I already attempted to resolve everyone's concerns at the peer review and got no reply back. Can you be specific what are the other few prose errors so we can figure it where is it? Thanks. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔)
08:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You did make some small scale changes at PR, mostly to remove individual examples of e.g. "revealing" or "sexualised", but I didn't see a real response to the broader point about how the issue of sexualisation is framed across the article. It's more than a matter of taking out a few words: it's about the overall structure and flow of information, and making sure that we actually have good evidence for one of the article's most prominent arguments.
A few examples of the prose issues, but not an exhaustive list:
Game publications described Ada Wong as among the most popular and best female video game.
Magazines also praised her as one of the best female villain
Although digital media scholar Esther MacCallum-Stewart said that Resident Evil's female characters possess unique qualities making them viable choices for players to select over their male counterparts, and said their combat attire helped them avoid criticism of adhering to the male gaze.
Play editor Gavin Mackenzie criticized her perceived "bitch" personality in Resident Evil 4 in retrospective from the events of Resident Evil 2
correspond to the submissivewoman–femme fatale character couple
In themselves, these are fairly easy to fix, but the reason for bringing them up is that I think they illustrate that the article really needs a bit more looking-over, including but not only for the matters brought up at PR, before it comes here. UndercoverClassicistT·
C09:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I apologize if I was a bit rushed. But yeah, I can admit that writing in the reception section can be hard. Anyway, I made some changes to the prose issues you mentioned
[1], though I couldn't change/remove the last part "submissive" since it's part of the author's quote. But I reworded the next sentence after that. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔)
11:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And I apologise for repeating myself, but I don't think this is a matter of tweaking a few sentences: I think the evidence base of the article needs a good look, and then the article itself needs to be reworked so that either a) the commentary about sexualisation, feminism and so on has some evidence from the games to support it, or b) the article is reworked to ensure that
what it says is proportioned according to what it can demonstrate. UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Done and replaced into Behind the voice actor (the only source that confirms every voice actors)
Ref 61 and 62 are missing pages.
I don't think they need book pages since the book itself contains almost everything about the RE plot. There are a lot of Ada mentions because she appeared in that RE novelization, which just retells the story of Resident Evil: Retribution. Meanwhile, I already replaced the 2nd novel source. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔)
04:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Add ISSN to ref 76.
Done
If there are any, unsourced categories should be removed. I'll have a look at them when I finish the review.
Done I have removed some of them that don't fit the character.
I did not find any issues in the first two sections of the article. To me, it reads well and explains those parts well.
I will go through the Reception later and do a source spotcheck considering that the GA review took place in 2023 and the article has been slightly revamped since then.
This is a rather short article (less than 1500 words) about the 1973 FA Charity Shield, the curtain-raiser to the 1973–74 season. It is arguably Burnley's most recent major honour, although many will argue it is just a meaningless match to kick off the new season. All comments are appreciated!
Eem dik doun in toene (
talk)
13:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think maybe instead of a 'pre-match' section maybe title it 'background.' Also, a little elaboration to the blurb about Burnley winning the second division (how they earned qualification to the match) could be a nice touch, but what do you think?
Another idea I had would be to totally rip off the style/format of the
1974 FA Charity Shield article due to its classification as a
good article.
@
HYTEN CREW: Thanks for the comments. I altered the heading to include "Background". I think the current information about Burnley's previous season's success is sufficient (only 4 losses, clinching the title after a draw at PNE), but if you think that's not enough, please let me know. Thanks,
Eem dik doun in toene (
talk)
22:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"It was the third consecutive year neither the Football League First Division winners nor the FA Cup champions chose to compete" - might be worth mentioning that normally they did/do, otherwise readers not familiar with the CS might wonder why this is noteworthy
"after Alan Oakes hit the Burnley crossbar" => "after a shot from Alan Oakes hit the Burnley crossbar" (he didn't personally hit the crossbar....I presume :-))
" Doug Collins pretended to take the free-kick, left it for Frank Casper whose cross was headed" => " Doug Collins pretended to take the free-kick but left it for Frank Casper whose cross was headed"
"The FA Charity Shield was founded in 1908 as a successor to the Sheriff of London Charity Shield" - if you have a source, it would be worth mentioning why the SLCS ended (dispute between professionals and amateurs)
"in 1921, the fixture was played by the Football League champions and FA Cup winners for the first time" - mention that this then became the standard format, otherwise it sounds like it could have been just another one-off like the other ones earlier in the sentence
"The 1973 FA Charity Shield was the third consecutive edition neither the Football League First Division winners (Liverpool) nor the FA Cup champions (Sunderland) chose to compete." => "The 1973 FA Charity Shield was the third consecutive edition in which neither the Football League First Division winners (Liverpool) nor the FA Cup champions (Sunderland) chose to compete."
"explained that his preparation was geared to have his squad ready for the first league match of the season" => "explained that his preparation was geared towards having his squad ready for the first league match of the season"
"Burnley fielded the same team which had won the Second Division title the previous season" - I presume you mean the same team as the final game of the previous season specifically? Rather than that the same team had played for literally the whole season......
"City started the second half well and dominated the game. [....] Around the 60th minute, Burnley began to dominate the match" - hint of repetition here, anyway to reword?
"Collins pretended to take the free-kick but left it for Casper whose cross was headed in powerfully by defender Waldron to put Burnley 1–0 in front" => "Collins pretended to take the free-kick, left it for Casper whose cross was headed in powerfully by defender Waldron to put Burnley 1–0 in front"
"Waldron ran in unmarked from the edge of the box." => "Waldron had run in unmarked from the edge of the box."
"Adamson also noted that Docherty helped Burnley grew back into" => "Adamson also noted that Docherty helped Burnley grow back into"
"In 1971, double winners Arsenal withdrew from the competition due to previously arranged pre-season friendlies, with Leicester City replacing them." If the norm was FAC Cup winners vs. Football League champions, then it doesn't really make sense to just say Leicester replaced them. How about "with Second Division champions Leicester City and FA Cup runners-up Liverpool replacing them"?
"Burnley fielded the same team which had won the Second Division title during the final game of the previous season." Saying "previous season" is correct because the Charity Shield is generally regarded as the first match of a season, not the last, but it's a bit confusing because it feels like a culmination of the season, so "previous" seems to refer to the season before that. How about "Burnley fielded the same team which had won the Second Division title against Preston North end in May" (or whenever that match was)?
I assume the footnotes for Man City and Burnley in the "Details" section cite the teams, but don't we also need citations for the date, time, score, goals, location and referee, at the start of that section?
"Todd criticised City's ineffective style of play, to add:": suggest "adding" rather than "to add".
"was more praiseful of Burnley": suggest just "praised Burnley" -- the "more" doesn't seem right since the previous comment was not praise for Burnley at all.
Thank you very much for the review,
Mike! I made the changes in the article, and while doing that, also discovered after checking in the Simpson (2007) book that Burnley actually made one change from the team which had won the 2nd Division title at Preston. Cheers,
Eem dik doun in toene (
talk)
08:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh, Letterpress. A shining gem among a sea of cheap, soulless, free-to-play mobile games. A game that touches players with its simplicity, designed entirely from the ingenuity of
Loren Brichter. What better way to spend time than battling it out with words you had no idea existed until you pulled up the dictionary to cheat?
When I first met this article, it was but a mere
three sentences. Over the course of (nearly) a year, I began to expand the article to its fullest potential. I put it up for peer review (twice), and it
passed GA status in an instant. At that moment, I knew what had to be done.
I brought it to FAC, learned from that review, and requested for a copyedit at
WP:GOCE/R. I even learned Inkscape! (Great tool, by the way.) Now I'm here. To say that I am satisfied that this article is no longer a stub
is an understatement. I hope to make history and achieve my very first featured article. Thank you,
TWOrantulaTM (
enter the web)
01:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments from UC
I must admit that I find the explanation of how the game actually works pretty confusing. I think we need to start with the idea that both players are given the same grid of letters -- if I've got it right, you then have to draw from those letters to make words, and doing so gives you that many points and "locks" any tiles where you've got (two of? all of?) the tiles touching it?
Some quite basic statements seem overcited: do we really need four different sources to say that there are two players and 25 tiles? One is the Manchester Evening News, which is pretty low-grade source, put mildly.
I was unsure how to use the sources Teratix provided me, so I figured, "Why not overcite everything? That's using sources, right?"
Also, most of the sources I found repeated the same information.
The copyright claim on the three images is potentially dubious to me -- I know they are your own work, but they are also pretty clearly
derivative works of the original game. Now, that game itself is only made up of basic shapes, letters and colours, but there's a lot of distinctive combination of those that, at least to my non-expert mind, would seem to pass the threshold of originality. Now, there's a very possible fair-use rationale for including a visual demonstration of how a game's fundamental gameplay loop works, but we'd need to upload the images locally to Wikipedia and write one of those.
On a similar note, we can't claim the icon as the "own work" of the uploader. We could probably claim that it is ineligible for copyright because it only consists of simple geometric shapes: that would need {{PD-textlogo}}.
Added.
I find the lead leaves a few loose ends, or unanswered questions: take, for example, The gameplay gradually evolved during beta testing; in the prototype, players would avoid using unclaimed tiles, leading to excessively long games.. The obvious question raised here is "so what did they do about it?", and that's not answered until the body.
Added information about solution.
it was criticized for not having a single-player mode: later in the body, we talk about it having one, so presumably this was added later? Similarly to the above, I know that we can't include every detail in the lead, but we should avoid giving a misleading impression to readers who only read the lead.
Yes. The bot mode was added at some point after the game's initial release. I'm not sure if removing it is gonna satisfy this point, but I'll do it anyway.
two players compete to claim the most colored tiles on a grid of 25 letters: most colored is ambiguous: the most (coloured tiles) or the (most coloured) tiles?
First option. Removed "colored".
Loren Brichter, the founder of Atebits 2.0: the footnote says a bit about why there was an Atebits 2.0, but I think we probably need to give a bit more context about what Atebits 1.0 was.
Brichter saw Letterpress as a way to experiment with new software: what new software?
According to
this source, Brichter states, "With the Letterpress idea, a whole bunch of things happened to align that made that an obvious thing to pursue: games had taken over the App Store, I wanted to try a free app, and I wanted to test a whole bunch of other technologies." He doesn't really elaborate what he wanted to experiment with, unless I'm missing something here.
Furthermore, he states, "One of my complaints about design of iOS is it’s doing things that aren’t true to the hardware."
players could indiscriminately create long words: indiscriminately is not the right word here (that means "without thinking about it"): try "freely"?
That's the word I was looking for! Changed.
The link on pressing letters to
letterpress printing is a bit of an easter egg: I think we need to spell out that it's a pun with a double meaning.
I'm doubting it's named after that: "[Federico Vitici]: Why the name Letterpress? That evokes some print memories to me. Which is kind of anachronistic. -> [Loren Brichter]: Totally. The name just kind of grew on me. And the whole game is you pressing your letters with your finger. Letterpress. Not sure. Just liked it."
Brichter marketed Letterpress as freemium... why is this paragraph in the past tense?
Changed to "markets".
Letterpress has a "generally favorable" Metacritic rating based on eight critics: advise putting an as of on this statement (and checking it fairly regularly!)
I don't think that's necessary. Most video game articles I've seen don't add that + there hasn't been a new review for about a decade.
Reviewers found the strategic elements of Letterpress engaging, comparing it to Scrabble, Reversi, Connect Four, Go, SpellTower, Words With Friends, and chess.: that's a lot of different comparisons. Can we say anything about how they compared it with each of these games?
Game Center, Apple's multiplayer network service: I would explain what this is on first mention, rather than second. Does it still use Game Center when it's on Google Play, for example?
Changed.
Despite Wiskus acknowledging the negative impact on user experience, he mitigated it with iMessage. He also highlighted the friction in initiating rematches, which led to simultaneous matches between players: I don't really understand what either of these sentences mean.
Simplified.
Letterpress was among a list of minimalist apps provided to inspire Jony Ive, a designer for Apple's iOS 7: provided by whom?
Doesn't say (unless I'm overlooking something here): "Along with music app Rdio, word game Letterpress, and competing task app Clear, Any.do was among the apps that Apple looked to for inspiration as it redesigned iOS, according to people familiar with the matter. When Jony Ive took over as the company’s head of design, he was given a list of forward-looking apps that suggested how iOS could evolve..."
Looking at the last FAC, I'm not sure the sources provided by
User:Teratix have been fully incorporated -- in such a short article, we have the luxury of space to talk about how the game has been studied, for example.
Shoot! I was hoping that would get solved.
I suspect I'm at a bit of a disadvantage knowing very little about the topic, but in other ways that makes me the target audience -- I don't really get the feeling, at the moment, that I fully know what's going on, whereas there are plenty of current FAs that manage to hold your hand, even as a complete newcomer, so that you at last feel comfortable that you are getting the information with the context you need to understand it. It's a short article at the moment, and perhaps a bit more could go into padding out the explanations and context? UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello there! I'll try what I can to bring up all of the article's possible issues after partial reviewing the article (Also, can you review my
Ada Wong's FAC if you're able to? =) ).
There are a lot of ref bombs in the article currently. Pls, bundle the citations that have been cited from more than 3 sources.
Will examine the sources I have been provided with (if time pertains).
Remove ScreenRant source as low-quality source
That's the only source I could find that covers the single-player bot mode, plus
WP:VG/S states that Screen Rant is "deemed reliable enough" for any non-controversial statements.
At ref 15, pls italicize the publication
Done.
"Matthew Panzarino of The Next Web and Federico Viticci" Who is Federico Viticci? Add the publication/website
Whoops. Added.
Unsure about the Macstories reliability.
MacStories follows their guidelines listed
here ("What Guides Us"). Additionally, they have an experienced editor team, and they don't do paid reviews.
What makes 9to5Mac reliable?
Zac Hall has written for the Clarion-Ledger newspaper (USA Today), and they even
state that they have been cited by NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, the Financial Times, and others. Also, they don't do sponsored reviews.
Situational sources like Screen Rant and The Next Web can stay in the article because they're not used in controversial statements. I do not see any other issues with referencing.
Noted. (nice)
I think that you could specify which colours in the Gameplay section.
There are multiple themes in the game, so the game can be in various colors other than red and blue.
If there's a source for that, you could add it to the article.
(Unsolicited comment) Per
WP:NOTCITE, a work can be used as a source for its own contents, without an explicit citation (for example, when summarising the plot of a work of fiction, that work is taken as the implicit citation). UndercoverClassicistT·
C18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Are all three images really needed in the article? I think that one image demonstrating the gameplay is enough in the article. You should also probably re-upload it to Wikipedia as a non-free image, even though it is a recreation and not an actual screenshot of a game... Or you could instead upload an actual screenshot of the game. It's up to you.
I did the second thing, but in the previous FAC review, Teratix (I believe) told me to recreate the game in Inkscape. I will upload the game locally if I have the time.
Do we know which side projects? Software or video games?
Does not say.
This source states that he left Twitter to work on "personal projects", while in
this source, he states: "What happened was after I left Twitter I had this massive backlog of ideas going back five, six years. Stuff I was thinking about in college and I just didn't have time to work on it. When I left, I just plowed through my old to-do list. I ended up making a dozen or so things, most of which will never see the light of day, but Letterpress was one of those things."
I assume new software for iPhone? I think that this should be clarified a bit.
Clarified; added "Apple".
Do we know how was the game advertised, considering that it was downloaded over 60,000 times on the release day.
Nope. I do remember a fragment of an interview saying that he did use plain and simple gameplay screenshots for the App Store, but that's pretty much about as far as marketing goes.
Costello's was a watering hole for journalists, writers, and cartoonists on the east side of Midtown Manhattan.
Ernest Hemingway reportedly broke a cane over
John O'Hara's head on a bet; the bar's owner responded by displaying the broken cane over the bar. I wish I could have dropped in for a whiskey there. As an aside, I've been having trouble finding images that are either in the PD or that would satisfy
WP:NFCCP, particularly photographs of Tim Costello and the bar's exterior and interior.
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You've asked for an image, so I did find
one but the author and the date of the photo are unknown (we know that it was taken between 1949 and 1973 because of 699). Taken from
Classic Chicago magazine.
I can't access that NYT link - is it the case that the image was from Cosmo-Sileo and reproduced with permission, or is it Cosmo-Sileo working for hire?
Nikkimaria (
talk)
18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That might be a complicating factor - NYT has historically been more protective of copyrights and renewals, so we'd want to be sure the rights weren't assigned to them.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
18:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The Overlook website is a primary source and I do not understand what it is supposed to verify. The NYT source confirms 225 East 44th Street and that it is a sports bar, I verify the year, though.
I thought the 2004 year was not mentioned in the NYT source, but it actually is in one of the captions. I had another look at the article, so I'll change my vote towards support now as I believe that the criteria has been met.
Vacant0(
talk •
contribs)15:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I feel like this desperately could use an image of the building/business even if it is NFC. I believe it would be incredibly useful in establishing a visual identity for something we are identifying as notable.
Darkwarriorblake (
talk)
21:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I find the copyright side of things confusing but I believe it would fall under the same rationale as a film poster/album cover/game cover in that it is a primary identifier and it's not possible to describe the subject in words alone. I think basic building photos taken in a public space fall under non-copyright as well.
Darkwarriorblake (
talk)
22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think if you can use both images they both offer something unique, but the second is my preference from an aesthetic POV. I can see you're already speaking to
nikkimaria above, I was going to recommend them since I think they've helped with copyright in the past. Both images would likely have to go under NFC though since I assume the photographer and the NYT are still within the copyright period.
Darkwarriorblake (
talk)
22:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"speakeasy". In the main article could this be briefly explained in line for the benefit of non-US readers.
Is the wikilink not sufficient? I find that trying to explain these things in line leads to unwieldy parentheticals that disrupt the flow.
I am afraid that the MoS requires it.
MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." We are after all building an encyclopedia, we are writing in order to explain things to people who don't already know them. Doing so while maintaining a professional standard of prose is part of the challenge of FAC.
"... a speakeasy in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. The speakeasy was located on Third Avenue ..." "Speakeasy" twice in nine words seems unnecessary. Suggest "The speakeasy" → 'It'.
Done.
"
James Thurber illustrated the walls, depicting the "Battle of the Sexes"." Why the bold?
"during a gut renovation for a new restaurant". What is a "gut renovation"?
Changed wording.
"and during renovations, they preserved the cartoons". I am not sure about this comma.
Changed wording.
"John McNulty wrote about the discussions and happenings at the bar, which he called "this place on third avenue", in the 1940s in a series of short stories that he wrote for The New Yorker." Wrote twice? Perhaps '. John McNulty wrote about the discussions and happenings at the bar, which he called "this place on third avenue", in the 1940s in a series of short stories for The New Yorker.'
This article is about an album by an Asian-american, all girl punk band that I think is pretty awesome. I have been working on the article for quite some time, achieved GA status and DYK, and just closed a peer review. I think it is ready now. I hope y'all agree! – The Sharpest Lives (
💬•
✏️•
ℹ️) (
ping me!)
15:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Heartfox
In the composition section, only half of the songs have any commentary or information about them. I feel like this does not meet
WP:FACR criteria 1b "it neglects no major facts or details". There doesn't have to be a paragraph for each song, but no information for 5/11 of the songs seems like either the article cannot meet FA due to lack of commentary or source material has been overlooked. Based on this alone I would have to oppose at the moment. I would accept 1 or 2 words, (ie 'this song is a ballad', 'this one is uptempo') but to have zero information for so many songs unfortunately doesn't meet the criteria in my opinion.
Heartfox (
talk)
21:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about...
Bruce Springsteen's third studio album Born to Run. A make a break record for the singer-songwriter, it's easy to say he made it (very well). Now regarded by many as his magnum opus (although this editor would argue Darkness on the Edge of Town or Nebraska), I rewrote this article from the ground up and after its GAN it went through a helpful
peer review and I believe it's now ready for the star. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns. – zmbro(
talk) (
cont)14:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nick-D
It's great to see an article on a major popular music album here instead of the more common FACs on modern pop. I'd like to offer the following comments:
" was designed to break him into the mainstream" - bit clunky
"the band and producers spent six months alone working on the title track" - seems like trivia for the lead
I would say otherwise because it displays how "prolonged and grueling" the sessions were; plus, most songs did not take that long to record, especially at the time. – zmbro(
talk) (
cont)23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Springsteen's lack of direction and confidence" - this appears out of the blue after text that stresses that Springsteen was ambitious about the record
Removed confidence
"Springsteen was sent multiple mixes as he was on the road and rejected all of them, approving the final one in early August." - this needs to be tweaked: if he rejected all of them how could he have approved one?
"The success of Born to Run revitalized Springsteen's career" - this is unclear given the article previously stresses that the album led Springsteen to move from relative obscurity into stardom.
Would 'revitalized' not work here? He had a career before this (albeit struggling financially), but this record turned that around and brought him success. – zmbro(
talk) (
cont)23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nick-D The source uses "saved"; although that technically is true (Columbia would have dropped him if it had failed), I'm not sure if that's appropriate for WP. What about "rejuvenate"? – zmbro(
talk) (
cont)17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Same issue with that. 'Saved' seems appropriate if it's what the sources used (though it's hard to believe that Springsteen wouldn't have had a decent chance of making a successful music career given his skills).
Nick-D (
talk)
10:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Had the album been performed live in total before 2008?
Not that I could find. Setlists for the Born to Run tours are hard to find. I know he has performed all the songs from Born to Run quite often since 1975, but the album itself in order front to back I could not find. – zmbro(
talk) (
cont)23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nick-D Sorry I'm just now getting to this. I found
this one and
this one, although both are in German and don't appear accessible (at least for me). I recall in my search during initial expansion, the English one already in the article is the only one I could find, other articles were about Born in the USA. – zmbro(
talk) (
cont)15:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"By 1974 his popularity was limited to United States East Coast" => "By 1974 his popularity was limited to the East Coast of the United States"
"Low morale plagued Springsteen's team, including both his manager, Mike Appel, and the E Street Band" => "Low morale plagued Springsteen's team, including both his manager, Mike Appel, and his backing band the E Street Band"
Changed to "backing group" so we're not saying band twice
"Bittan had a background in symphony orchestra" => "Bittan had a background in symphony orchestras"
"Bittan mostly replaced Federici on the album, whose sole contribution" => "On the album Bittan mostly replaced Federici, whose sole contribution"
"The stunt generated interest the track" => "The stunt generated interest in the track"
"a long saxophone solo from Clemons, which he spent 16 hours replaying to Springsteen's satisfaction;[71] he dictated almost every note played" - it's ambiguous who the "he" is in the last part
Clarified it's the latter
"The seven known outtakes from the album included" - using "included" doesn't really work when you then list all seven. Change "included" to "are"
"The song contains autobiographical elements to Springsteen's youth" - don't think the grammar works here. Maybe "The song contains autobiographical elements related to Springsteen's youth".......?
"Following his demise, death and destruction continues across the streets" => "Following his demise, death and destruction continue across the streets"
"Springsteen's guitar strap dons an Elvis Presley pin" - I don't think an inanimate object can really "don" something. Maybe "On Springsteen's guitar strap is an Elvis Presley pin"
Changed to "An Elvis Presley pin appears on Springsteen's guitar strap,"
"The cover was included in a Rolling Stone readers poll" => "The cover was included in a Rolling Stone readers' poll"
"receiving both critical praiseand from former Columbia Records president Clive Davis" => "receiving praise both from critics and from former Columbia Records president Clive Davis"
"and moved different studios" - should this be "and moved to different studios"? "and moved between different studios"? I doubt he physically moved the studios........
This article is about the 2016 single by
the Weeknd and
Daft Punk. The single is a disco-pop track in which the Weeknd tries to reassure his lover to not be scared of falling in love, despite her own failed relationships. With a Warren Fu-directed music video about a "love story in a cursed land", the song peaked at number four on the Billboard Hot 100.
6 months ago, I checked this article out. I noticed that... it wasn't very detailed, so I decided to add some stuff. After a ton of work, I have finally decided to take this to FAC, to become my first (and likely) my only FA. I spent the time between the DYK nomination and this working on its prose, as the DYK reviewer had some concerns about it, so i started to tighten some unnecessary things. I have heard stuff about FAC's being "harsh" which is why for about a month, I have put off doing this. But after a spark of inspiration, I came back to this article and made some final adjustments. I believe this article is ready. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺,12:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Heartfox
"The track was released for digital download through XO and Republic Records on November 17, 2016" → suggest converting to active voice: "XO and Republic Records released the track for digital download on November 17, 2016"
"XO and Republic Records would send the track to contemporary hit radio in the United Kingdom on November 24" → this doesn't count as a release, see
WP:SINGLE?
Musicnotes is not a good source as there's no indication this is the original composition or a
lead sheet/derivative etc. Keys can change throughout song and go into relative keys, we cant source that just from the key symbol
I don't understand why the critical reception section is organized into reviews of the song and reviews of the song in album reviews. It is hard to follow and there are 16 quotes vs. 7 sources. This doesn't align with
MOS:QUOTE "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style". Harrison alone is quoted six times. "Music journalists complimented the Weeknd's vocals in the song" is used as a summarizing opening sentence, but this is only indicated by one source (Wolfson).
There is no attempt at paraphrasing in the rankings section; every source cited is accompanied by two quotes each.
This is my second attempt at nominating this obscure worm. I believe I've made all changes requested in previous nomination, and peer review and captured all relevant literature (there is not much), but am ready to make any and all suggestions here. Thanks in advance!
Mattximus (
talk)
19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you tell me from which date you made the improvements based on the last FAC? Then I can compare with my notes from back then.
FunkMonk (
talk)
20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sure! I made a large number of edits on May 8th just before the FAC closed, but it was not enough to garner support. I then went through all comments and did some rewrites on June 4th to try and make sure every single comment was addressed. Is that the information you were looking for? Also thank you for taking the time to review such an obscure article.
Mattximus (
talk)
15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've compared my last comments with the current version, and a few points still stand out, listed below. I believe that's all, but it's a bit difficult to figure out after this time.
FunkMonk (
talk)
23:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Two reviewers have suggested conversions for measurements, which has not been done.
I added this to the lead, but there are so many measurements in the body that it looked like a complete mess with double the measurements. I'm not sure that non-metric measurements are needed in a scientific article, apart from the lead which provides an overview. Is this critical to passing FA? It would make parts of the body almost unreadable.
There is still a good deal of duplinks. They can be highlighted with this script:
[4]
Done. Thanks for sharing that script, I'm going to use it from now on.
Anything on on how the type specimens were collected? From one or more moles?
Unfortunately not, I did my best to relay all information regarding the collection from the original document. It's also the only paper to mention the sampling.
Support - I won't hold it back for lack of measurement conversions, but if a third reviewer brings it up, it's probably time to add them.
FunkMonk (
talk)
16:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments by Femke
Thanks for working on the article!
Thank you for your review!
I find the first paragraph of the article too difficult. It's an article likely of interest to people how know much more biology than me, but I think some movement can be made towards an easier lead per
WP:EXPLAINLEAD
Both the first and second sentence say the genus only has one species. The first does it with jargon, the second in plain English, right? Can we omit the first?
I think I fixed the wording by merging the first two sentences.
We still have the scary jargon in there. Do we need the Latin name for the mole that prominently? Might be better to omit it from the lead.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Done.
Maybe switch East London and Transkei upon first mention, so that if you skim-read, you're less likely to think it's a part of London, UK (with east london now positioned next to South Africa)
Done.
I would put the size of the creature much earlier, before delving into difficult things with its hooks and rings
Done
Not knowing what proboscis means, I found it really difficult to parse the text after. Perhaps starting with the trunk helps (so that we know the proboscis isn't the trunk).
Here I added a definition of the proboscis which should make this sentence much more clear.
Rewrote this sentence, splitting it. Should be better now?
I find the rings difficult to visualise. From the lead, I hadn't guessed that the ring surrounds (?) the proboscis, as seems to be indicated in
Figure 3 here
A diagram would help immensely but none exist that are free. I did try my best at rewording, does this work?
In the body you explain that insects are an example of an arthropod. I would repeat that in the lead for context.
Done.
There are no known aberrant human infections for H. niekerki species --> What does the word aberrant mean here? Is it necessary?
Well it means that sometimes you can accidentally get an infection even though it evolved to infect something else. I can remove it since it still gets the idea across. Done.
but the life cycle of any thorny-headed worm, or acanthocephalan, unfolds in three distinct stages. --> I think if we say "any", we imply that we know the life cycle of all thorny-headed worms. Instead, can we say "in general".
Done
At this stage, which for H. niekerki measures between 38–60 μm in length and 19–26 μm in width, it burrows into the host's intestinal wall and continues to grow --> which for is weird, as it seems "stage" is the antecedent. During which?
I changed it to when, which seems to flow better, does that make sense?
I've made some minor edits directly to the article.
Thank you!
I would split the first paragraph of Hosts, as it's quite long.
Done.
Although the specific intermediate hosts for the genus Heptamegacanthus remain unidentified, it is generally accepted that, for the broader order Oligacanthorhynchida to which it belongs, insects serve as the primary intermediaries This sentence doesn't flow that well, consider changing it to: Although the specific intermediate hosts for the genus Heptamegacanthus are unidentified, it is generally accepted that insects serve as the primary intermediaries for the broader order Oligacanthorhynchida to which it belongs.
Done, that is much better wording.
Source formatting is not quite consistent: first names are sometimes written full-out, sometimes
Vancouver Style, and sometimes abbreviated with a full stop. Please choose a consistent style. First read done, might add some more comments later.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
11:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I found one that was inconsistent, but all journals use the same citation template, so not sure what else is in error. Found first name error, but could not find full stop error.
one other possibility for simplifying the lead is to omit US-specific units. Per
MOS:CONVERSION, unless there is a good reason to add, they can be omitted in scientific articles. From what I understand, even some in the US use mm in daily life for small sizes like this.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"formally described in 1990 by Mary E. Spencer Jones, curator at the British Museum". Describing it as the British Museum is odd. It is true that it was formally called the British Museum (Natural History) until 1992, even though it had been separated from the BM since 1963, but it has long been generally (and now formally) known as the Natural History Museum. I think you need to either use the common name or the full formal name as of 1990.
"sent from south-east Africa". I think "sent from South Africa" would be clearer.
Done
"these glands produce a substance used in the reproductive process". Is there no information about this substance?
Nothing for this species, but for acanthocephalans in general it's also not much: "a protein with molecular weight of 23 kDa; in fresh glands it is white in colour", not sure this adds anything though.
"Much of the second paragraph of the Taxonomy section appears to belong in the Description section as some comments are purely descriptive rather than explaining why the species is morphologically distinct.
I see what you mean, but many sources put this in the taxonomy section as it's kinda like a dichotomous key for classification purposes. The taxonomy is defined by this key, as there has been no phylogenetic analysis.
"without completing their devoplemented rendering them smaller than normal". Typo?
Oops, nice catch!
"into the copulatory bursa (a fluid filled sac)" "into its copulatory bursa (a fluid filled sac)"? (I assumed that it was the female's until I read on.)
yes that is much more clear. Done.
"found in South-East Africa in the Nqadu Forest, Transkei, South Africa". South-East Africa should not be capitalised and is superfluous. I would delete.
Removed all 3 instances of "south-east" and just kept it South Africa.
"the life cycle of thorny-headed worm" "the thorny-headed worm" or "thorny-headed worms".
Fixed this and made the acanthocephalan -> acanthocephala to match the plural.
Is it known whether the worm harms its host?
Unknown. Most certainly yes, but there exists no source to back up my claim.
This article is about another skyscraper in New York City. This office building, constructed for the Time and Life Company, opened in 1960 as part of an expansion of Rockefeller Center. It's distinctive not so much for its exterior (which resembles any other 1960s office building in NYC), but for its whimsical modern interiors, which include a serpentine pavement, steel-and-marble walls, and burgundy glass ceilings. The building also featured a dining club, stores, and even an auditorium. Perhaps the design of the interiors is why the building was nearly fully occupied a year after it opened.
This page became a Good Article three years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. After some more recent copyedits, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback.
Epicgenius (
talk)
15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Below are some comments on prose, most of which are nits; feel free to refuse with justification:
Lead
"The lobby contains serpentine floors; white-marble and stainless-steel walls; reddish-burgundy glass ceilings; and artwork by Josef Albers, Fritz Glarner, and Francis Brennan." - I think that the semicolons here should be replaced with commas, though I recognize that this is technically proper usage as the last clause itself contains a list with commas. Just a small grammatical nitpick on my part.
The first instance of
Time Inc. should be wikilinked. Premature apologies for further comments on wikilinking - I recognize that it can be a bit of a nuisance to the nominator and that there are certain MOS standards that should be upheld with regards to it, though I will try to keep it to a minimum here.
"Construction started in May 1957; the building was topped out during November 1958; and occupants began moving into their offices in late 1959." - In this case, however, the second semicolon should be a comma, as the last clause is not independent (contains "and").
Site
No glaring issues.
Architecture
I happened to be familiar with
Syska Hennessy for reasons I am not too sure of at the moment; however, to someone who may be unfamiliar, it could appear to be a person with a rather unconventional name. Would mentioning that it's an engineering firm (or just a firm/company) be worth it here, in your opinion?
Wikilink
Limestone in "1271 Avenue of the Americas' facade is made mostly of glass, which at the time of the building's construction cost the same as a wall made mostly of limestone."
Wikilink
Canopy (architecture) in "At ground level, there is a canopy over the 51st Street entrance." I won't include further comments on wikilinking from here, though I would suggest it be done for the more technical terms such as
emissivity,
parapet and
terrazzo. I will leave the determination of what could be considered technical up to you, unless more elaboration is requested. Hoping this isn't too big a bother :( I realize that I'm being rather pedantic here.
"Internally, 1271 Avenue of the Americas was divided into eight zones for air-conditioning." - Is this currently how the building is set up, or has there been further development here (as of right now, I am not sure whether the upgrade in 1957 was done to address this division). I think that "initially" between "was" and "divided" would be a good disambiguation, though if it's set up like this now, perhaps change "was" to "is".
"The ceiling throughout the lobby is 16 ft (4.9 m) high. The ceiling is made of dark maroon glass tiles, finished in a matte covering, with white lighting coves in some tiles." - Perhaps these can be combined into one sentence?
"The interiors were designed by Alexander Girard and furniture by Charles Eames." - In contrast to my previous supplications that other terms be wikilinked, I will suggest that the names of the designers be unlinked to avoid too-close duplicate linking.
"This arrangement was inspired by the PSFS Building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." - In its current location, this sentence feels a bit out of place, as the arrangement hasn't been described other than the footage of the floors and the presence of columns. Perhaps this could go at the end of the paragraph instead, or could be expounded upon with regards to how it was the column arrangement that was inspired by the Philly building.
No further issues with the rest of the section.
History
Apologies, I lied.
David Sarnoff has an article you could wikilink in "NBC ultimately dropped out of the project because its CEO, David Sarnoff, dissented."
"In addition, Major League Baseball moved its headquarters to the building,[162][163] and it leased two stories in the building's base for use as an MLB Store, which opened in 2020." - Should "MLB Store" be in title case here?
Rest of this section is straightforward and well-written.
Impact
No glaring issues.
@
Epicgenius: It was a pleasure to read
Hearst Tower when it was at FAC, and I'm glad to say the same for this article. This is looking to be in great shape already, and once my comments are addressed, I will likely come back to support. Looking forward to your responses, and I hope you're having a wonderful week so far.
joeyquism (
talk)
20:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Joeyquism, thanks again for the comments. I've addressed all of your comments, and I added a few more relevant links (though I'll see if there are any other terms that I can link tomorrow). –
Epicgenius (
talk)
22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Looks great! I won't hold you any longer for further wikilinking; I'm already glad to support this FAC for nomination. Hope you're having a great week so far!
joeyquism (
talk)
00:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In 1858 a mix up over two barrels of white powder led to twenty deaths and over 200 ill with arsenic poisoning. Food purity laws had not been thought of and arsenic was readily available over the counter, which was a recipe for tragedy - and all for a few sweeties. -
SchroCat (
talk)
19:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments by Wehwalt
"The adulteration of food had been practised in the UK since before the middle ages" I might add something like "with chemicals" or some such to state what they were adulterated with.
I've outlined that in the following sentences. It's not always chemicals: leaves were added to tea and flour to mustard, for example. -
SchroCat (
talk)
07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"The extent of the arsenic-related deaths was such ..." I assume we are talking about accidents AND murder here. Why not start with "So many people died of arsenic poisoning ..."?
I'm not keen on chemistry myself (it was one of my lesser-attended subjects), so I will not be able to comment on accuracy. I am, however, keen on good writing and candy, both of which are certainly featured in this article. I've noted a few things below for the sake of being thorough, some being nits - feel free to refuse with justification:
Lead
Should
Middle Ages be in title case (along with other instances)? I may be mistaken here, though I'm noticing that title case seems to be the standard in its respective article.
I believe the following sentences would flow better if merged with a semicolon: "Cost was the reason adulterants were used. Sugar, for example, cost 6½ d per pound; the adulterant cost ½ d per pound."
Same with these: "So many people died of arsenic poisoning that legislation in the form of the Arsenic Act 1851 was introduced. It was the first piece of UK legislation to attempt to control the sale of a poisonous substance."
As a Yankee, I was initially confused by "7½ d" (perhaps I just lack numismatistic knowledge) - I now understand this to mean pence, though I could be wrong and be actively embarrassing myself right now. Would it be worth it to write it out, or include a link to
£sd?
It's linked in the above section (when we discuss "6½ d per pound;")
Investigation, arrests and court case
"On the Sunday morning the local police" - Should this be just "On Sunday morning"/"On the following [Sunday] morning", or is this a grammar variance thing? In America it's usually just "On [day of the week]", but I recognize that this is a British-specific article, so if this is considered proper British English, feel free to chastise me for my ignorance.
"Neal's wife also admitted that she had found other fragments and thrown them on to the fire" - May have missed it in context, but I'm not seeing any prior mention of a fire; in this case would it be clearer to say "thrown them into a fire"?
The definite article is a little more widely used in BrEng than AmEng, and while both are usable here, we'd probably prefer it here as there was one fire in the location. If there were multiple, we'd use "a". -
SchroCat (
talk)
09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"By the end of Wednesday, fifteen people has been reported dead" - "has" should be "had"
"The medical historian James C. Whorton considers the Act 'was next to useless'" - Should this be "considered"? Also not sure of the inclusion of "was" in the quote.
Overall, I very much enjoyed reading this article (though not to say I endorse the subject matter's happening). I do question my own critiques at times here, particularly those related to grammar, so if I've made any faux pas or caused any offense, please let me know. Looking forward to your replies, and I hope you're having a wonderful beginning to your week.
joeyquism (
talk)
08:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh - I realized I actually had one prose question. I have no idea at all what a lozenge is in this context; I'm familiar with
throat lozenges but I doubt that's what these Victorian children were eating. I assume it's a sort of hardy candy?
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she)
15:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately the sources don't make it too clear (although I'll go over them again to check there are no little hints I can include). I think, much like throat lozenges, these were a
boiled sweet, much in the line of
humbugs, but that's a bit of OR. -
SchroCat (
talk)
18:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Did a little googling and according to
this history of candy, lozenges originated as a type of gummy fruit-flavored medicinal candy, and the name mostly referred to their diamond shape. As time went on, they seem to have stopped being gummy and many have lost their traditional shape and medicinal nature, but they remain mostly fruity. So basically - fruit candy, I think. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)01:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Now I've gone back over the sources, I suspect you're probably right, although two sources refer to them being
humbugs, which is a hard-boiled sweet (literally boiling the sugary syrup and letting it dry into a hard sweet. The description we have of the manufacturing process (it's in the article in the last paragraph of the Background section) doesn't mention boiling the sugar at all, which would suggest a more 'gummy'-style sweet. All this is OR, unfortunately, so I think we may be best just leaving the description in place as the only explanation, rather than trying to 'translate' it to a modern type of sweet. -
SchroCat (
talk)
08:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentsSupport by RoySmith
I don't know if I'll do a full review, but one thing jumped out at me. In
File:As4O6-molecule-from-arsenolite-xtal-3D-balls.png, there's six oxygens, not three, as the name "arsenic trioxide" would indicate. Presumably this is a
dimer. I don't think there's any need to do a deep dive into the chemistry, but this obvious (to anybody trained in chemistry) discrepancy needs to be at least be mentioned. Oddly enough (and that's an understatement),
Arsenic trioxide, which is the deep dive, doesn't mention this either, but that's somebody else's problem.
RoySmith(talk)23:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The chemist Arthur Hill Hassall was prominent in the field of food analysis and the first person to systematically study food through a microscope. The source says "Hassall became well known as the first food chemist to make a systematic use of the microscope to detect fraudulent additions to food." That's not quite the same thing. Over at DYK, we've learned to be wary about claims of somebody or something being a "first", since those claims so often turn out not to be true. In this case, there's a couple of issues. One is "being well known as the first" is not the same as actually being the first. The other is that the source talks specifically about food chemists, but you expanded that to all people. For all we know, there was somebody doing this kind of investigation earlier but they weren't a food chemist.
RoySmith(talk)01:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
arsenic trioxide is the common name for the substance and the As4O6 is the molecular form it takes at standard conditions. So the caption was OK to start with.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
04:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
highly poisonous arsenic trioxide I think we need a source for "highly poisonous".
https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/MMG/MMGDetails.aspx?mmgid=1424&toxid=3 says "Arsenic trioxide ... is one of the most toxic and prevalent forms of arsenic" but that's a relative measure. Later on it says "When arsenic trioxide is burned, it releases ... arsine gas ... which is highly toxic" which implies that the unburned substance isn't.
"highly poisonous" is hyperbole. I would just say "poisonous". Substances that kill in milligram quantities could be called "highly poisonous".
harmless additions, such as chicory, I think you want a semicolon after chicory, not a comma? On the other hand, this is a monster sentence; maybe break it into several? Something like "First were harmless additions such as chicory (full stop) Alternatively, adding flour to mustard ... tea leaves (full stop) And finally, toxic additions such as ..."
No, it needs a comma, as it's a list of three things that were the first category of 'harmless additions'. The rest of the sentence (also a list, split by semi-colon) comprises explanation and examples of what is in the other two categories. -
SchroCat (
talk)
08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, I see that now. But I still think breaking this up into multiple sentences would improve readabiltity. I did a little research about commas vs semicolons and found
this bit of advice: "There is no rule limiting the number of independent clauses in a single sentence, however, the reader’s ability to comprehend the sentence will certainly decrease if a compound sentence “rages on and on,” even if the conjunctions and punctuation are correct." I think that applies here.
It's not just the two-level list, there's constructs like introducing alum, gypsum or chalk into white bread or tree or shrub leaves into tea leaves. I had to read that several times to figure out that it needs to be parsed as "introducing [(alum, gypsum or chalk) into white bread] or [(tree or shrub leaves) into tea leaves]"
RoySmith(talk)18:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Those adulterating foodstuff used nicknames to hide the practice it took me a few readings to figure out that "those" refers to "the people doing the adulterating" and not "the foodstuffs". Some rewording might clarify this.
cost 6½ d per pound I see you've already discussed this with
Wehwalt, but the use of "d" can indeed be confusing for those not familiar with historical British coinage. I know you linked "d" to
Penny (British pre-decimal coin), but a single-letter link isn't easy to notice, so I suggest something like "cost 6½ d (pence) per pound" and link "pence".
Let me think on this one - it's a rather non-standard approach and this format hasn't been an issue in other articles I've written, so I want to have a look round at other examples. -
SchroCat (
talk)
08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
it was thought that the cause of the deaths was cholera I would establish context by mentioning that this happened during the
1846–1860 cholera pandemic.
Interestingly none of the sources mention the cholera outbreak, so we'd be possibly guilty of SYNTH or OR if we connect the two, but I'm going back through the sources to see if I can find a connection. -
SchroCat (
talk)
08:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not OR to observe that 1858 is between 1846 and 1860 :-) But, yes, you are right that it is OR to infer that "the reason people suspect this was cholera was because of the ongoing pandemic". Perhaps
"The Halloween sweets that poisoned Bradford". bbc.com. which says Initially, the doctor who saw nine-year-old Elijah Wright in the early hours of Halloween 1858 thought the boy had died from cholera. Surgeon John Roberts thought the symptoms - vomiting and convulsions - were consistent with the disease, which had been rife in England. is what you need to connect them?
RoySmith(talk)18:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, now added. I found some information about the similarity of symptoms between the two as well, so that all looks much stronger now. -
SchroCat (
talk)
07:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It looks like all my concerns have been addressed, so adding my support. As an aside, when I saw this listed, what draw my interest was thinking about the scene in
It's a Wonderful Life where the pharmacist Mr. Gower accidentally mixes poison into some pills he is making, killing a patient. That scene takes place around 1920 or so, 60 years after this event. Apparently such accidents were still commonplace enough that it would be believable to movie audiences.
RoySmith(talk)19:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Many thanks
RoySmith. Funnily enough, even though Wonderful Life is one of my favourite films, I simply hadn't made the connection, but it's a very interesting thought that they happened within a lifetime of each other. Cheers -
SchroCat (
talk)
19:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sodium
I'd like to take a look in a bit. This is a very outside my expertise (which tends to be tech), but it seems like a fun article to read and review.
Sohom (
talk)
03:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Three men were arrested—the chemist who sold the arsenic, the sweet maker and the market seller who sold the sweets - That doesn't line up with the rest of the article, which goes on to tell me that the three people were put on trial, the sweet maker, the chemist and his assistant.
The image shown for arsenic trioxide structure seems like it is the structure of
arsenolite, the crystal mineral (with a formula As4O6) rather than arsenic trioxide. Maybe that be noted somewhere as a footnote since it's somewhat confusing to read "trioxide" and see 6 oxygen atoms.
It was also used as a poison for murder. So many people died of arsenic poisoning that legislation in the form of the Arsenic Act 1851 was introduced; .... I think the phrasing here is confusing, was the arsenic poisoning cases deliberate, accidental or both
Corollary to the above, can the previous statement be more rigorous, "many" seems a bit nebulous, are there numbers of how many peeps died of arsenic poisoning in 1850 that can be cited as a reason, or was it just public opinion ?
There are no figures in the sources to back this up, just an acknowledgement by the authorities that there was a problem that needed dealing with. -
SchroCat (
talk)
07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
and in 1862 three children died at Christmas after eating sweets containing arsenic. That's a specific example the book cites to illustrate the fact that adulteration happened even after the passage of the mentioned act, it's not part of the actual reason why the Act was ineffective which is how it is portrayed in the article.
The map is rather dark. I improved it but the Commons has tightened it's rules regarding overwriting of files: only the original poster can do so. Thoughts?
Graham Beards (
talk)
10:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Loving your current tear through British food history. I read Swindled a few years ago and immediately thought of it when I opened this; delighted to see it in the refs already. Comments within the week, throw popcorn if I don't make it. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)00:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"For the sweets produced in Bradford, powdered gypsum was supposed to be purchased" passive voice here
"firstly were harmless additions, such as chicory, adding flour to mustard and watering down milk." the last two are self-explanatory, but what chicory does or is isn't clear from context.
"cheese with mercury salts" - should be "mercury salts added to cheese", since it's the salt that's the additive not the cheese
It may be too much detail for this article, but it's not clear from the text if all of the things mentioned as adulterants (ex. salts of copper and red lead) were known to be dangerous and were being illicitly mixed in instead of safer ingredients, or were added for their useful effects ignorant of actual danger
"Cost was the reason..." I might move this sentence up to para 1; I think it fits better there logically.
"Sunday, Police Constable Campbell, was sent to investigate" - rm second comma
Why is Police Constable capitalized but chief constable isn't?
"Eventually up to twenty-one people died..." it feels odd that this sentence ends solely with the footnote. Do the refs in the footnote cover the ~200 ill as well? (imo the 20 vs 21 thing could be in-text vs in a footnote but I won't insist)
That's all I've got. Quite an interesting little tragedy - I find myself feeling a little sorry for everyone involved. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)04:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Three minor points, none of which affect my support:
"Sulfuric acid" – seems a work of supererogation to take the stuff all the way to America and back when they could just add sulphuric acid at home.
"Joseph Neal, who made the sweets on Stone Street" – next time we lunch at my flat look out for what I'm slipping into your pudding: "in", not "on" in the King's English, for the umpteenth goddam time!
"Mary Midgley, a seven year old girl" – I'd shove a couple of hyphens in here.
That's my lot. Happy to support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Glad(ish) to see SchroCat following in the beloved
Brian Boulton's footsteps in regaling us with death and destruction on all sides. Be that as it may, I support the elevation of this article to FA, Tim riley talk13:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Many thanks
Tim. I always try to leave in at least one 'on x street' for you. It's all part of an experiment to see what your breaking point is: I sense I may be close! -
SchroCat (
talk)
08:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments from Penitentes
This is a really toothsome article, despite the dire subject matter. Just a few quick comments, the resolution of which—as with PMC above—won't affect my vote to support.
An inquest was opened the following day. - Perhaps link to
inquest?
...the Food Adulteration Act 1860 was passed into law... - Since the Act itself has no article, would it be possible to add just a single sentence about what it did (or purported to do)? Reading that the poisoning helped motivate its passage and then immediately reading that it was considered ineffective makes me curious about what its contents were.
Books are all from reputable publishers and scholarly authors; all nice and modern sources (although of matters of arcane local history, older sources may be OK too: historiographical fashion changes like it's á la Milanese). Why are the ISBNs inconsistently laid out. With Davis Kindle ed., what does 487 denote. The journals are an excellent selection of blind peer-reviewed articles, except for History Today. Contemporaneous newspapers are used sparsely but wisely—always a tricky tightrope!—and are all absolute papers of record. And the BBC :) As for websites, ODNB is generally reliable (joke: just don't tell Iridescent!).
This is a good fun, readable, but educational article of the kind you excel in Schrocat. Just reading it gave me early-onset diabetes, I think! By the way—nothing to do with the source review of course—but when you talk about the uses of Arsenic in Victorian England, it might be worth mentioning the prevalence of
Arsenic eating? (And that's a redlink?!)[1][2][3]——Serial Number 5412921:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Many thanks
SN. I've tweaked the ISBNs, so they should all be consistent. For Davis, it's the location in the e-book (older versions of books had no page numbers, but a location 'address'), so I've used that, which I've done in a few other FAs. I'm a bit surprised that's a red link - German WP has a page on it (Arsenikesser), but I think it may be a possible step too far away from this page. Thanks for the review. Cheers -
SchroCat (
talk)
09:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
One of the most successful cavalry commanders of the First World War, Sir Henry Macandrew would probably be more widely known if he hadn't accidentally killed himself in a pyjama-related explosion a year after the war ended. A British Indian Army officer, he fought in the Tirah campaign and Boer War before making his greatest impact commanding a division on the Western Front and in the Middle East.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
14:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Drive-by comments from SC
This breaches a few parts of the MOS without seemingly good reasons for doing so, and it would be best if you ensured it's MOS compliant before the reviews start rolling in. The points that caught my eye on a very quick look include:
A five para lead (
MOS:LEADLENGTH says four at most and an article of this size, is suggests, should be two or three): Four would be acceptable, but not five.
Shortened.
WP:CITEBUNDLE is probably advisable for the places with four citations, and probably those with three
I couldn't figure out how to bundle, something I haven't done before, without breaking a lot of ref templates. I've split out the groups of 3 and 4 references instead.
There are two block quotes in the Post war section that shouldn't be block quote – they should be inline as they are less than forty words, but ...
Changed.
... they should adhere to
WP:ELLIPSIS in regard to the spacing.
I don't know what to do about the above concerns re publication. I'm rather terrible at copyright. Is there an alternative tag I should be using for these images? Your direction would be welcome.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have changed the tag for File:Henry_John_Milnes_MacAndrew.png. The other two don't have any appropriate tags in that list due to author being unknown and author not dying before 1954 respectively. Unless PDM 1.0 is acceptable (as I believe CC BY-NC 3.0 AU isn't?) I'll remove them.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
16:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Macandrew was awarded the India Medal with two clasps and mentioned in despatches This reads as if the medal was mentioned in despatches, which I don't think is the intention; I think was mentioned in despatches and awarded the India Medal with two clasps. would be more clear
Done.
Macandrew continued in India I know this is technically correct, but it made me think a word was missing. "Continued serving" might be better.
Done.
Serving in Kitchener's Horse, from February he operated in the Orange Free State. This sentence seems like it'd be clearer if the clauses were reversed; Beginning in February, he operated in the Orange Free State with Kitchener's Horse.
"the Inverness College". The link here is something of an easter egg, since I don't see the words "Inverness College" in the article linked.
I have added a sentence in the article to make the connection.
"On 22 November 1889 he was admitted to the Bengal Staff Corps, having completed his probationary period, as a lieutenant and continued with the 5th Bengal Cavalry.[1][4]" I would move "as a lieutenant" to after "Corps", otherwise it seems a bit ambiguous (given he was already a lieutenant).
Done.
"Macandrew served as brigade transport officer to Brigadier-General Alfred Gaselee's 2nd Brigade" Can we cut the first "brigade"
Done.
"when he travelled to South Africa to fight in the Boer War." This implies a choice on his part, that he chose to do this rather than being sent. Is this right?
The sources don't stipulate one way or the other, it is likely this was an order rather than voluntary. I've changed the wording to make it a bit less wishy washy.
I notice time is expressed in this article are given as a.m. and p.m. Given this is a military article, should that be on the 24 hour clock?
Liable to confuse some readers I think; the sources also use this format.
"surrounding of Damascus " Is "surrounding" the proper term, or something like encirclement?
Changed to encirclement, which is what the source actually uses.
Hi
Pickersgill-Cunliffe, my comments:
I was one of the reviewers at A Class and found the article to be very well written. The only issue I have is the presence of a Dates of rank section. The images of the badges of the ranks can cause issues, since the British Army has presumably not released copyright over these. The other problem is that we already mention his promotions in chronological order in the Career section, so adding a Dates of rank section is just a summarization. You already know this, and you included such a section on a trial basis, so you should see what the other reviewers have to say on this. Ian Rose and Zawed can best help out on this, you can tag them and check out what they have to say. The article overall is in a very good condition, and I can support for promotion to FA class after we have comments from other reviewers on the aforementioned issue. Cheers
Matarisvan (
talk)
03:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Matarisvan: Hi, I've removed the offending section; if any other reviewers have opinions on it then I'd be interested to hear them, but this isn't a hill I'm even vaguely interested in dying on!
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
22:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, you need to add a link for the Belfast Newsletter reference. Would this link work fine:
[5]? I think it will. I took it from the discussion with Dumelow you had linked on the A Class review.
Matarisvan (
talk)
05:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Could you check out the text of the URL? I don't think the link for the article given by a BNA subscriber would be any different from the one posted here. You could ask someone with a BNA subscription to open this link and check out if it loads correctly. Otherwise the URL text reveals as much.
Matarisvan (
talk)
17:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Happy to support for promotion to FA class. Congratulations on the great article, once it gets promoted it will be the 3rd FA from the Indian milhist category after a long time.
Matarisvan (
talk)
19:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about an English bishop who was not averse to ecclesiastical fisticuffs. I'm not sure how comfortable he would have been to know personally, but I have much enjoyed reading about him and writing him up here. I have a particular soft spot for the article as ten years ago it was informally reviewed by the late and still painfully missed
Brian Boulton and shortly after that was reviewed for GAN by one of our leading lights on church history,
Ealdgyth. I've added to it since then, and I look forward to comments from anyone kind enough to look in. Tim riley talk12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The MoS, I understand, no longer regards duplicate links as mortal sins, and – without feeling adamant about it – I think the duplication is possibly helpful here. Tim riley talk15:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As you don't begin the article with his full name, both Herbert and Hensley are technically unreferenced!!
"after being ordained deacon" my religious knowledge is very poor, but I was under the impression that one would be ordained a deacon of a particular church/diocese. Is this the case here?
No. An ordinary C of E deacon is a deacon anywhere in the C of E. It's like a lance-vicar, as it were. (I think there are other kinds of deacons, more specialised, but HH wasn't one such.) Tim riley talk15:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What's Salisbury's original connection to Henson? His patronage seems to come out of nowhere!
Salisbury was associated in a lay capacity with St Margaret's, Barking, but I think it would be going into rather too much detail to expand on this, though I'm willing to negotiate. Tim riley talk15:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed, to both but as I say above we are now, I believe, permitted duplicate links where we think them helpful to our readers. I think these are OK. Tim riley talk15:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no requirement, as far as I can see, in the MoS to use a name at first mention in any para. The
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does, in fact, pretty much do so in its article on Henson, but doesn't do so systematically for other subjects, and personally I like to keep the surnames under control and use pronouns whenever they convey the intended meaning.
Good old Commons – you can rely on it to let you down! Image replaced locally on En-Wiki with due data. Thank you, as always, Nikkimaria! Tim riley talk15:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
...; because of this some members of the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England accused him of heresy and sought unsuccessfully to block his appointment as Bishop of Hereford in 1917. Dropped the comma before "and".
He campaigned against prohibition, the exploitation of foreign workers by British companies, and fascist and Nazi aggression. He supported reform of the divorce laws, the controversial 1928 revision of the Book of Common Prayer, and ecumenism. Can these two sentences be strategically combined for a more concise sentence?
In my view it would be cumbersome to attempt to cram three things HH campaigned against and three things he campaigned for into a single sentence. Would you care to suggest a form of words? Tim riley talk08:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Tim riley You can use this- Henson campaigned against prohibition, the exploitation of foreign workers by British companies, and fascist and Nazi aggression, while supporting divorce law reform, the 1928 revision of the Book of Common Prayer, and ecumenism.MSincccc (
talk)
10:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
But that would not be true. He did the six different things at different times, not simultaneously as your wording says. I don't in any case think replacing two sentences of 17 and 19 words with a single long one of 33 words does the reader any favours. Tim riley talk10:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
His father was a zealous evangelical Christian who had renounced the Church of England and joined the Plymouth Brethren, whereas his mother shielded her children from the worst excesses of what biographer Matthew Grimley describes as Thomas's 'bigotry.' However, in 1870, she died, and, in Henson's words, 'with her died our happiness.' Provides for a smoother flow given that we know who his father and mother were from the previous lines.
In my view that is an inferior wording. It is no shorter and gratuitously introduces "whereas" and "however", two words better eschewed as a rule. Tim riley talk11:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
...allowed him either to be baptised or to attend school. Dropped the "a" before "school".
Henson died on 27 September 1947 at Hintlesham at the age of eighty-three. His body was cremated upon his wish; his ashes were interred in Durham Cathedral.
Could the sub-section heading be changed to Final years?
If you glance at the OED you will see that it defines "last" as "finally". The suggested change of preposition seems to me most peculiar. Tim riley talk09:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Tim riley That's fine. Even I prefer Last years in this case. What about the suggestion above it? That one seems fine as it provides a smoother flow (mentioning the date before the place).
MSincccc (
talk)
09:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Tim riley I would like to know the reason for you finding my suggested sentence peculiar. Even this sentence could be rephrased as-Herbert Hensley Henson was born on 8 November 1863 in London,... Looking forward to your response.
MSincccc (
talk)
09:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I referred to your suggestion of changing "at his wish" to "under his wish". The second preposition seems to me very odd, and the first perfectly natural. Tim riley talk11:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Tim riley Most articles in British English, including FACs like that of
Liz Truss,
Elizabeth II and others, mention the birth date prior to the place of birth under their respective early life sections. Looking forward to your response.
There is no prescribed order. Sometimes place is first, sometimes date. Sometimes the date is only in the lead of an FA, sometimes it is in the text. Tim riley talk11:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Tim riley I would not force you to make an edit then. It's fine as it is. Should I make a similar edit to the other articles as well?
I would return with other suggestions later. To be honest, the article has been well written. Do you think, @
Tim riley, that my comments have been constructive? Looking forward to your response. Regards.
I think your suggestions have been well meant, even though I have adopted few of them. If you are seeking to learn about reviewing I recommend studying the contributions of
Wehwalt,
UndercoverClassicist and other editors here, whose suggestions I have been able, and very pleased, to adopt much more widely: they help clarify, avoid ambiguity, correct inaccuracies, and challenge my interpretation of the sources, rather than putting forward tweaks to prose on the grounds that "I wouldn't phrase it like that". Tim riley talk15:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I will let you know of my verdict after I have gone throught the article again. Looking forward to your response. Regards.
MSincccc (
talk)
07:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thomas Henson was against the idea, partly because his financial means had declined, but was talked round by his wife and gave his consent. Do we need to mention his full name here; will either "Thomas" or "Henson" not do?
We discourage the use of forenames alone as too chummy and using the surname alone here would be ambiguous.
Can anything be said of his duties as a Fellow of All Souls? I take it the six-months absence was with their blessing (so to speak) since they appointed him a vicar.
"In doing so he addressed many nonconformist gatherings; the historian Owen Chadwick suggests that this may have commended him to David Lloyd George, who became prime minister in 1916." Perhaps a few words as to way this is so.
"Lloyd George told him that he would have preferred to offer him a see with "a large and industrial population", and hoped to transfer him to one such if he succeeded at Hereford.[59]" Consider cutting "such".
During the time of the debates in parliament in the late 1920s, was Henson in the House of Lords as a bishop?
The Bishop of Durham was and is one of the three bishops who automatically have a seat in the Lords. (The other two are London and Winchester; the rest have to wait their turn till they get in in order of seniority of their consecration, there being 21 other Lords Spiritual seats but 42 dioceses.) I don't know that Hensley's contributions in the Lords need mention, though. Tim riley talk16:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In the same year he was elected as a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford and: needs a comma after Oxford per
MOS:GEOCOMMA (there are one or two other examples).
He was tolerant of a wide range of theological views; because of this some members of the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England accused him of heresy: is this the bit about the right of clergy to express doubts about key points of doctrine? I don't think it's explicitly spelled out in the body that his critics called him a heretic (as opposed to just disagreeing with him, calling him a wimp/wrong 'un or something distinct but equally bad).
The charges of heresy began before WWI and got more vehement before his appointment to Hereford. I've added a short para in the Westminster section. Tim riley talk11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
what the biographer Matthew Grimley describes as Thomas's "bigotry": can we be at all specific about what/whom he was bigoted against? Anglicans? Is there anything in the Plymouth Brethren's doctrine that would point anywhere?
I must tread carefully here. Peart-Binns gives no specific examples of Thomas's bigotry but writes, Their beliefs and structure were a world-denying pietism with the Bible as their supreme rule; an interest in prophecy and the Second Coming; believer's baptism; weekly breaking of bread; no set liturgy; no ordained ministry though many full-time evangelists; a congregational polity with no co-ordinating organization. ... Thomas Henson's bleak outlook on the world ... increased a feeling of urgency to be prepared for the Second Coming. Is it any wonder that the darkness at home become all-pervading? In view of their father’s contempt for the wickedness of the world, life at home for the children was purgatory. They were not to be tarnished by attending the schools where corruption was rife. The undercurrents in Herbert’s early life were never completely expunged.Tim riley talk11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
his father's fundamentalist views were anathema, ... "an enduring hatred of protestant fanaticism: similarly, I think it would help here to identify, at least in broad strokes, what the PB believed that was so upsetting -- we have the word "zealous" further up, but plenty of very committed, zealous believers are unquestionably lovely people.
Emma Parker, widow of a Lutheran pastor, filled the role of stepmother with sympathy and kindness, mitigating the father's grimness: the tone is slipping slightly here, I worry -- a little subjective, a little emotional, a little Dickensian, perhaps. On a more concrete note, isn't "widow of a Lutheran pastor" a false title?
It isn't a false title when used predicatively as here or (random example from the ODNB) "His work as broadcaster mirrored much of his work as author and editor." As to the wording I'm blest if I can remember which source prompted it and I've redrawn based on Chadwick and the ODNB. Tim riley talk11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Henson was fourteen before his father allowed him either to be baptised or to attend a school: this might be clearer as "His father did not allow Henson to be baptised or to attend a school until..." -- in theory, he could have turned fourteen before being baptised, and then turned fifteen, and then turned sixteen...
the young Henson undertook their functions himself: how did that work? Isn't the point of the godparents to guide and advise the baptised person -- how could he advise himself?
This puzzled me and still does. It looks to me as though the rector was bending the rules to breaking point. The
BCP has an order of service for the baptism of – lovely phrase – "such as are of Riper Years and able to answer for themselves", and though the baptisee renounces the devil and all his works on his/her own behalf, the BCP says The person to be baptized shall choose three, or at least two, to be his sponsors, who shall be ready to present him at the Font and afterwards put him in mind of his Christian profession and duties. How it was that this requirement was waived in HH's case I cannot discover. Tim riley talk11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
At Broadstairs Collegiate School he derived little educational benefit: not totally sure about the at here (you derive a benefit from something, but just swapping the words leads to a stilted tone). I'd push back against the idea that being widely read means that there's no value in going to school -- school do more than just put a lot of books in front of children! More seriously, I can't actually find this in the ODNB article.
We can agree to differ about the preposition, which seems fine to me. I've added a citation for the limited educational benefit. Chadwick says: Of this school the boy thought little. But no school is well adapted for boys who have read adult libraries by the time they are fourteen, can recite from memory long chunks of famous sermons from past centuries out of Blair’s Lectures on Rhetoric, and think games a sinful waste of time. The other boys were amused to find that the odd creature knew, in some subjects, more than their headmaster. Henson was shocked to find such adult ignorance and held his headmaster in contempt.Tim riley talk11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I can find no use of "benefit at" in Google Books which means what we want it to (only phrases like "this would benefit at-risk children"). Not a perfect measure, but could you perhaps reassure me by finding it in print somewhere? As I read Chadwick's quotation there, it says clearly that Henson thought he derived no benefit from it, but stops short of endorsing that opinion -- after all, it's predicated on the assumption that games [that is, sports] are "a sinful waste of time", which most educationalists at the time would have quite strongly challenged, and I'd take the "in some subjects" as decidedly double-edged: in other words, C. seems to be saying that Henson had a very narrow range of interests, knew a great deal about them, and was too single-minded, young or naïve to appreciate that there might be value in learning or doing anything else. UndercoverClassicistT·
C18:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You surprise me. He was at the school and derived no benefit from it. Whether he ought to have benefited from games (a num question if ever I heard one) etc is neither here nor there: the fact is that he didn't. Tim riley talk20:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not arguing otherwise, but I don't think that's a defensible reading of what Chadwick says in the quoted passage. Is tehre another source that puts it differently? UndercoverClassicistT·
C20:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Peart-Binns: When he was fourteen his stepmother ... successfully persuaded her husband that Henson should attend Broadstairs Collegiate School. He went there on 18 November 1877 but there were few benefits. Apart from learning Latin and Greek, any formal education was too late. ... He found the school detestable ... Almost to the end of his life he could not bear to mention this school. Henson called the place "a privately run establishment of no great merit" and said that all he learned there was "a smattering of Latin and Greek". He wrote, I have often reflected on the difference which would have been made in my life if I had been so fortunate as to grow up in the neighbourhood of a good school. Had I been within reach of such a school as exists in Westminster, Birmingham, or Manchester it is probable that I should have gained an honourable entrance into the University, and enjoyed the inestimable advantage of what is described as "a regular education".Tim riley talk07:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If it were me, I'd say it was wisest to write something like "Henson saw little benefit in the education he received there", or similar -- the sources are very clear that he thought it was all pointless, and in many ways I think it says something about his character to frame this very much as his view of things. Whether, for example, learning Latin and Greek, or indeed mixing with people from outside his family and community, were of any benefit to him is something of an abstract question -- however, it's absolutely a matter of fact that he thought they were not. UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I wonder if there's room to get Grimley's comment that "Henson's Kentish childhood ... could have come straight out of the pages of Charles Dickens" in somewhere?
I think we do need some mention of Parker's role in Henson's early education -- we've presented her as providing kindness, but Grimley is clear that she was also responsible for introducing him to literature and, in his words, "ensuring that [Henson] received an education".
Well, I think the existing words in the text, "ensured that the children were properly educated" covers this. The sources differ on whether she "persuaded" Henson senior to let HH go to school or whether she "insisted". Tim riley talk11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I more mean what came before: how Parker gave him copies of classical texts and modern literature -- she seems to have been a major part of his education before he actually got a formal one, and therefore, one assumes, a large part of the reason he was in any position to take advantage of going to school. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We're inconsistent about whether "fellow" [of All Souls]" should be capitalised. Generally speaking, my reading of
MOS:CAPS is that the answer is usually "no" when there's any doubt.
the university's post-graduate research college: describing what All Souls is is a challenge, but I'm not sure 'postgraduate college' quite gets the point across -- the key thing is that it has no students, only fellows (normally, a "postgraduate college" is one inhabited by MPhil, DPhil etc candidates). I'm not sure it really needs a detailed introduction here, but some alternative phrasing would be useful.
I'll think on it. It's a tricky one, and I must admit I don't totally understand the position of Examination Fellows, who have to (initially) follow a university course but practically have that as their secondary 'job', as far as All Souls is concerned -- and I'm not sure they lose their initial college affiliation (so, for example, a DPhil student in Archaeology at Exeter College also holds an Examination Fellowship at All Souls). On another note, it's not (any longer) the only college without undergraduates; I'm not sure whether that was true when Henson was there, though. UndercoverClassicistT·
C18:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Henson made substantial contributions to his family as his father's financial affairs deteriorated to the point of bankruptcy: does "as" here mean "because" or "contemporaneously with"?
I formed friendships which have enriched my life.: anyone important later on who could be name-checked here?
Nobody is named in Henson's memoirs. His contemporaries included Lang, but whether he counted as a friend we are not told. Henson wrote, rather movingly I think, "I loved everybody from the Warden to the Scout's boy, and even now, after more than half a century, I never enter the college without emotion". Tim riley talk17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Henson's first paper, on William II of England, marked him out as not only a fine scholar but a gripping speaker when he delivered it to an audience: perhaps getting a bit subjective: we would be on safer ground talking about how it was received, or how somebody or other has assessed it.
Lyttelton–Hart-Davis: the usual form would be "Lyttelton and Hart-Davis", but given that this is presumably a letter by one or the other, can we find out which?
It was GWL to RH-D (letter of 26 February 1958), but I am reluctant to follow the full bibliographical form, as RH-D edited the letters (after GWL's death) as well, of course, as writing half of them, and the conventional bibliographical details would, in my view, be cumbersome. If you haven't read
their letters, permit me to recommend them. Desert Island reading for me. (Now I look again, I see that GWL quotes Henson in his very first letter, dated 27 October 1955, though I'm blest if I know what HH meant by "that state of resentful coma which scholars attempt to dignify by calling research".)Tim riley talk17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How about something like "Letter from GWL to RH-D, in RH-D ed. (Year)"? I can see the arguments either way, but I think it's important to clarify who is, at least theoretically, "speaking" here, even if that's not as clear a distinction as it could be. UndercoverClassicistT·
C18:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Charles Gore and the Puseyites: suggest adding a brief indication of what these people believed in, for those of us not fully versed in the different flavours of Anglicanism.
Tricky. They were high church early Anglo Catholics, of the type known in my youth as "tat queens" - lots of vestments, bobbing and bowing, and theatrical carrying on. But we already say "high church" and "Anglo Catholic" and I think on the whole it is best to let those phrases and blue links bear the weight. Tim riley talk17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
St Margaret's, Barking, in east London, a large, working class parish, with a population of 12,000, and increasing: lots of commas here. Worth splitting the sentence or bringing in some bigger pauses to give it more shape?
An All Souls colleague Cosmo Lang, himself on the brink of a Church career: I know we have different ideas about commas, but I think this really needs one after colleague -- alternatively, stick the name first and put a comma after it?
his relentless work at Barking put a strain on his physique: Is physique the right word here? Cambridge have it as "the shape and size of a human body" (e.g. "he had a very slight physique, so found the work difficult") -- I'm not sure it's a direct synonym for the body itself. "On his body" or simply "on him"?
In 1895 he accepted an offer from Lord Salisbury of a less arduous post, the chaplaincy of St Mary's Hospital, Ilford,: was Salisbury PM at the time (he became so in June)? In either case, do we know what he was doing handing out minor clerical appointments? The "Westminster" section says that it was a personal gift, but that only makes me more confused as to why it was Salisbury's to give.
Salisbury had – wait for it – an advowson – the right to appoint a clergyman to a particular living. This was in his private capacity. He was associated in a lay capacity with the Barking parish and knew of HH's work. You're the second reviewer to query this point and I've added an explanatory footnote. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Arthur Winnington-Ingram, Bishop of London and Lang, now Bishop of Stepney.: Bishop of London is parenthetical, so needs a comma on either side (it took me a minute to realise that he wasn't the bishop of a place called "London and Lang".
From his pulpit, Henson spoke against the view that ecumenism was, in W. E. Gladstone's words, "a moral monster",: is this in 1902? Gladstone had been dead for four years by that point -- I'd suggest contextualising a) who Gladstone was, briefly; b) when he said this, and c) why Henson still cared what he thought.
The Times, reporting HH's lecture, thought Gladstone's phrase worth repeating. Gladstone coined the phrase back in 1874, but it clearly still resonated with some in 1906. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
for the "Putumayo atrocities": why the quote marks -- "for what he called..."? At the moment, they read as scare quotes, implying that this label was overblown.
St Margaret's Henson neither received institution from the Bishop of London: what does received institution mean?
Most vicars/rectors are formally installed in a new parish by the local bishop. The OED says this: Ecclesiastical. In Episcopal churches, the establishment of a clergyman in the office of the cure of souls, by the bishop or his commissary. In the Church of England, the investment of the presentee to a living with the spiritual part of his benefice, which is followed by induction n., admitting to the possession of the temporalities of the benefice. It's rather an impressive service, but neither "institution" nor "induction" has a relevant WP article for me to link to. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Would this be clearer as something like "Henson did not undergo the ceremony of institution, by which the Bishop of London would have formally installed him in his parish" -- I'm not quite clear (if it matters) whether this was a Henson thing or a St Margaret's thing. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Suggest linking
Defender of the Faith. It's a good quote. I would also link destroyer in the quote that follows, as non-native or non-maritime readers may not immediately pick up that he means a warship (rather than just something destructive).
The Bishop, Handley Moule, hoped the prime minister would appoint Henry Watkins: we've inconsistently applied
MOS:CAPS here, and somewhat throughout. The rule on paper is that if the title stands in for someone's name (so "I met the Pope last Thursday" -> "I met Francis last Thursday"), it's capitalised, so most cases like "the Prime Minister did such-and-such" should be. Of course, consistency is king, so I'd have no objection to decapitalising all of them, but we can't have both Bishop and prime minister here.
two colonial bishops: might give them as the bishops of Mombasa and Uganda, both to be more specific (the British Empire was a big place) and to clarify the quote later: at the moment, we have to infer that he's talking about the same people.
In the academic sense, symposium should link to
Academic conference, but it's only really the right word if there was a physical conference as well -- was there? If so, you would normally say that he presented the paper at the symposium.
Well if you read Plato, a symposium is where you get legless and end up with a hangover, while engaging in activity that would get you in trouble under the Sexual Offences Act, 2003. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, yes, but unless the CofE is more interesting than I gave it credit for, we should make the link to the article about the academic rather than the Hellenic meaning of the term. After all,
Symposium begins with a hatnote This article is about the social custom in ancient Greece. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know what the C of E is like now, but you might be surprised at the goings-on when I was young, but be that as it may, my and your types of symposium, above, are respectively the first and second definitions in the OED, but the third is "A book consisting of essays on various aspects of a subject contributed by a number of different authors". Symposium is rather a chameleon term, like "classical music" which is broadly taken to mean the stuff they play at the Proms, but which specialist musical scholars confine to music of the late 18th and very early 19th century – basically Haydn, Mozart, early Beethoven and Schubert. If we restrict "symposium" to the OED's second definition it would be as if Bach, Verdi and Tchaikovsky didn't write classical music. Tim riley talk16:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You are quite right (and I was quite wrong): symposium can mean the book as well as the event, so our framing is fine if there was no physical conference. As for the link, though --
Symposium (disambiguation) says that readers looking for the ancient Greek event should go to
symposium, while those looking for something in academia should go to
academic conference or
academic journal. I'd suggest changing the link to the last of those, but in any case it needs not to point to
symposium. UndercoverClassicistT·
C19:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
in general lay people supported his appointment: maybe I'm being incorrigibly modern, but how many lay people actually knew or cared? It would be a bit like saying "in general, most people support the Under-Secretary of State for Pigeons": if she's got an approval rating of 75% among the four people who have heard of her, that's a little misleading.
During his brief time at Hereford: brief drip-feeds the idea, only really brought home in the last paragraph, that he didn't last long there -- I think we should either let the cat out of the bag the first time, and say that he remained there only until 1920, or else keep mum until we get to his transfer.
True, but under
MOS:LEAD, that's generally considered a slightly separate thing to the body -- after all, we always start the body with the subject's full name, even though that was in both the lead and the infobox. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Was Henson's Freemasonry ever controversial? It would seem a gift for opponents who wanted to paint him as unorthodox and/or heretical.
As far as I can make out, being a prominent Freemason was uncontroversial in the C of E of those days (though it ain't now!) Henson's contemporaries in the dioceses of London (and later Canterbury), Norwich and Lincoln – Geoffrey Fisher, Percy Herbert and Nugent Hicks – were among the bishops who were Freemasons. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
James Welldon ... [was] given to making public statements that Henson found infuriating: we imply almost that Henson just disliked his speaking style, and give prohibition as an example of their disagreement, but was there anything more substantial to this conflict?
Well, Welldon was given to making public statements that went against the pronouncements of his diocesan superior, as illustrated by the example of his criticising HH's liberal view of alcohol. (What Welldon imagined Jesus was doing at Cana in John 2:11 I have no idea.) Peart-Binns says of Welldon, "And he was found, in the experience of colleagues, to be radically untrustworthy, not deliberately or consciously, but because he could never resist the appeal of the Gallery. He would never fail to sacrifice a friend to a cheer!" Tim riley talk16:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah: I think it would then be useful to amend or add to "found infuriating": as currently expressed, I realised that Henson found his speeches annoying, but it wasn't clear that he was actually saying anything objectionable or insubordinate (as opposed to being an annoying speaker, self-promotional, or generally not to Henson's tastes). Your explanation here that the prohibition pronouncement is an illustrative example of Welldon contradicting his boss clarifies things tremendously, but I didn't pick that up from the article itself. UndercoverClassicistT·
C19:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relations between the deanery and Auckland Castle, the bishop's official residence: a common metaphor, especially in journalism, but I think the gloss pulls it the wrong way -- it sounds as if we mean relationships between two buildings rather than the people who worked in them. One way to get around this would be to introduce Auckland Castle a little earlier, or to say something like "Henson's staff at..."?
It's not quite the construction that's the issue, it's the
zeugma: we have to simultaneously understand "Auckland Castle" as metonymy and not-metonymy: for it to work with the first clause, it has to carry one meaning, but the second clause can't be understood with that meaning. Most style guides advise avoiding zeugma, unless a) trying to show off and b) creating some conscious effect, and I'm not sure either is really the case here. As for Shakespeare, I shall bring that up next time I write an article in iambic pentameter! With all that said, you're right that there's no real chance of misunderstanding or concrete grammatical error here, so this does ultimately come down to de gustibus. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It might be worth moving the explanation that "in gaiters" meant "bishops" to the main text -- but is that quite right? Admittedly, I'm remembering this from notes on The Dead, but there gaiters are shorthand for being well-heeled and a bit fancy-pants -- not necessarily being a clergyman. Put another way, all of his bishop guests would be, metaphorically, in gaiters, but not all of his gaitered guests would be bishops.
Whatever James Joyce meant by the word, it unquestionably and to my mind unmistakeably refers in this quotation to the upper clergy. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It might, but Chadwick isn't explicit about that, and we've talked before about the dangers of
putting our own interpretation on quotes (with, as I remember, the proverbial boots on the opposite feet). I think we need some sort of source for what's currently given as "i.e. episcopal" in the footnote, which isn't supported by the citation currently given. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Henson denounced the Jarrow March in 1936: reads more naturally as of 1936 to me, given that we've already used a temporal phrase for the denouncing at the start of the sentence.
To Henson, the Church's principal concern was each individual man or woman's spiritual welfare: in this day and age, would advise each individual's... -- Henson probably didn't intentionally mean to throw children or non-binary people to the dogs, or indeed know what non-binary people were. As it's not a quotation, we should use modern, inclusive language unless we have good reason to think he consciously meant to do otherwise.
"the publication of this Book does not directly or indirectly imply that it can be regarded as authorized for use in churches: just checking that the Oxford English -ize is original?
Oh, yes! In those days, the OUP, CUP, The Times and Fowler held fast to the idiotic superstition that ize should always be used where the verb has been formed by using the suffix equivalent to the Greek suffix -izein (which retained its z when Latinised), but that ise should be used for words formed in a different way. Who knows, one day the OUP may catch up with the mid-20th century. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
damage limitation measures: a bit of a cliché, but a compound modifier in any case, so hyphenate it if it's staying. Likewise Prayer-Book debacle.
I don't like "damage limitation" either, but have tried and failed to think of something that says the same thing better. Any thoughts? Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Dwelly's biographer Peter Kennerley considers it ironical that Henson,: not ironic? I understand ironical to mean "intentionally suffused with irony": so "he gave an ironical smile at the ironic situation".
He occupied a considerable part of his retirement writing a substantial work of autobiography: I'm not sure the two adjectives really work for prose: advise cutting substantial, as the next clause does a perfectly good job of setting out just how substantial it was. There's also a potentially awkward double-meaning here: does substantial mean "really long" (fine) or "full of wisdom" (not so fine for
WP:V)?
the posthumous publication of Henson's edited letters were a better legacy: as written, needs to be was, but we might rearrange to make the letters, rather than the publication, the subject.
Henson's isolation from contemporary fashions had not diminished his influence: "Its secret lay in things far deeper than contemporary fashions: perhaps look at the repetition?
I find it odd in the "Reputation" section that such a controversial figure appears to have nobody willing to say a bad word about him after his death. Is that the case?
It seems so. Even the people he battled with such as Gore liked him personally. I daresay that if Welldon had outlived HH he might have struggled to say something complimentary, and some Durham miners probably retained a lasting grudge, but on the whole HH was liked as well as respected. Tim riley talk12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Lloyd George was an agnostic, but was from a nonconformist family, like the majority of Welsh people: needs a slight rephrase (suggest shifting the agnostic bit to the end, and probably dropping the article) -- most Welsh people were not agnostic.
Grimley writes that the friendship between Henson and Booker was the basis of a 1987 novel by Susan Howatch, Glittering Images, in which Henson is portrayed as Alex Jardine. In the novel Jardine's friendship with the companion is more than platonic, but Grimley emphasises; suggest cutting as indicated: the part that's opinion is already attributed to Grimley, and we can be more concise in what is a long foonote.
Conclusion by Fowler&fowler: This is a story, as I see it, of how an unusual kind of religious prodigy was shaped by the economic and social urbanization associated with the Victorian and Edwardian eras. Henson's father, Thomas, had run away from the farm, prospered in London, and then retired to pursue a kind of religious passion or ideal that brought some others, equally passionate, to America. He and his wife had raised six children, all cloistered with no social or scholastic outlets except some home schooling and a library full of cranky religious books. Then his wife died. Thomas remarried three years later, but during the traumatic motherless years, one child, the fourth, aged seven, had became a voracious reader of the library's books and taken to preaching in his nightshirt. His precocity came to be recognized, at first by the stepmother and then by the outer world into which she was to nudge him. This is a story, essentially, of that kind of a boy.
When Tim riley first approached me, I had no idea what I was getting into. I had never heard of Hensley Henson. The last FAC bishop of Tim I had reviewed was a few years ago—an Archbishop of Canterbury. At first sight HH didn't seem that glamorous. But I took the plunge. Helped along by Tim's explanations, both thoughtful and when required humorous, his judicious sense for what material to include and what to not, and strikingly concise and supple prose, I am where I am now. On the basis of what has transpired at
User talk:Fowler&fowler/HHH FAC between 16 July and now, I am delighted to to offer support for the article's promotion to an FA. This article is a winner. Best regards,
Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Fowler&fowler – It's hard to find words to express my gratitude for the work you have put in and for your perceptive and helpful comments. They have led me to rephrase many sentences and add more than 500 words, greatly to the benefit of the article. For that, and for your support here, thank you so much. Tim riley talk08:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't really have the time to do a more in-depth review, but I want to throw my two-cents in considering my background with the 1928 prayer book. If you're interested,
Jix's book The Prayer Book Crisis (1928) includes details on Benson's book in support for the Deposited Book (see pages 147 and 148 of Jix's second impression). If you don't have access, I can send you images from my copy. I also have any of the sources you see in articles on the prayer books, should you want to check them for additional material. Having reviewed only the Durham section, I am positively inclined towards this article's promotion. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
04:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Pbritti, that's most kind. What I feel would most benefit the section is a footnote summarising what new wording the low-church lobby felt was "popish". If you had time and inclination I'd be glad of some pointers from someone with your specialist knowledge. Jix's book is in the Internet Archive, but the site is playing up at present: I'll certainly have a look later. Thank you so much. Tim riley talk09:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll take a look at addressing the popish question sometime today. Glad to see an outstanding article on a bishop of this period; I hope to give
Walter Frere the same treatment someday. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
14:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Excellent. Thank you. I've tentatively drafted this, but won't add it unless you think it's OK. Additions, deletions and amendments most welcome:
Evangelicals objected to, among other things, an
epiclesis (calling of the Holy Spirit on the elements of bread and wine), and the continuous
reservation of consecrated bread and wine.(ref name=s241)Spinks, p. 241–242</ref> Other objections included the wearing of
chasubles,
prayers for the souls of the dead and changes to the communion service repositioning the
Prayer of Oblation, and cutting down the prayers for the sovereign.(ref name=s241/)
I'll consult my copy of Oxford Guide, but from memory, Spinks's chapter supports all this. Because "cutting down" can idiomatically mean "totally annihilate", perhaps swap in "reducing". I'll reply here ~22:00 UTC once I'm back home; currently on an adventure that's seen me on
1,
2, and
3 different train lines, with a scheduled four-hour drive to undo it all this evening. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
15:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Just glanced at my copy. The portion "calling of the Holy Spirit on the elements of bread and wine" is a direct quote from Spinks 241, so feel welcome to slightly adjust it with a wording like "invokes the Holy Spirit to descend upon the communion elements of bread and wine". Otherwise, a fine summary of a ludicrously complex set of theological issues. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
20:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about... one of the most important figures in the history of the Royal Mint. If you're looking for the
Charles Fremantle for whom Fremantle, Australia is named, you've come to the wrong place, that was his uncle. But this Charles Fremantle did quite a lot, enough to distinguish himself in a family where there are an amazing number of notable people. Enjoy.
Wehwalt (
talk)
14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"and was the boss in a position described as "none too arduous""
A large part of the wonderment at his resignation was that he was the boss, with none to contradict him, since the master of the Mint was busy elsewhere.
Do we know when he was appointed JP?
No. I looked.
A word or two on what the Charity Organisation Society actually does, if Fremantle is one of the movement Fathers, would be useful
Do you have some thoughts on phrasing? Our article on it is not wonderful.
Some discrepancies in your referencing style. Ref. #2, #46, #48 (which should also include the page number used), #50, and #51 would do better as short form references with longer entries in the Sources section
Done, except for the two that go to the ODNB online. I don't think those need page numbers.
I found this a hugely enjoyable article and look forward to supporting its elevation to FA. A few minor cavils and carps first, more meo:
"Fremantle began his time as deputy master under Master of the Mint Thomas Graham" – we could do without the
false title
"and then entered the treasury as a clerk in April 1853" – if we're capitalising "Royal Mint" (rightly, I believe) we ought, I think, to give H. M. Treasury its caps too.
"and Hon Sir Henry Brand, later speaker of the House of Commons" – whether you contract "Honourable" to "Hon" or not it needs a definite article.
"and that the Royal Mint would benefit from an infusion of new blood" – I suggest a pronoun instead of "the Royal Mint" would help the prose along here.
"someplace closer to the City of London" – "somewhere", rather than "someplace" if we're in BrE.
"every Continental mint had updated its equipment, even that in Constantinople, making the Royal Mint the least efficient in Europe" – not clear why Constantinople is singled out here.
From the source, "... the Royal Mint's machinery was more obsolete and inefficient than that of any other mint in Europe, Constantinople included." I don't have access to the memorandum by Fremantle which seems to be the original source. Probably the view of the Turk as somewhat decadent and not very competent.
"tied up in treasury and parliamentary red tape" – a good phrase, which I like very much, but I suspect some sobersided editors will think it a little colourful for our ever-so-serious encyclopaedia.
"De Saulles would go on to design the coinage of King Edward VII before dying in 1903" – reads a little oddly, as though he might have designed it after dying. Something on the lines of "shortly before dying in 1903", possibly?
"interdepartmental committees relating to the Civil Service – should the civil service be capitalised if chancellor of the exchequer is not?
It's how I interpret JOBTITLES but would be happy to be wrong as the lower case rendition of such titles looks very strange to me.
"Hasegawa Tameharu, who he had met" – "whom", please.
"Fremantle's father, Sir Thomas Fremantle, was ennobled as Baron Cottesloe in 1874, entitling his sons to preface their names with 'The Honourable'" – glad to see this bit: I'd been wondering from the outset where the "Honourable" came from. Would you consider adding "later Baron Cottesloe" in the first para of the main text? Just a thought.
"Fremantle wed Sophia Smith – the current edition of
Fowler calls the use of "wed" instead of "married" "irretrievably naff" in serious writing, and I concur. Fine for tabloid headlines, of course.
Sir Charles William Fremantle KCB JP FRSA (12 August 1834 – 8 October 1914) was a British government official...
Educated at Eton College, Fremantle entered the Treasury in 1853 as a clerk and served as...
Dropped comma after "clerk".
Disraeli's appointment of Fremantle as deputy master of the Royal Mint excited some controversy but was supported by his political rival William Gladstone. More concise version.
Fremantle began his time as deputy master under Thomas Graham, the master of the Mint, but Graham died in September 1869, and the Treasury decided the mastership should go to the chancellor of the day, with the deputy master the administrative head of the Royal Mint. Could this sentence be shortened or rephrased for greater accuracy and conciseness?
He died in October 1914 months after his eightieth birthday. "Soon" should be omitted in any case from this sentence given that August and October are two months apart.
I see that two items in the source list have no listed author and that they are alphabetized between themselves before the alpha-first listing with an author name. I think I always see those integrated alphabetically into the rest of the sources, but I also can't find any policy saying that is necessary. Have you thought about this explicitly?
I went back and looked at the last time I remembered having sources that lacked an author, which was
New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal. Although all the sources that lacked an author were published by the state, I had alphabetized them and put them before the sources that had an author. That's what I often do, see what was found to be acceptable before. That way you aren't constantly trying to reinvent the wheel.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
01:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Journal of the Royal Society of Arts: I think it would be appropriate to include the volume (62) and issue (3230) numbers.
Charity Organisation Review: I think it would be appropriate to include the volume number (36).
Craig: I think it would be helpful to write out the whole title like it is listed
here on WorldCat.
I see Cambridge is in the UK and Llantrisant is in Wales. I think either Cambridge should be in England or Llantrisant should be in the UK. London is listed without a country. For consistency, I think that should be added, though I wouldn't stand in your way if you want to leave that one be.
I've added "United Kingdom" after Wales. My understanding is that there is no need to disambiguate major cities such as London.
Elliot: I think it's appropriate to include the volume number (45). Also, the publication year doesn't match what's in the link.
It says 1916 on the first page near the bottom. I have to assume that it means what it says. As for the volume number, the title says it's the Forty-fifth annual report, so it might be redundant.
Seymour: I think it's appropriate to include the volume number (25). Also, the publication year doesn't match what's in the link.
Similar as for the 45th. The title says it is the Twenty-fifth and the first page of the book says 1895 as the publication year.
The source list is pretty heavily weighted toward publications over a century old, particularly from the time of Fremantle's death. You can't find more contemporary sources?
No, and that's often the case in such biographies. Contemporary biographical sketches, news mentions, and obituaries often provide detail which later sources lack.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
01:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing on this list longer than a page is specifically about Fremantle. Have there been no book- or article-length treatments of his life?
I see every item in the list of sources includes a ref= parameter. Do the in-line citations not work without them? My impression is that this parameter is for sources with no listed author.
I don't see a publication date on Debretts. Where'd that come from?
Similar text is found
here. Since there's no doubt about the reliability of the source, I'd rather cite to the more easily verifiable page. Google Books is not available in all countries, and previews may vary.
According to this Google Books link, this ebook was published April 19, 2016. The citation says it was published June 24, 2021. I still don't see where the 2021 date comes from.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Laughton/Morriss and Seccombe cite the same publication but are formatted quite differently. I think both should have the publication date and the retrieval date.
Liverpool Daily Post: The listed publication date and page number don't match the link.
What I said in the above section about the age of the items in the source list I could say about the items listed as in-line citations only, except that these ones tend to lean even more toward primary sources from Fremantle's life. There aren't newer sources for that info?
I did a newspapers.com search since 1950. A few articles mention him in passing in connection with one of his sons, who died in 1952. Every other reference to Charles Fremantle has to do with his uncle.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
13:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not a source check issue
"City" is inconsistently capitalized. My feeling is that the only appropriate capitalization is the direct quote.
The capitalizations are to "
City of London", which our article on same capitalizes. When used in connection with the Australian place-name, it is lower cased.
The items in the sources list are all legit-looking journals or books that WorldCat says are held at reputable libraries. I didn't do much of a spot check, but I'll say that in the few instances where I looked at a source to confirm a claim, it was there. I'm not excited about the number of primary sources, but I don't see any being used inappropriately. Save for a few minor issues raised above, the sources seem to me to be consistently formatted. I can't find any obviously comprehensive, book-length treatises on Fremantle's life, so I would have to take it on faith that these sources represent a comprehensive survey. There certainly are plenty of different sources and none of them are unreliable.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
00:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for a most thorough review. I would say that if you are going to have a high-quality article on a person who no one has seen fit to write a book about, then there's an extent to which you have to rely on contemporary sources. The heart of the article is about the Royal Mint, and that is reliant on secondary sources, the two histories of the Royal Mint. I've done the other things you suggested or given my view as to why it is not necessary. Thanks again.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
13:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I get the use of primary sources. My basic internet search didn't bring up anything newer or more scholarly to replace them, but I figured I would ask in the spirit of the review. My only unresolved comment is the one about the date on the Debrett's link.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
of the work had to wait until 1882, when the Royal remove the comma
Fremantle sought to beautify the coinage, and, believing remove the first comma
Fremantle began his time as deputy master under remove "his time"
early life and career
Charles William Fremantle was born 12 August 1834 add "on" before "12"
several officials, successively, Sir William Hayter, Sir William Hylton Jolliffe remove the comma after "successively"
deputy master
stating that Fremantle had been chosen for his youth ==> "stating that Fremantle was chosen for his youth"
the Royal Mint had been reorganised in 1851, ==> "the Royal Mint was reorganised in 1851,"
reductions of staff, and of salaries, proposing i'd remove the comma after "staff"
European mints in scientific researches and ==> "European mints in scientific research and"
parliament had required the deputy remove "had"
These contained detailed information and statistics regarding the Mint's activities. beginning a series that Dyer and Gaspar described as "long and extremely helpful", that would continue for more than a century. the start of the second sentence is incomprehensible; beginning is not capital, and it, despite that, still does not make sense
These were published as parliamentary papers, and contained lengthy appendices by Roberts and others. remove the comma
for more than a century ==> "for over a century"
could be built up prior to the commencement of work ==> "could be built up before the commencement of work"
Fremantle, "it is hardly possible to over-rate the advantages ==> "Fremantle, "it is hardly possible to [overrate] the advantages"
was George T. Morgan of Birmingham, in response to a remove the comma
the Jubilee coinage of 1887, that saw new designs for a number of denominations ==> "the Jubilee coinage of 1887, which saw new designs for several denominations"
which bore Boehm's portrait of Victoria and which were engraved by Wyon remove the second "which"
He had the Royal Mint's collection catalogued, and the catalogue published. remove the comma
that brought a number of members of ==> "that brought several members of"
retirement and death
Fremantle retired as deputy master in September 1894, and was succeeded by Horace Seymour. remove the comma
family and honours
Order of the Bath (CB) in 1880, and a knight commander of that order (KCB) in 1890. remove the acronyms, as they're not used again; also remove the comma
Thanks. I've done all those or rephrased to avoid except I would leave the acronyms, or postnominals really. KCB is mentioned in the lede and in the infobox and actually in the infobox picture, and since KCB is stated it would be odd not to also say CB.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
14:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, the United States commemorative half dollars. By the 1930s, these were getting much less special as every nonprofit in the country seemingly tried to fundraise through one of them. The Texas commemorative half is famed for its absurdly intricate reverse design, which is a great example of the pitfalls of coin design by committee. I initially planned to bring this up to FA by my lonesome, but Wehwalt took an interest to it and added a bunch of contemporary newspaper sources, so now it's a co-nomination! Hope you enjoy the read.
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she)
19:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've removed a tag from the image page that implies publication, and left the one that this is part of the Bain collection and freely usable.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
15:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Joeyquism
Throwing in my hat for a prose review. Should get to this in a couple days; personal life has been really wearing me thin recently, so if I somehow don't get to it in that time, feel free to ping me liberally.
joeyquism (
talk)
23:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Love to see the Texan representation here. Below are some things I've noted, some of which are nits; as always, you are free to refuse any suggestions with justification:
Lead
"...while the reverse is a complex scene incorporating the winged goddess Victory, the Alamo Mission, portraits of Texan founding fathers Sam Houston and Stephen F. Austin, alongside the six flags over Texas." - I was a bit confused by this sentence (I find that I am unable to properly articulate why it was confusing - I will say that it reads as an incomplete list with no "and" to signify the end of the list). Perhaps wording it so that the six flags over Texas goes first (e.g. "incorporating the six flags of Texas alongside the winged goddess") or adding "and" before "portraits" would be better?
Since the flags are not prominent, I've adopted your suggestion to add and, with a couple of other slight modifications.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
18:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Authorization
Pretty straightforward, no glaring issues I could spot. The only thing I personally had trouble with was the sentence beginning with "Bertrand H. Snell of New York asked how the coinage dies would be paid for", as I had been thrown off by the use of "dies" as a reference to both the minting term and the last name of the congressman. Just a little unlucky coincidence there; I'm not sure that wikilinking
Coining (mint) would be worth it as it seems redundant in the context of this article, though I will suggest it anyways for your consideration.
"Coppini had previously designed various public monuments in Texas, prominently including..." - I am not sure of the inclusion of the word "prominently" here; it feels out of place to me. This is not a pressing issue, however, and will not significantly influence my vote.
"Charles Moore, the chair of the commission, had become critical of the commemorative half-dollar series, and took an especially dim view of Coppini's initial models, describing them as a conglomeration of 'the whole history of Texas and all its leading personages in a perfect hodgepodge.'" - The quote does not appear to be that critical to me; is there perhaps a more scathing quote that would better convey Moore's disdain for the models? I understand that "hodgepodge" here would be used for its more literal definition ("a confused mixture of different things" according to
Cambridge dictionary), but I think today it is more colloquially used to mean just a heterogenous mixture. Plus, the addition of "perfect" sends a mixed signal; perhaps paraphrasing the quote here and using a quote for Lawrie's criticisms could be beneficial. I recognize that this is a silly critique and that you have no control over what a guy who died 80 years ago says, so if there's no such quote and/or you find it to be silly as well, feel free to ignore this comment.
No glaring issues with the design description. I do wonder if the reception section could be rearranged into paragraphs focusing on positive and negative feedback, but this is mostly coming from my experiences with album reception section organization, and I'm not sure if this is appropriate for numismatic articles.
"The first coins to be vended were sold on December 15" - Is "to be vended" necessary here? It feels rather redundant.
Sometimes the first coins struck by the Mint were sold at a premium. This is not such a case. These, so far as can be ascertained from the sources, were simply the first ones sold. I think if we deleted that phrase, there might be ambiguity.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
01:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Some of the coins were placed on exhibit at the Austin Chamber of Commerce so the public would know what they looked like" - Could benefit from a more formal wording; something like "for public viewing" would suffice.
"Civic organizations and other groups joined the Legion in selling the coins" - Who are these other groups? If there are no details on them, that is okay.
The source says "various business and civic organizations and schools". That's what we got on that. I saw some references to local chambers of commerce in other sources, if that helps.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
01:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for this information. I think it could be worth it to include these details here for the sake of clarification, but ultimately I will leave this up to you.
joeyquism (
talk)
02:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, the only group I can find specifically named is the Austin Chamber of Commerce and as far as I can tell, they only displayed the coins, and did not sell them.--
Wehwalt (
talk)
17:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Given that information, I would maybe include the businesses and schools and omit the Chamber of Commerce. Regardless, this is still up to you and should not affect my decision going forward.
joeyquism (
talk)
17:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Collecting
No glaring issues.
A wonderful article. Much of this is already in good shape, so I think that many of my criticisms can likely be ignored. Still, I look forward to reading your responses, and I will likely come back to support after they have been addressed. Great job from you both, and I hope you have a wonderful week ahead.
joeyquism (
talk)
22:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It sounds interesting. I have one promised review I have to do and then will get to yours, likely by the end of the weekend.
Wehwalt (
talk)
19:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Texas independence from Mexico" shouldn't this be "Texas's"? I know it sounds goofy with Texas, but try subbing another place and see what I mean - "Canada's independence from" vs "Canada independence from". It should be the possessive.
"Such a method of funding had been proposed...who proposed" - word repeats in the sentence
Why is the image of Coppini half up into another section?
MOS:SECTIONLOC suggests images not be placed too early. Better to move it under the "Preparation" header so it rests where he's first mentioned
"Coppini did not charge for his services" might want to specify that this means in this instance, when I initially read it my first thought was "really, ever?"
Wow Moore was really on a tear here
"design elements, likely requested" and "criticized the design, and wrote" - rm unnecessary commas here (see
User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences)
"CFA members eventually dropped their broader criticisms of the design, accepting adjustments to the specific design elements of the coin." you have "design" twice in this sentence, and also right at the end of the previous sentence to boot. You could probably also drop "of the coin" since it's clear from context what design elements are being changed
"but ultimately held by the large number of separate design elements" - I cannot understand what this phrase means. Is it missing a word?
"...distributed through Texan banks, available at a price of one dollar per coin,[6] on sale throughout the state beginning on December 20, 1934" - lots of redundancy here, suggest simplifying to "...sold through Texan banks at one dollar per coin, beginning on December 20, 1934"
"and on December 1, the San Angelo Standard-Times reported that all but 30,000 remained unsold." Normally I'm quite fussy about repetition, but here I think the use of "X remaining unsold" is awkward and somewhat confusing. Better to just say "only 30,000 sold".
"continued to be used as a fundraiser for the museum. Low sales continued" - repeat usage of "continued"
can we explain "whizzing" for those who don't know the term? Or just sub it out?
"Despite their relative lack of sales, the issue has proven popular with collectors, and have gradually appreciated in value." Since "issue" is singular, "their" sounds odd. "Despite the coins' relative lack of sales, the issue ..." would fix it.
Per
WP:NPOL Temple Harris McGregor is probably worth a redlink.
"Opposition to commemorative coinage due to counterfeiting concerns led to various failed commemorative coinage bills": suggest "had led to".
"A more favorable climate was found under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration": suggest "The climate under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration was more favorable".
"While based in Texas, his main studio was located in": if his "main" studio was in New York, in what sense was he "based" in Texas?
"By May 1934, Coppini completed": suggest "had completed".
"accepting adjustments to specific elements": do we know (and is it interesting enough to mention) what these adjustments were?
Lawrie wrote, "minor changes in the figure of Liberty, and in the claws and a wing of the eagle". Judgement call, but I don't think it's worth spelling out especially since Lawrie doesn't get into the specifics of what the changes were (he had met with Coppini personally).--
Wehwalt (
talk)
15:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"dim" and "dimmer" appear; it's a fairly memorable word in this context since it's pejorative and slightly colloquial. Perhaps change one to something like "negative"/"more negative"?
"Adair had suggested that coins with that year's date": I don't think we need "had" here.
This article is about 1997 science fiction film Starship Troopers, one of director Paul Verhoeven's last works in the western studio system and the unofficial third and final installment in his anti-authority trilogy including RoboCop and Total Recall. The film was widely derided on its release as a pro-fascist film despite its intention to satirize fascism, which was blamed both on poor marketing and contemporary cultural leanings. It's reputation has grown over time once the satire became evident and is now considered a cult classic.
Darkwarriorblake (
talk)
16:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"In December 1991 ... Davison realized it bore many similarities to the 1959 science fiction novel, Starship Troopers, by Robert A. Heinlein. The novel had ... remained an enduringly popular work for over four decades." Do the math. :-)
Gog the Mild (
talk)
17:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's 9700 words, most of my comprehensive articles on older films range around this as comprehensiveness is part of the requirement, but as I say on each review, the Thematic Analysis section is something I have to include, not want to, and I have to provide an acceptable level of coverage for it. That section is 1300 words in this case and, plus the 400 words in the lead, text relating to a big and influential science fiction film adapted from a controversial book, with an arduous production, and which generated controversy itself is actually about 8000, though, per
WP:SIZE, I can go up to 15,000 words if the scope of the subject warrants it. I have gone through prior to this and copy edited it and removed some information which I found interesting but I took an objective approach towards so I do believe I've reached a fair equilibrium.
I think by 1991 it would've been in 4 separate decades, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, but I've removed it anyway as I don't think the specificty is important.
Darkwarriorblake (
talk)
17:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify this has been addressed,
Gog the Mild, you may be using a different tool to me but the "page size" link said that, before your comment, it was 9700 words. I have gone back through it and reduced it to 9500, and I did spend all of June reducing it from 11500 so I have tackled this to the best of my ability.
Darkwarriorblake (
talk)
22:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"its popularity had endured over the span of four decades." This would normally be understood to mean 40 years. You are using it when the time span in question is 32 years. The current wording has, IMO, a high risk of misleading a reader.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
14:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Since its inception in the late 1930s,
Blue Note Records has been an influential force in jazz music, with major releases from genre figureheads such as
John Coltrane,
Miles Davis, and
Thelonious Monk under its belt in the mid-20th century. Its presence still stands strong today, with
Norah Jones and
Robert Glasper taking home Grammys for the label in the 2000s and 2010s. Music aside, Blue Note has also attracted attention for their wonderful album covers, some of which have been noted for their unique
Bauhaus-esque compositions and labeled by some writers as being the definitive "look" for jazz as a whole. This article chronicles the history of those covers from the early 1950s to the present day, with commentary revolving around their designs (
Andy Warhol did a few!) and their respective designers, particularly
Reid Miles.
Quite an unusual subject around here, but looks interesting (I've just been listening through my old collection of jazz CDs, some Blue Note among them). Will have a look soon.
FunkMonk (
talk)
15:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for so quickly taking to reviewing this nomination,
FunkMonk! I've addressed your comments below, though I may have also been quite quick to reply, so I apologize if I'm causing any merge conflicts here. Looking forward to reading anything else you may have to say in the future!
joeyquism (
talk)
15:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
One concern I had was whether there are sources that cover this as a single subject, or if it was just stitched together from disparate sources about individual covers, but it does seem there is some wider coverage.
Yeah, this is something I initially believed to be the case as well; however, I was elated upon my discovery that there have actually been entire book chapters and articles written about this topic, lol
I see a few
WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:
[6]
I've installed the script; however, I'm not sure that it's working right now (for me, at least). If you could point me out to what you've seen so far, that would be much appreciated, though I should note that I intentionally double-linked some things in accordance with "Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence."
Never mind; I only now realized that it's off to the side. I've since resolved the duplicate links, which I now see were inappropriate.
Images of people should preferably be aligned so the subject "faces" towards the text, could another Andy Warhol picture be used, or could it be right aligned?
Personally, I dislike when every image/piece of media is aligned in the same way, so I'll get to looking for another Warhol picture I just found the mirrored (potentially original?) image on Commons (Andy Warhol1975.jpg). I've replaced it in the article.
In the first footnote you only give lastname of the person mentioned, but in the second you give the full name, could be consistent. Talking strictly about the people mentioned earlier in the article already, Hermansader and Miles.
Adjusted so that the full name appears in both footnotes.
"covers of first eight 12-inch" The first eight?
Ah, yeah. Fixed.
" by German-Jewish immigrant Alfred Lion.[1] The label initially comprised Lion and American writer Max Margulis" Are their nationalities really necessary here? You don't give it for most other people mentioned in the article. Doesn't really seem relevant to the story either.
I feel like indicating where Lion emigrated from is relevant here as it establishes a bit more context, though I do agree that "American writer" is redundant. I've removed the latter, though I may ease up on removing the German-Jewish designation later.
I won't press the issue, but if the Bauhaus connection had some relation to the German origin, I could see a point in it, not so much when it has no significance to the story.
FunkMonk (
talk)
01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe that Lion's origin is rather important to the history of Blue Note; many sources emphasize this point as being something unique to Blue Note itself (e.g. Cook p. ix calls the label "little other than two German guys putting out music they loved", Havers p. 22 states that the (fairly obvious) circumstances in Germany during the 1930s "played a significant role in the creation of Blue Note Records", etc.) I think this should be included in the background section, which serves to establish some context for the essence of Blue Note. This might just be a bit of impassioned writing on my part, though I understand your concern here. Nevertheless, I'll keep it in unless others prod me to leave it out. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Since the scope of the article is all covers by this label, it seems an oversight that nothing is said about covers from before the late 1940s, if the label produced records already from 1939, which I'm sure must have had some sort of covers? I think something about this is necessary under background at least, how were the pre-late 1940s albums packaged?
Unfortunately, I struggled with this issue while writing the article as well. The earliest Blue Note release with an album cover I could find was Sidney Bechet's Jazz Classics Vol 1, which was recorded in 1939 but released in 1951, around when Paul Bacon joined the label. However, while researching in order to address this concern, I've found that prior to September 1950, Blue Note releases were packaged in "plain, mass-produced... paper sleeves" according to page 79 of the Richard Havers book. Not sure of where to include this information as of right now, but if you have any suggestions, feel free to let me know; I'm not exactly looking at this with the freshest of eyes just yet.
Yes, the info you list is exactly what I'm asking for, and could fit well before you introduce Wolff in the Background section.
FunkMonk (
talk)
01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, upon a second read of the excerpt, I'm not sure that this information is applicable, as it makes no explicit mention of Blue Note actually using those paper sleeves; I may have paraphrased it incorrectly while in a drowsy stupor. Here's the part of the text I'm concerned with:
The new format brought with it the additional cost of creating individual album sleeves. These were more expensive than the plain, mass-produced, 78-rpm paper sleeves that were a one-size-fits-all solution. (Havers 2022, p. 79)
I've prepared a revised sentence in the History section that would look something like Prior to September 1950, Blue Note had packaged their records in plain paper sleeves; however, the growing popularity of 10-inch (25 cm)
LP records in the late 1940s and early 1950s...; if this information were to be included, I think that the Background section would be a strange location, as to my knowledge such sections should be (within reason) some sort of elaborative text on a topic that encompasses the article's subject rather than the subject itself, akin to the background section of a monument or an album. Let me know your thoughts on this, and I will prune further based on those comments.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I definitely think this info could be worked in without "falsely" implying that this is what they necessarily did before. This is my last comment for now, and by coincidence, I'm currently listening to a Jimmy Smith Blue Note album...
FunkMonk (
talk)
17:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Revised as However, with the growing popularity of 10-inch (25 cm) LP records in the late 1940s and early 1950s came an increased demand for detailed album covers with graphics and information, replacing the plain paper sleeves that were previously common. As a result, Wolff's photos would be featured on more of Blue Note's covers after the label began issuing 10-inch LPs in 1951.joeyquism (
talk)
18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There was some problems with this which I chimed in on
[7], but shouldn't Genius of Modern Music, Vol. 1 be linked at first mention? Pinging
Eugenia ioessa as to how this should be done.
You don't need to spell out full names after first mention, now you do it at least for Reid Miles and Alfred Lion, could be checked throughout, because now it's inconsistent anyhow.
Yeah, it gets a bit hard when it's a barrage of names - I've removed what I saw with regards to duplicated artist first names. I do feel that the style and composition section is a bit weird starting off with "Miles is credited..." rather than "Reid Miles is credited..." because the former makes it sound as if the article is about him (to me, at least). I've removed "Reid" for now, along with other first name duplicates.
"and Blue Note founder Alfred Lion" Not sure about presenting him again the second time around, but maybe ok since it's a bit after his first introduction.
I feel like this is fair to include.
"while the title "Genius Of Modern Music" is written" Not sure, but since this is still the title of the album, shouldn't it still be in italics?
I think that since it's more of a reference to the words themselves rather than the work, this should be fine. If that makes sense? Removed this altogether - see below re: "There seems to be some overlap..."
"with a then-unknown Andy Warhol" While famous, could still be presented by occupation like most other people you mention.
I think "with then-unknown artist Andy Warhol" reads a bit strangely, given that most people in tune with art within the past century would have some idea of who or what Andy Warhol is? However, I also understand that article writers should generally assume that people are reading them to learn everything (at least that's my philosophy to a degree), so I think that this revision can stick, at least for now.
"Following Lion's departure, Miles also left" and "After Miles left Blue Note in 1967". I think the date should be given at first mention. As it reads now, the reader first gets the impression that he left the same year as Lion, until reading the following section.
I believe that I've covered this with "This frustration, coupled with heart problems, prompted his retirement from the label in 1967. Following Lion's departure, Miles also left...", though if you are referring to a different aspect, please let me know.
"are often supplemented by the photography of Francis Wolff, whose candid black-and-white photographs of musicians at recording sessions appeared on hundreds of Blue Note album covers" This seems to repeat info already stated in earlier sections (except for the photos being black-and-white), could be summarised further or somehow consolidated.
Reduced to just "which appeared on hundreds of Blue Note album covers", and added the information about the candid and black-and-white qualities of the photos to the 1951–1956: Early years section.
There seems to be some overlap in how you describe styles used between the History and Style sections, which feels kind of repetitive. It seems a bit arbitrary that the styles of some individual covers are described nde rHistory, but others under Style.
I'll admit that I didn't like this either, even while writing the article. I've since removed the longer style descriptions of individual covers in the History section.
I'm not sure if all the info should be wholesale removed, but could perhaps be moved to the Style section, if it hasn't already been.
FunkMonk (
talk)
01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As I've written it, the style section focuses more on articulating the techniques used on the covers rather than in-depth descriptions of the covers themselves; unfortunately, I feel as if honing in on a few covers more than the others seems a bit unfair and awkward? I tried rewriting the sentence beginning They are generally characterized by their use of bold colors like ochre, vermilion, and indigo... as They are generally characterized by their use of bold colors like ochre and vermillion, as seen on the covers of both volumes of Monk's Genius of Modern Music (1956); however, that would warrant the omission of the mention of indigo, which I feel adds a little more to the idea of "bold colors". Regardless, I will certainly take this comment into consideration for future revisions.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A few things I'm left wondering are how do the covers of other jazz-producing labels of the time compare to those of Blue Note? Were they different, or did they later mimic the Blue Note style, considering it is here described as "definitive of the visual identity of jazz"? Looking at my Columbia album covers, for example, shows little resemblance to the Blue Note style.
I didn't really look too much into the covers of other jazz record labels, as the labels themselves were seldom brought up at all in my research of Blue Note. I would have assumed some apt comparisons would be made had there been any notable covers among the other labels, though I didn't seem to find any.
I'll certainly keep an eye out. Hopefully I can find something comprehensive, but if not, I would say "it is what it is" applies here.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"In an interview with the Kennedy Center, Blue Note president Don Was noted" You could give date for this and other retrospective statements for context. Especially since you suddenly mention another president of Blue Note.
I've added the year of the interview, though I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of this. I apologize.
I basically mean all the retrospective views discussed under Reception and impact, would help their context if you added years to when the statements were published.
FunkMonk (
talk)
01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Artist Logan Walters reimagined the album covers of Wu-Tang Clan in the Blue Note style." In what context? An art project? Re-issues of those albums?
Revised to "A project by artist Logan Walters featured the album covers of Wu-Tang Clan redesigned in the Blue Note style." Do note that I could not find a single date from a reliable source anywhere; this guy's website states that the project was featured in the New York Times, but after some odd hours scouring the web for this alleged NYT recognition, I couldn't find an article even mentioning his name. Odd, but I think it's still worth a mention.
Candid photography should also be linked in the article body.
Done.
"photos by label executive Francis Wolff" You don't mention that occupation in the article body.
I've revised this as "pictures by photographer Francis Wolff". Wolff was a label executive for Blue Note, though I think his role as a photographer is more pertinent here, at it was his profession prior to joining the label and a sort of side-role during his tenure there too.
Hi
FunkMonk, thank you for your comments. I've addressed all (or at least I believe I have - it's late where I am and this was my winding-down-before-bed activity) of your comments above and my edits should be reflected in the article. Hope to hear back from you soon.
joeyquism (
talk)
03:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
FunkMonk: Hello again! I've addressed your comments above; apologies for any pushback that could potentially be the source of contention. Looking forward to what you may comment next.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - looks good to me, nice someone is tackling subjects like this. Would of course also be great if some of the for now unsolvable issues might be resolved down the line.
FunkMonk (
talk)
18:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the wonderful comments and your support! Apologies that I wasn’t able to get to Laysan honeycreeper before its promotion; if any of your nominations come up in the near future, I’ll be sure to return the favor of making some hopefully helpful critiques over there.
joeyquism (
talk)
19:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry for forgetting about this. Here are my initial comments.Lead:
Para 2: "Miles made approximately 400 to 500 album covers" - I think it may be appropriate to just say "Miles made 400 to 500 album covers" without any loss of meaning (the reader would assume that it's approximate anyway). Ditto for the last paragraph in the 1956–1967: The Reid Miles era section.
Para 3: "after his departure, Forlenza Venosa Associates" - You mean after Miles's departure?
Background:
Para 1: "Blue Note Records is an American jazz record label, founded in March 1939" - This is relatively minor, but the comma isn't necessary. You could remove it without any loss of meaning.
Hi @
Epicgenius, thank you for your comments here. I've addressed the ones you've listed so far; looking forward to what you may comment next. Hope you've had a great weekend!
joeyquism (
talk)
19:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Joeyquism, thanks, and I hope you're having a good weekend as well. I'll leave some more comments tomorrow, most likely, but so far I'm not seeing too many issues. –
Epicgenius (
talk)
19:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
1951–1956: Early years:
I noticed this section uses "would" a lot, e.g. "At almost every Blue Note recording session, Wolff would take candid photographs", "the black-and-white photographs would be used infrequently". Is this a conditional "would" (for example, Wolff would take photos if something else didn't come up), or a future-tense "would"? If it's the latter, then I would suggest rephrasing these as past tense. It's not a big deal, but the essay
WP:WOULDCHUCK somewhat explains why the future-tense "would" isn't optimal.
Thank you for pointing this out to me; I was kind of stubbornly leaving these in because I thought it read a little better, but I see the issue now. I've cut these and replaced with the past tense save for the last sentence, which I feel uses "would" in a way that serves as a lead-in to the next section quite smoothly. Of course, if I'm mistaken here or you have other thoughts on the last matter, please let me know.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Para 2: "the textual information and designs featured on the covers were prioritized over the inclusion of images" - So in other words, the images were cut if there wasn't enough space?
The source used as a citation for this claim states that "At first, Wolff's photography was used only sparingly in both advertising and on record sleeves. The dictates of design came first, and artists' names, tune titles and whatever else jockeyed for position on the front of an album jacket." There's a bit of a wrench thrown in with the ambiguity of "whatever else" here, but I would assert that your inclination here is correct. I believe I mentioned it earlier in this thread, but one of the first covers I could find was the re-release of Sidney Bechet's
Jazz Classics from 1951, which was designed by Paul Bacon - notably, no photography is seen on this cover, but rather an illustration supplemented with some text about the artist and the release itself. Probably original research here, but I hope this at least helps your understanding a bit more. I'll do some rewording if requested by yourself or another reviewer.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the explanation. I don't think the info needs to be reworded at this point—I was just wondering about whether they cut the images if there wasn't enough space and if they were prioritizing textual info and designs. –
Epicgenius (
talk)
02:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
1956–1967: The Reid Miles era:
Para 1: "Miles, a fan of classical music, was not interested in jazz, and relied solely on Lion's descriptions of the music on the albums in order to design their covers." - Two things here. "In order" seems redundant here, and the comma before "and" doesn't seem necessary either (the essay
WP:CINS explains why).
Fixed. I also don't like using "in order" for the reason you mentioned; perhaps the "hit the word count" mentality I subscribed to when writing essays in high school came back to me here. That'll be my excuse here, lol.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Para 4: "Following Lion's departure, Miles also left, as Liberty's marketing team became more involved in the design process" - Was Miles's departure due to the growing involvement of Liberty's marketing team? Or did they just happen at the same time?
Cook states that "Reid Miles, too, stepped away from his design duties as the Liberty marketing people took a larger involvement" - you may also be picking up on the fact that there exists some annoying ambiguity in this source. I understood it to mean that Miles left as a result of Liberty's growing involvement, as the previous paragraphs in the book established that there was already some irritation with Liberty among the higher-ups at Blue Note and I think it would be strange if that somehow wasn't a persistent theme throughout the excerpt, if that makes sense. I'm not sure of a way to more clearly demonstrate causality, but I'll ponder a way of rephrasing it. If anything comes to mind, I would also appreciate your input here if possible.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
1967–present: Post-Miles era
I suppose Blue Note didn't use Wolff's photographs anymore by this point.
Wolff's photographs were used on some of the covers for re-releases (as briefly mentioned in the
style and composition section), but were not extensively featured by any means. Wolff died in 1971 (something I actually contemplated adding, but ultimately gave up on at some point because I felt it to be out of place as this isn't so much a chronicle of the history of Blue Note itself but rather one of the designers and their achievements), and of course you can't take pictures if you can't move your finger to press the shutter button, so by this time photography was mostly outsourced to other people. I'll look around to see if I can find more covers that use his photography from this period, though.
joeyquism (
talk)
01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
By the way, do the covers designed after 1967 have any specific themes (like how the 1951-56 covers mostly use photographs by Wolff, for instance)?
Para 1 - "His covers have been described as belonging to the Bauhaus and Swiss Style movements" - Out of curiosity, which of the sources described his covers like that? I see that the footnote immediately after this sentence cites "Cuscuna, Lourie & Schnider 1995, p. 18; Heller & D'Onofrio 2017; Cook 2003, pp. 88–89." However, it's not clear which source says which.
Heller & D'Onofrio describes Miles' body of work as being partially composed of Swiss Style designs, while Cuscuna et al. calls it Bauhaus. Not sure what I got out of Cook; I think I had something in there about Miles not explicitly adhering to one style or system, which evidently I have removed as Cook doesn't really quote Miles on that claim in the book (what's written is "Miles never settled into a particular typeface or system", which is to me simply an assumption made by the author; for all I know Miles could have been fawning over Bauhaus lookbooks). I've since removed the Cook reference there.
joeyquism (
talk)
02:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Para 1 - "The typography varies between" - Would it be appropriate to say "The typography alternates between", or are the uppercase and lowercase letters used pretty much arbitrarily?
I don't think "alternates" is the right word, as it would perhaps suggest that it lOoKs LiKe ThIs, which is not the case; I believe your characterization of the casing being arbitrary is correct. There are instances where it'll look like "EXAMPLE ARTIST NAME example title" (as seen on the covers of
Genius of Modern Music, Vols. One & Two), which is mostly what I meant by "varies"; this should be supported by the Cook source that's cited at the end of the sentence.
joeyquism (
talk)
02:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, I've had a look at the "reception and impact" section and don't see any major issues. Since everything else in my review has been addressed, I will support this FAC.
Epicgenius (
talk)
14:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
SC
Just a couple from me:
You could add the Blue Note logo as an image in the lead. Your call.
In the Early years section, “did utilize Wolff's photography”: just “used Wolff's photography” would suffice
Nice piece. It’s a shame the copyright restrictions don’t allow more of the covers to be shown. -
SchroCat (
talk) 05:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (Addendum: I did most of my heavy lifting at the PR, but these comments are based on a fresh read through at FAC -
SchroCat (
talk)
06:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC))reply
Hi
SchroCat, thank you so much for your comments! I've gone ahead and implemented both suggestions; let me know what you think about the inclusion of the logo as the lead image. And yeah, I'm bummed out about the copyright too - how much more colorful the article would have been had it not been for fair use limitations. Hope to hear back from you soon, and hope you've had a great week so far.
joeyquism (
talk)
05:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"In the early 1950s, the LP record format gained popularity, necessitating album covers with graphics and information. " Well, the body of the article seems to say that such covers became popular, not that they became necessary.
Revised to In the early 1950s, the LP record format gained popularity, increasing the demand for album covers with graphics and information.joeyquism (
talk)
21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The second lead paragraph is long, detailed and contains much information. It might be easier on the reader if it were divided.
Agreed; I've split it into two paragraphs. This may be a violation of
MOS:LEADLENGTH, though to my understanding those divisions are just suggestions, and the lead itself does not seem that long to me to begin with, even when divided in four.
joeyquism (
talk)
21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Blue Note Records is an American jazz record label, founded in March 1939 in New York City by German-Jewish immigrant Alfred Lion.[1] " Why is religion relevant here?
"increased demand for detailed album covers with graphics and information, replacing the plain paper sleeves that were previously common" Would it be helpful to state what the covers were made of? I know it may seem obvious but some people today have never seen an LP.
In the list of relevant sources, I'm unfortunately not seeing any mention of what the newer LP covers were made of. I would say they're usually made of
paperboard or
cardboard, but I have a feeling that would be OR. If I happen to come across any sources that corroborate this, I'll be sure to add it.
joeyquism (
talk)
21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"One of the first noted appearances of Wolff's photographs on a Blue Note album cover was on Wynton Kelly's album Piano Interpretations (1951), which was designed by saxophonist Gil Mellé." What is a "noted" appearance?
"Graphics featuring US president Barack Obama have emulated the designs of the label's covers.[34] " This seems to be a bit unclear. What graphics?
The source used describes them as "
portraits", but I am apprehensive about describing them as such because 1. the portraits are only a component of the designs (
as seen here) and 2. I have been grilled for the semantics of the word "portrait" in the past. I've chosen to rewrite it as Designs featuring portraits of US president Barack Obama have emulated those of the label's covers; feel free to let me know what you think about this.
joeyquism (
talk)
21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you so much for the comments,
Wehwalt; I've addressed them above. Looking forward to what you may comment next, and hope you're having a great weekend.
joeyquism (
talk)
21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Generally speaking, the more non-free images are included, the stronger the rationale required for each. At the moment, all have the same stated purpose of use: "The image of the album cover is necessary in order to illustrate the style of the covers of Blue Note Records". This doesn't make it clear why multiple non-free works are required for this purpose (
WP:NFCCP#3)
Apologies for that; that was sort of a boilerplate purpose statement. I've provided the explanations that I've since appended to each non-free file; please let me know if anything else is needed:
For Piano_Interpretations.jpg, I've explained that "The cover of Piano Interpretations is one of the first appearances of Francis Wolff's photos on a Blue Note cover; this cover will be used to provide a visual reference for the early covers of Blue Note and, when displayed alongside other covers, demonstrate how the style of Blue Note's covers evolved over time."
For UnaMasDorham.jpg, I've explained that "Designer Reid Miles occasionally arranged typography around the artists in the photographs featured on Blue Note covers; this cover will serve as an example of this technique."
For both JoeJacksonBodyAndSoul.jpg and Sonnyrollinsvol2.jpg, I've explained "The cover of Joe Jackson's Body and Soul was inspired by the cover of Sonny Rollins's Sonny Rollins, Vol. 2; this cover will be used to demonstrate the similarities between the two covers."
I couldn't find where Andy_Warhol1975.jpg was first published, so I've opted to include a different image (Andy Warhol at the Jewish Museum, gtfy.00025.jpg), this time from the
Bernard Gotfryd collection from the U.S. Library of Congress. To my knowledge, the LOC's ownership of this image makes it free from copyright restrictions, and thus makes the image public domain. I'm not sure if this image was used anywhere else prior to 1980; however, the PD designation should cover for this. For reference, here's the new image's listing at the LOC:
[8]
I think #24 should be pp if it cites more than one page number. I don't think that newspapers need ISSNs. Is there anything to say about what makes the books reliable sources? Are these major publishers? Otherwise the sourcing seems sound, with a caveat that this isn't a field where I am deeply familiar with reliability.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
07:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Changed to pp.
Removed ISSN for newspaper sources. I'm curious: is there a specific reason why newspapers don't need an ISSN in citations?
I wouldn't classify some of the publishers as major per se (though HarperCollins, Abrams, T&H, and Rizzoli look good to me), but I do acknowledge that all of them are independent of Blue Note Records and, at the very least, not self-published. Regarding reliability, the only potential issue could be with the book co-written by
Michael Cuscuna, who himself worked for Blue Note as an archival discographer; however, I didn't find the content to be excessively promotional or biased.
Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'll give a run-down of what I've found on each publishing company. I'm not sure what you're looking for in particular with regards to quality, though I've tried my best to justify their reputations (albeit at the cost of conducting some OR, perhaps):
On
their website, Andre Deutsch has claimed to have published works by
Norman Mailer,
John Updike, and
Laurie Lee, to name a few. The claim that this citation is used to justify is, in my opinion, merely supplementary; if this is not enough, feel free to let me know and I'll look for another source or remove it.
Rizzoli is rather prolific, with repeated recognition from the New York Times (a Google search of "Rizzoli International Publications new york times" should return some results). They recently published
a book about the 2023 Barbie movie authored by
Margot Robbie, for one.
MUZE UK is also defunct, to my knowledge. However, they were the U.S. publisher for this specific volume of
The Encyclopedia of Popular Music (a recognized music reference book in its own right) that was uploaded to Internet Archive; I believe other volumes were published by
Oxford University Press.
Apologies for the confusion on my end; again, I wasn't entirely sure what quantifies "known reputation for quality" here. I'm hoping that these descriptions at least helped somewhat - if they didn't, please let me know what I did wrong so that I may rectify it.
joeyquism (
talk)
10:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
The Bonn–Oberkassel dog is one of the oldest known examples of a domestic dog that modern archaeology is pretty sure about. We've found more late Paleolithic dogs since it was discovered in the 1910s, but what's most important about this little pup is the evidence of early veterinary care, and how ancient humans cared for this creature, seemingly out of compassion alone. I hope you enjoy reading, and I hope I can make any changes needed to bring this article to the best state it can be.
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she)
03:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Will review. Feel free to refuse my comments with proper justification. I assume that this article is written in British English?
750h+12:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
lead
while the other bones from the dog were placed into the ==> "while the dog's other bones were put into the"
40–50 cm (16–20 in) tall at shoulder height and weighed add a comma before "and"
Osteoarthritis, alongside signs of enamel defects, missing teeth, and gum disease indicate add a comma before "disease"
it may have been due to effects of its illness ==> "it may have been due to the effects of its illness"
background
populations of gray wolves ==> "populations of grey wolves"
A number of prehistoric dog burials are known ==> "(Several/numerous) prehistoric dog burials are known"
A large number of Magdalenian dog ==> "Many Magdalenian dog"
discovery and research history
On 18 February, 1914, workmen at remove the comma after "February"
A number of other animal ==> "Several other animal"
grouping a number of other bone ==> "grouping other bone"
in 1993 specified this age to slightly later than originally thought ==> "in 1993 specified this age as slightly later than originally thought"
and grouped a number of other ==> "and grouped several other"
created a catalog of the ==> "created a catalogue of the"
Finds of domestic dogs prior to this are ==> "Finds of domestic dogs before this are"
physical description
identifiable bone fragments are known from the ==> "identifiable bone fragments known are from the"
closes at an age of 7 months i'd remove "an age of" since the reader would probably know that you're talking about age
health
a behavior potentially ==> "a behaviour potentially"
prior to the end of the Iron Age ==> "before the end of the Iron Age"
falling down without control. remove "down"
from the vomit and diarrhea caused by ==> "from the vomit and diarrhoea caused by"
if it was killed in order to bury it alongside ==> "if it was killed to bury it alongside"
second dog
differed in color from the other teeth ==> "differed in colour from the other teeth"
Whilst reviewing I was a bit confused as to whether we were using British or American English, as it is a German dog. Feel free to refuse the British English suggestions if the latter's the case. Fine work overall.
750h+13:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've been wondering if this one would come up here for a while. Greatly enjoyed reading -- comments below which are, as ever, suggestions rather than demands. UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would try to get the dog's rough date into the first paragraph, if not the first sentence: I know we give "Late Palaeolithic", but most readers won't know what that means beyond "a really long time ago".
Done. - G
The Bonn–Oberkassel dog (German: Hund von Bonn–Oberkassel) is a Late Paleolithic dog: I think we would say was, wouldn't we? In the same way as "Christopher Wren was an architect who is buried in St Paul's Cathedral"?
Good point. - G
put into the university's Geological Collections: I think we should decap here, unless that name was used in a very formal sense (for the British Museum, for example, we would talk about its Roman collection, or the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities)
Done. - G
32 identifiable bone fragments have been attributed to the dog:
MOS:FIGURES discourages starting a sentence with a number in figures.
It was around 7.5 months old at death, 40–50 cm (16–20 in) tall at shoulder height, and weighed 13–18 kg (29–40 lb), suggesting a slender build similar to the Indian wolf or some modern sighthounds.: again, I would be tempted to promote this to the first paragraph, as this is pretty fundamental information as to what readers are picturing to be the subject of the article. The current final sentence of the first paragraph could then be "demoted" to the second, as that information becomes useful and interesting once we know what this animal is that we're talking about.
Good idea, done. - G
40–50 cm (16–20 in) tall at shoulder height: this isn't quite idiomatic: you've done it much better in the body with tall at the shoulder.
Done. - G
the Bonn–Oberkassel dog suffered from a canine distemper infection as a puppy: for humans, admittedly, but most medical style guides (including the MoS) discourage "suffered from (
WP:SUFFER). Could do "survived", and rework the next sentence slightly?
That works. - G
It might be a nice touch to do a double-image in the lead, with the second image being a modern dog(s) of similar build (e.g. an Indian wolf and a sighthound?).
Expansive human care: "Expansive" means "over a wide area"; I think we mean "extensive" ("very thorough").
suggests significant compassion towards the dog: or, more cynically, that the dog was very useful?
This is an interesting point, and I see you raise it throughout the review so I'll put it here; the Janssens et. al source makes the point that the disease would have prevented proper training, and none of the other sources really make the cynical argument here — though now that I'm thinking about it, they really should. I guess I should lean on the training thing a bit? - G
I've got no problem with foregrounding the compassion argument (though I'd suggest keeping it attributed -- "Janssens et al have argued that...") -- but I do think we should do so in a way that doesn't claim to rule out other or complementary explanations. Interesting point about the training, but we could still have, for example, "that dog had a seizure as a puppy, so it must be inhabited by the spirits, and they will get out and haunt us when it dies". Mentalising people in the far past is a very dangerous business. UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Noting that this (in broad terms) is my only real remaining "grump" -- the article is otherwise excellent, but I do think we need to be careful with the boldness of our assertions here, and draw a clear(er) line between what is known and what is conjectured. UndercoverClassicistT·
C19:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A dog molar belonging to a separate, older dog: I would cut the first dog: it would be surprising for the dog to have owned some other animal's molar.
Good point, lol. -G
"Second" might be a more natural word here than "separate"?
Yeah. -G
I would link "domestication" on the word "domesticated".
Done. - G
place the origin of dogs to a population of East Asian wolves c. 39,000 BP.: you place something in or with something, not to it.
Done. - G
Numerous prehistoric dog burials are known, spanning from ritualistic and symbolic burial to simple corpse disposal out of hygienic concern: I think we need to be a bit careful about motives in this article; we often speculate about religious, compassionate, hygenic or so on motivations, but the honest truth is that we have no idea what far-ancient people were thinking when they carried out death practices. In particular, I'd need a lot of convincing that we can trace a meaningful distinction between "we should bury that dead thing because it's dirty" and "we should bury that dead thing to avoid religious pollution/the anger of the spirits that comes from being around dead things", or indeed that people in the Paleolithic would have drawn one themselves.
There are quite a lot of "many", "some" and similar words in the Background section. Can we give a ballpark for these numbers?
Sadly, these are not given by the sources and I can't find more firm ones. - G
"rechter Unterkiefer vom Wolf": when quoting in italics, we don't use quote marks, but what's the rationale for the German here at all?
No clue what I was trying to do here, removed. - G
While the Oberkassel skeletons themselves were put into storage in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn, animal remains from the site were split into two groups: I would cut themselves and put human before Oberkassel, as the dog's remains are, strictly, a skeleton.
Lol, good point. - G
In the late 1970s, a student studying the Oberkassel site rediscovered the separated material within the university collections: can we name-check them?
Name added. - G
Use a lang template for words like Landesmuseum, with |italic=no, so that screen readers handle them correctly.
Done. -G
A 1982 study: similarly, can we name and, ideally, cite it? In general, when we refer to a specific work of scholarship directly, it's good to be able to cite it and, if possible, direct interested readers towards it.
Done. -G
dating to 15,000–13,500 BP: this needs a circa.
Done. - G
Finds of domestic dogs before this are tentative and disputed: in the Background section, we gave 17,000 BP as the terminus ante quem for dogs being "well-established" in the Magdalenian.
Ope, realized that's ambiguous. Cleared it up: dogs begin being found during the Magdalenian, not at the end. - G
This made the dog the earliest known example of a domesticated animal.: do we mean the Oberkassel dog specifically, or the dog in general? Would clarify. Might be nice to add a footnote to say what the next couple are?
Good idea. - G
I would link
premaxilla and
coronoid process in the footnote; we have generally done similar in the body text.
Done. - G
dates the dog to c. 14,000 BP (c. 12,000 BCE), with estimates ranging about 200 years in either direction: firstly, I would give the BP/BCE equivalence the first time we use BP, and then not again. Secondly, are you sure about "estimates ranging about 200 years in either direction"? That's more precision than I'd expect in an estimate that far back: it's more usual to write something like "15,000 BP ± 200 years", which means that the tools involved are only precise enough to give a reading that's accurate to within about 200 years either way, not that someone thinks it's 15,000 BP, someone things 15,100, and so on.
Ooh, yeah. ± is what I meant, thank you. - G
The cranial growth plate of the lumbar vertebra is closed: can we explain, without unduly bothering the reader with details, what it means for a growth plate to be open or closed?
Gave it a shot. - G
The dog's remaining canine tooth showed heavy abrasion and enamel loss, resembling cage biter syndrome. However, since wrought metal only emerged in the Chalcolithic, this wear was likely due to compulsive stone chewing: I think we could make this a bit tighter and say something like "The dog's remaining canine tooth showed heavy abrasion and enamel loss, probably caused by compulsive stone chewing". The Chalcolithic is a long way away from the Paleolithic, so any talk of cages is just going to confuse people.
Fair point. - G
Osteoarthritis is extremely rare in dog remains before the end of the Iron Age; one of the only other known cases is a buried dog from the Anderson site in Tennessee, c. 7000 BP: slightly devil's advocate, but how many specimens are we working with here (OK, I know there's quite a lot from the Bronze Age, but how many really comparable examples have we got?), and how many of them were old enough to get what is usually a disease of old age? How visible is it on a skeleton, anyway (I notice we're diagnosing it by a proxy here, which isn't perfect -- just ask
Donald Trump).
Most typical causes of elbow osteoarthritis in modern young dogs are unlikely to have created the bone spurs seen in the Bonn–Oberkassel dog: similarly, I would explain this by outlining what these causes typically are.
in a study of 544 wild dogs and wolves, not one had the horizontal enamel damage typical of the disease in puppies: I don't know whether it needs to be said that all of those animals died (or were killed) in adulthood?
Elaborated on this a bit. - G
Caring for the dog would have had no practical purpose for humans, as the prolonged disease required significant effort and likely prevented training.: again, I want to believe this but have to be a little cynical: the humans may well have considered it possible that the dog would recover, and therefore become or remain valuable. Compassion isn't the only possible motivation here.
It is unknown whether the dog died from its past illness or other natural causes, or if it was killed to bury it alongside the two humans.: do any of the studies note signs (or absence thereof) of cut marks on the bones? I'm particularly interested in the possibility of butchery here.
Sadly not; though Janssens et al. 2018 says that cut marks on Paleolithic dog bones are rare. -G
One estimation, extrapolated from the diameter of a left diaphyseal humeral fragment, estimated the height at shoulder level as 46.8 cm: this isn't really extrapolated in a strict sense (you can't extrapolate from a single data point, or from apples to oranges): based on? Suggest linking the technical terms and converting the cm value.
Done. - G
When Dogs and People were Buried Together: Were is a verb, so capitalise.
Done. - G
The Oldest Case Yet Reported of Osteoarthritis in a Dog: an Archaeological and Radiological Evaluation: in title case, capitalise the first word after a colon or similar. Likewise for Morrey 2006.
Done. - G
Can we use |trans-journal= for the two German-language journals?
Done - G
Some journals have ISSNs, others don't: advise consistency.
Done - G
FM
I somehow missed this when first glancing the nominations page, I guess because of the long placenames, but seems right up my alley. Will have a look soon, probably after UC's issues are resolved so we don't tread the same ground.
FunkMonk (
talk)
02:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I see a few
WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:
[9]
Fixed. -G
Various anatomical terms like premaxilla, maxillary, coronoid, etc., should be linked, and perhaps even explained in parenthesis (see recent palaeontology FA articles for example).
Linked. - G
Not much that can be done about it, but I wonder if the diagrams tagged as de minimis here
[10] aren't really based on some images that are already in the public domain. Perhaps
Mariomassone has come across them in their many image searches for canids?
William Harris may also be interested, if not entirely inactive.
FunkMonk (
talk)
02:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That seems extremely close to the diagram, well spotted! I think that could be linked as a possibility in the photo's Commons description to avoid copyright claims.
FunkMonk (
talk)
18:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"including the "rechter Unterkiefer vom Wolf", 'the right lower jaw of a wolf'" Why do we need a seemingly random snippet of German text here? I think it would make more sense to include the German nickname for the specimen in the article body if anything.
Removed this. - G
Do we have any other images of artifacts from the site that could be shown for flavour?
There's one at least! - G
Perhaps a location map of the site?
I don't really have room to put that here - I feel it might be better suited for a future article on the double-burial itself. - G
"While the Oberkassel skeletons themselves" Specify "human", the dog is also a skeleton.
"later supported by separate radiocarbon dating taken by Kiel University" Give year?
Done. - G
Is this supposed to be UK or US English? I see both paleo (US), palaeo (UK), archaeo (UK), catalog (US), color (US) etc., should be consistent.
US; corrected "palaeo", though archaeology is correct in US spelling.
Link Radiocarbon dating.
done. - G
Not sure how important this is, but you use Latin plural for vertebrae, but common English plural for scapulas and ulnas (should also be "ae" if you go the same way).
Dictionary I used says vertebrae is the only correct plural, but scapulas/ulnas are both okay. - G
"Modern scholarship dates the dog to c. 14,000 BP (c. 12,000 BCE), with estimates ranging about 200 years in either direction." Why is this under physical description?
Fixed. - G
"as 46.8 cm" Give conversion as you do for other measurements.
Done. - G
The article body says "comparable to the Indian wolf and some breeds of sighthound" while the adjacent caption has more detail "similar to West Asian wolves (such as the Indian wolf), or some modern sighthounds, such as the Saluki", which could be repeated in the article body, which is where the main unique info should be.
Fixed. - G
This image
[11] has no description template on Commons and only German text; it should have a template and English text as well.
Done. - G
Could probably briefly explain in-text what pica is.
Done. -G
Link University of Bonn in intro.
Done. - G
Any more info about the buried humans and their culture for context?
Added. - G
There's a nice close up of the skull material
[12], a bit of a shame not to use it.
Looking good, there seems to be something wrong with the bolded part of this newly added text: "A team comprising physiologist
Max Verworn, anatomist
Robert Bonnet and geologist
Gustav Steinmann examined the skeletons and a tentative dating to the
Magdalenian due to commonalities in grave goods." Missing words?
Sources are all of good quality. The few instances of old / primary sourcing is supplemented with modern secondary sourcing.
Source are roughly formatted consistently. Some journal papers have the month included, others don't. I would exclude it everywhere for simplicity.
Removed these. - G
I imagine dog domestication is a heavily studied field (but not at all an expert here). 2018 is not that old, but have there been developments since? In particular, are the dogs from the Aurignacian still debated?
Still debated, yeah. Dogs, Past and Present: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (2024) mentions a general archaeological consensus of ~14,000 BP domestication, except for some "intriguing sites" from the Aurignacian. - G
I have spot checked the prime numbered citations, and did not find any issues with text-source integrity
I have not been able to find any sources that may be missing, or any contradictions in more general sources about background information.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
18:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about a rural, sparsely populated county in Tennessee. It has been continually improved since reaching Good Article status in 2022, and was recommended to take to FAC by peer review in 2023. Additional updates, modifications, changes, and improvements have been done since then, and it's about as good as I can get it. Sources have been exhaustively researched and statements cited. At this point, I am running out of additional sources to keep building the page from, so I think it's as good a time as any to start the FAC process. Thanks in advance!
nf utvol (
talk)
17:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
Suggest adding alt text
Suggest scaling up the maps
File:Perry_County_Courthouse_(1868).jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Noah_Harder.png
Thanks! Added alt text to everything and scaled up the maps a bit. Let me know if you think they should be bigger. Regarding the image publication info, the info on their sourcing is in the file page on Commons, but they're both items in the collections of the Tennessee State Library and Archives. The exact original publication date and author are unknown, but they are both listed as out of copyright. Regarding the age pyramid, I went ahead and removed it. I'll work on building an updated one with sourcing. Thanks again for the image review!!!
nf utvol (
talk)
23:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing anything at the source link for the first item regarding copyright status - could you clarify where that's coming from? On the second, I see a claim it is out of copyright, but not one specific to the given tagging.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
23:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I looked again and you're correct about Perry_County_Courthouse_(1868).jpg, it doesn't have a copyright status on that page, however the courthouse depicted in this image burned in 1928. Additionally, the image was mounted on a card that had an estimated date of 1900 on it (I pulled the physical copy from the library and scanned it to get a higher resolution image), hence the date in the image's page. Using the library's date of 1900, that would put it as before the 1903 guideline listed in
WP:PD for unpublished works where the author's identity is unknown. Regarding the Noah_Harder.png, I updated the tag to just reflect no copyright instead of copyright expired since that better represents the notice on the source page.
nf utvol (
talk)
00:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
HF
I don't have time for a full review, but I do have some concerns.
" "It's Just Our Nature". YouTube. Retrieved March 14, 2022." - what makes a youtube video from "patvb2003" (with less than 2,000 views and the channel with 5 subscribers as of the time I'm posting this) a high-quality reliable source?
:I should be able to source the information from this elsewhere, that particular source should have probably been removed long ago anyway. Anything that can't be sourced I'll remove.Removed a date not supported by other sources and removed the source.
nf utvol (
talk)
18:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Cedar Grove Iron Furnace". The Historical Marker Database. Archived from the original on March 15, 2022. Retrieved March 15, 2022." - this source is user-generated
" "Perryville First County Seat of Perry County". HMdb.org. Retrieved October 2, 2023." - also user-generated
For the HMdb.org entries, while the source itself is user generated, it is in turn sourced to a historical marker inscription. If that's not acceptable, then I think for most of this information I can find a different/better source, or just source the marker itself...let me know your thoughts.
"Younger, Lillye. "Perry County, Tennessee". Decatur Co. TNGenWeb. Archived from the original on March 14, 2022. Retrieved March 14, 2022." - what makes this local genealogical source a high-quality RS?
Younger is a historian who has been published by a university press (see
here). My reading of
WP:NOTRELIABLE leads me to believe this is enough to establish some level of subject matter expertise that would allow a self-published page to pass the bar for reliability for non-BLP related items. Considering this, if this is still too questionable, I'll see if I can find separate references.
" Duncan, James Carl (2013). Adventures of a Tennessean. AuthorHouse. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-4817-4157-6." - what makes this self-published book a high-quality RS
I'll see if I can find a separate source, if not I'll pull that sentence and source. Source pulled and sentence it was supporting removed.
nf utvol (
talk)
01:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Tennessee River Flood Stages Data". Parsons Weather. ParsonsWeather.com." - what makes this a high-quality RS?
So this is pretty borderline, I'll admit. It's a self-described "weather hobbyist" site from a group that provides information to the CWOP. I'll see if I can find additional sourcing from the NOAA or other government/academic sources. Updated info and source to FEMA flood maps.
nf utvol (
talk)
16:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
" "Tennessee Population Density County Rank". USA.com. World Media Group. Archived from the original on March 15, 2022. Retrieved March 15, 2022." - what makes this website a high-quality RS?
I see the concerns here, but it's nothing more than a compilation of otherwise publicly available census data that appears to pass a spot check for accuracy. I'll see if I can find it in another form from a different source, though. Surely the Census Bureau has this information in a pretty digestible format.
" "Domino 4328 – The Pickard Family – 1929". Old Time Blues. Retrieved February 27, 2024." - this is somebody's personal website. What makes it high-quality RS?
Let me dig to see if I can find another source for this. If not, I'll remove it and the associated information (as well as the associated sourcing and information on
The Pickard Family). Found a primary source with the information, should be okay for uncontroversial fact-of information like place of birth per
WP:PRIMARY.
nf utvol (
talk)
18:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
""Domestic Names Search". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey. Retrieved March 7, 2024." - this is being used to support the existence of a place as an "unincorporated community". This source is not appropriate for that; see
WP:GNIS
I'll pare down this list to only those with non-GNIS sourcing. I was under the mistaken impression that GNIS could be used for sourcing for lists such as this, but should not be used to establish greater notability for individual articles.
Thanks for the initial review, I'll start working on these and any others that might be of concern! Any further advice/recommendations is appreciated!
nf utvol (
talk)
15:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Coordinator note
This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
14:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Cyfeilliog was a bishop in south-east Wales in the time of Alfred the Great. He is best known for having been captured by the Vikings and ransomed by Alfred's son Edward the Elder for the large amount of forty pounds of silver.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
14:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It is unsourced and apparently created by an editor who has long since disappeared. All the other maps I can find in Commons are not as good and equally unsourced. There is a map in Lloyd's History of Wales, and as he died in 1947 it is presumably out of copyright. Can I scan and upload it? It is over size (9x11 ins) but I can presumably either shrink it or scan part of it.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
21:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Gog but the Ecnomus map has licence {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Presumably I cannot use that as I just scanned the map. Can you advise what the licence should be in this case?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
22:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a hiccup. I have this work first published in 1901, with a second edition in 1912. Is that correct? Do you know if the same map featured in either of those? If it did, on what page?
Gog the Mild (
talk)
17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That is correct, except that the first edition was in 1911. I will ask for a scan of the map - if there is one - in the first edition to check.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
21:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Can I suggest cropping that image, and/or adding a caption that more clearly points the reader to the top right? It's not totally obvious which bit is the cryptogram (it could be the marginal note about two thirds down, for example). It might also be worth cropping out the Cambridge UL copyright claim, as Wikimedia's position is that Cambridge can't claim a copyright purely by virtue of scanning the thing (edit: but perhaps they could for the scale ruler, so another argument for cropping?). UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A really excellent article, and no doubt some tricky source-work to pull it all together. As ever, the below are thoughts and suggestions rather than demands:
Can we give a pronunciation guide at the top?
I do not like pronunciation guides. They always seem to be one editor's unreferenced personal opinion, as would be the case in this article.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Welsh orthography is very consistent between spelling and pronunciation: see
Help:IPA/Welsh or, if you like, you could reference something like
this guide from Aberystwyth University. Given that very few Anglophone readers will pronounce Cyfeilliog anything close to what's intended, the benefits of adding at least an IPA transcription seem to greatly outweigh the costs. In policy terms, I'd say that this is the same principle as
WP:CALC (that making a routine calculation isn't OR): if we have a good source for how all of those morphemes are pronounced, it's a routine calculation to string all of those together. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've gone and done this using
Help:IPA/Welsh (erring on the side of South Walian pronunciations). As the template automatically links there, I believe that's the usual practice for "citation" where the name is pronounced as "normal" in the language. I haven't written a respell, deferring to your point above about it being more subjective. UndercoverClassicistT·
C07:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Am I reading this right? It looks like you added Modern Welsh pronunciation to the Old Welsh name. My understanding of the diachrony of this is that there is no way /au/ would have been pronounced [ai] in Old Welsh.
This paper (p. 7) shows that /au/ monophthongizes to /o~ɔː/, which is indeed confirmed in the Modern Welsh orthography (-auc → -og) . Unless I misunderstand, this should be removed before promotion.
ThaesOfereode (
talk)
18:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I didn't see this! The short answer is no. For one, I'm not terribly well-versed in Old Welsh. For another, a brief look through some literature I have on hand seems to indicate that there is some debate as to the precise phonology (esp. the emergence of the pitch accent). Plus, medieval manuscripts are notoriously finicky wrt to spelling vs. phonology. I think best-case of me taking a stab at it is I blatantly violate
WP:SYNTH.
ThaesOfereode (
talk)
23:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Bartrum 1993 citation: check formatting of AD. Currently one letter has a dot, one doesn't, and both are spaced: our MoS advises no dots or spaces (and to make that change in a title per
MOS:CONFORMTITLE)
Cyfeilliog is probably the author of a cryptogram (encrypted text) in the Juvencus Manuscript: the tone here sounds as if we expect readers to know what the Juvencus Manuscript is; I must admit that I didn't. Suggest "the book of poetry known as the Juvencus Manuscript" or similar? I think we've got space in the lead to play with.
Bit of a problem now with in the ninth-century collection of poetry known as the Juvencus Manuscript, which would have required a knowledge of Latin and Greek: what's the antecedent of which? As written, it's "the ninth-century collection...", but I think we mean it to be "being the author of that". UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
but some historians are sceptical as they think that this date is late for a bishop active in the 880s.: we don't really explain this in the text, but it sounds like a pretty weak objection to me: surely he could have been consecrated in his twenties or so, and it's not ridiculous to have therefore died in his sixties or seventies? Do Sims-Williams and Davies give any more detail here? On another note, "are sceptical" sits slightly awkwardly: I think it's the combination of it being so explicitly mind-reading and so clearly present-tense. Perhaps better as "some historians consider this date too late for..."?
The souces do not give any more explanation, but it is not correct that he could have been appointed in his twenties. He was a priest, and the minimum age for consecration as a priest was 30. He was probably a monk for some years before becoming a bishop, so he was most likely born before 850 and would have been around 80 by 927. This was old for the time. Sceptical sounds OK to me.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that seems a bit more solid, though at least personally I'd take that more as "may be a bit too late" rather than "definitely false". Augustus, Augustine and Jerome all lived well into their seventies, for example. But this is probably now better dealt with below. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It would clarify that Mawr isn't strictly a name, for non-Welsh speakers. It would also avoid the 'easter egg' effect, where some of our readers will pick up information here that isn't available to most. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Mercia, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom on the eastern Welsh border, traditionally claimed hegemony over most of Wales: I am not a huge fan of traditionally for a few reasons: one, all traditions are invented: was this 'tradition' years old, decades old, centuries old...? Secondly, was this really a matter of people piously observing tradition, or a matter of the Mercians having lots of rough people with sharp things ready to enforce that 'tradition'? Suggest something like "which since the sixth century [or whatever] had claimed/asserted..."
This is the wording usually used by historians, and I think it conveys the position better than alternatives.
Do they put a date on it at all? I imagine that most of these historians are writing for people who know a little bit about the period, so won't assume that this stretches (e.g.) into the fifth century CE or earlier.
It went back to the early ninth century. There were claims in some periods of the eighth century, but the position then was more variable. I have changed to "Mercia, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom on the eastern Welsh border, had claimed hegemony over most of Wales since the early ninth century."
Dudley Miles (
talk)
15:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In 881, Rhodri's sons defeated Æthelred in battle, but he still continued to dominate the south-east Welsh kingdoms, and they sought the protection of King Alfred the Great of Wessex. Is "they" the sons of Rhodri or the south-eastern [NB adjectival form] Welsh kingdoms?
On the maps front,
this one, with a few additions and sources to support, could be used as a starting point, perhaps cross-referenced with the Lloyd map?
all the districts of right-hand [southern] Wales: the word for "right-hand" and "southern" (de) is the same in Welsh, so I think we can just say "southern" here -- it's not some metaphor or odd turn of phrase; there's not really another way to say it.
Interesting! In that case, the argument is reversed (Latin has two different words here), so it should definitely be kept -- fascinating to see Asser's linguistic background creeping through. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Also interesting that it is evidence against the claim made by some historians that Asser's biography is a fake by a later English writer. The claim is now rejected, but I have not looked into the arguments closely enough to see whether this point has ever been made.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ellipsis (...) typically has a nbsp before it and a regular space after.
Page ranges take an endash (looking at n. 5 in particular)
I not understand the rules regarding endashes and I do not see why they matter. I have a script which fixes them but it has stopped working. Do you know of one which works?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't, unfortunately: the important rule here is that ranges (of pages, dates, etc) take an endash. More broadly, endashes are used if you would pronounce or think of the mark as "to" or "and" (so pp. 9–10 ('pages nine to ten'), the London–Edinburgh train ('London to Edinburgh'), the Oxford–Cambridge rivalry ('Oxford and Cambridge'), a Lee–Enfield rifle ('Lee and Enfield'). UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It is in Latin, with each letter being the Greek for the number of the letter in the Latin alphabet.: not sure I've quite grasped this one: did the writer simply use e.g. the first Greek letter for the first Latin letter, the second Greek letter for the second Latin letter, and so on? I'd be interested to know what they did with y, in that case, as there are only 24 letters in Greek and quite a few Ys in Welsh...
It is in Latin, not Welsh. The source says "The cryptogram uses a code based on the Greek letters for the numbers 1-23, each of which replaces the appropriate Latin letter in the inscription." To avoid copyvio, I have "It is in Latin, with each letter being the Greek for numbers one to twenty-three replacing the number of the letter in the Latin alphabet." Does this look OK?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The interesting thing (no, honestly) is that there's a couple of ways to do it: if you could send the original over by email, I'd be very interested. At the moment, "the Greek for" sounds like it would be the Greek word: if we'd said "each letter is the English for that number", we'd expect to be reading "one, three, seventeen" or so on. How about "the Greek numeral", perhaps with a link to
Greek numerals? The question-mark is whether the writer used the numerical system or simply swapped in the letter with the same number (in other words, is L written as λ or as ΙΑ?), but I'll be able to see that from the text. UndercoverClassicistT·
C06:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah -- I'm having aa bit of a problem with sending emails, it seems. Could you perhaps put the file into Google Drive or similar and send me a link via Wikimail? UndercoverClassicistT·
C20:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have actually managed to dig out the cryptogram
here, and he has used the numerical system (so Cemelliauc becomes Γ Ε IB E ΙΑ ΙΑ Θ Α Κ Γ -- 3, 5, 12, 5, 11, 11, 9, 1, 20, 3. I must admit that I can't make the rest of it work, partly because I don't think I'm reading all of his Greek letters correctly (and possibly haven't got the Latin alphabet in the same order), but it's definitely Greek numerals, so suggest with each letter replaced by the Greek numeral for the number of the letter in the Latin alphabet.UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There are no errors in Greek in the cryptogram: if I've understood the system correctly, surely this only means that the author knew (or could look up) the order of the Greek letters: the language skill is in the Latin, surely?
This did occur to me, but Davies said that she had been unable to copy the cryptogram without errors, and it would have been extremely difficult for someone who did not know what he was copying. I have written "very difficult", not impossible. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Delete "very"?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've managed to get hold of Davis' big book on the Juvencus manuscript via a certain online repository: there (p. 27), she only avows that the scribe must have known the Greek alphabet and understood the cipher (and therefore that the scribe is almost certainly the Cemelliauc/Cyfeilliog who composed it, rather than a later copyist). She doesn't credit him with knowing the Greek language, and indeed points out on p. 28 that some of his 'Greek' letters are rather more Insular-Latin than Greek. I think we can now clarify these details a little. UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
and this would have been very difficult to achieve unless the writer knew the language: see above: if it's simply a matter of letter-matching, I'm not convinced.
which was an unusual accomplishment in the period: well, it was in Wales. It was pretty normal in the Byzantine Empire, probably/maybe still a Thing in Italy, and
wasn't all that unusual in Ireland, at least in the C8th. Pedantic, perhaps, but I'd specify "in Wales", "in most of Western Europe", or similar.
I am not sure that the source supports your interpretation. It says "Eriugena is credited with a knowledge of Greek far exceeding that of his contemporaries" and "So the evidence points to a considerable disparity between the study of Greek in Ireland and that among Irishmen on the Continent, supporting Laistner's view of Greek in Ireland being almost non-existent." He does question the latter comment on the basis of later medieval material. The comment in the Cyfeilliog article that knowledge of Greek is rare is based on
Michael Lapidge's encyclopedia entry on the Continental scholar
Israel the Grammarian. That obviously would not apply to Byzantium or Moslem areas. I could add "in Europe". That would not be strictly correct as Europe technically includes Byzantium, but I do not think it would be misunderstood.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's not quite where the article ends up: Moran's point is that the evidence makes it look as if Greek was almost absent in Ireland, but he goes on to argue that this is an artefact of how our evidence base has been formed: he argues that at least some Irish people had a basic understanding of Greek and the tools to pick up a more advanced one. The other tricky area is southern Italy, particularly Sicily, which remained under Byzantine control for quite a while and where Greek has survived in tiny patches into the modern day (see
here, p. 444ff). I think "Europe" is still too broad, but "most of Western Europe" would be fine, or you could take another approach and say something like "outside regions where it remained a spoken language"? Certainly, by even the most optimistic models of the survival of Greek in the west, being able to read and write it fluently as a second-language learner was impressive (though again, I'm not convinced that knowing or being able to look up the Greek numerical system is really the same thing as that). UndercoverClassicistT·
C06:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I read McKee as saying more than that, but I do not think it is clear what she is saying, so I have deleted comments about his knowledge of Greek.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The cryptogram is in a different handwriting from the rest of the manuscript: not sure handwriting is a countable noun: in a different hand or in different handwriting.
Is McKee's the only reconstruction of the cryptogram? Especially given that we've got lacunae, I'd be surprised if there's not some level of uncertainty or debate. Would be nice to include the 'ciphertext' and the Latin, if we've got them.
There probably are no other reconstructions as Davies says that the cryptogram has been ignored in recent years. She copies the version by
Whitley Stokes, which she says is "apparently" based on decipherment by
John Rhŷs and his daughter Olwen in the 1890s. My Greek is non-existent, but I can email you a scan of the Greek and Latin versions if you wish.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
but as the source for the document: can we clarify this: do we mean "the person who tells us that the document existed" or "the person who came forth with the document"?
This is complicated. Edward Williams's 1796 History of Monmouthshire contains a tract dated 1729 ascribed to David Williams, allegedly based on a transcript received from the forger Morganwg. Some scholars have objected that the tract cannot be genuine as David Williams died in 1720, but Sims-Williams argues that some manuscripts date the tract 1719 and the 1729 date is probably a misprint. I am not sure how much of this detail is relevant.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
15:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It does sound like we can reword "source" to be clearer: perhaps something like "the manuscript was initially brought to scholarly attention by the forger Iolo Morganwg"? We certainly seem to have other sources to say that the document existed, even if there are doubts as to whether it was genuine. UndercoverClassicistT·
C06:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That is not quite right. There is independent evidence of the 1719 tract, but not of the original ancient document. I think you have been misled as my wording was inaccurate. I have changed it to "He is included in a list of abbots of
Llantwit said to have been in a "very decayed and rent" parchment recorded in a tract dated 1719, but as the tract was based on a transcript by the forger
Iolo Morganwg, scholars are uncertain whether the list was genuine." Does this look OK?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
According to a Canterbury list of Professions of Obedience: what are those?
The sources do not give any explanation. The term is frequently used in Wikipedia without explanation and I am not sure whether any is necessary.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Looking
here, and indeed at
Religious vows#In the Western Churches, it seems that these are formal promises by bishops to obey their superiors, particularly an archbishop. I think an explanation is always valuable, if only in a footnote: the FA standards require the text to be understandable to a broad audience, and I find it hard to believe that most of our readers would already know that term. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The first is a catalogue description, the second relates to promises by monks to their abbots. Neither is a suitable reference. The source is a list of consecrations of bishops on the back of a profession roll. How about deleting "Professions...", and replacing with "According to a Canterbury Cathedral
roll"?
Dudley Miles (
talk)
15:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Three clerical witnesses to Cyfeilliog's charters also witnessed those of Bishop Nudd, and another three those of Bishop Cerennyr, probably because these bishops were Cyfeilliog's predecessors, and he inherited members of their episcopal households. Cerennyr was active over the whole of the south-east, suggesting that he had a superior status.: it's taking me a bit of work to get through why these two people are important here. So Cyfeilliog succeeded these men (both at the same time?) as bishop, but Cerennyr (did he come first or second?) seems to have been a bigger cheese than (his predecessor/successor?) Nudd? UndercoverClassicistT·
C22:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Looking at this again, Charles-Edwards comments are unclear. He says that they were Cyfeilliog's predecessors, but then he suggests that Nudd was the predecessor and Cerennyr a superior. I have deleted "these bishops were Cyfeilliog's predecessors, and".
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Can we briefly introduce the ASC, in particular by date?
I prefer to leave out a date because it gets into complications which are irrelevant to the article. The different versions of the ASC were written at different times and give slightly different dates for Cyfeilliog's capture.
Dorothy Whitelock dates it 914 and her date is mostly accepted by Anglo-Saxon historians. Welsh historians sometimes date it 915, but on this point I prefer to rely on Anglo-Saxon specialists.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
granted Villa Caer Birran: can we add something like "the estate of Villa Caer Birran"? Was the "Villa" part of its name, though, or was it a villa/manor called Caer Birran?
I am slightly concerned that I can't find a hit for "Villa Caer Birran" anywhere online. On the other hand,
searching Google Books for "Caer Birran" gives a lot of hits for e.g. "Caer Birran, villa" or "village of Caer Birran" (villa is often used for the latter in medieval Latin). I assume
this, p. 626f, is the primary source, and that's pretty clear that we're talking about a village or at least an estate by the name of "Caer Birran". UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, yes, but that's a gazetteer (a tertiary source at best), and it doesn't say where it's got that name from, or indeed anything about the place except to give its name (and, incidentally, only a date much later than we're interested in). I'm struggling to track down Davies 1978 online; what does she say here? UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
She gives a translation of the charter: "King Arthfael gave Uilla Cair Birran, with four modii of land, to bishop Cyfeilliog; ?; c. 890, bounds."
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Personally, I'd render that as "the village/manor of Caer Birran" (remembering that Latin doesn't really do capitalisation), but this is now the last outstanding issue and it would be wrong to ask you to edit a source, however trivially, on the say-so of an anonymous peanut-thrower on the internet. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"in puro auro": lang template. The MoS would prefer that we lose the quote marks, but I can see the argument for them.
of the worth of his face, lengthwise and breadthwise: I may regret asking this, but how do you calculate the worth of someone's face?
This is not explained in the sources. I take it to mean covering his face in gold, but there is no information on how thick the gold is.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, indeed! From what I can find out about the term (see
here p. 471 and
here, it sounds as though "face-worth" meant "money paid to apologise for an insult" -- in other words, 'face' as in 'loss of face'. Again, I'm a bit uncomfortable leaning too heavily on an interpretation from a single source that doesn't seem to be corroborated by any others, and if anything seems at odds with them. Davies (p. 130) glosses "worth of face" as "compensation for insult". It's a tricky one: barring any additional sources, my preference would be to cut "lengthways and breadthways" as unimportant and/or unclear, and to explain "worth of his face" as meaning something like "in compensation for the loss of dignity". Certainly, I wouldn't leave in what seems to be an obscure legal term that will almost certainly mislead readers (neither Davies nor anyone else suggests that any skull-measuring went on here). UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It is compensation for insult and the article says so. Sims-Williams quotes the charter: "pretium faciei suæ longitudine et latitudine in puro auro". He translates it "in length and breadth", whereas Davies has "lengthwise and breadthwis". I think it is interesting and well supported.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Is it absolutely clear in the translations whether they think "lengthwise and breadthways" refers to the face or the compensation? As I read it, it's most likely to a pretium (piece of compensation), which was made up entirely of gold (that is, "lengthwise and breadthwise of pure gold"), given in compensation for an insult. I'm struggling to make longitudine et latitudine modify faciei suae in a way that would sound right in Classical Latin, but medieval writers may have had different ways of doing things.UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I came across
this book, which does talk about a practice of demanding a chalice with a golden cover as broad as the Welsh king's face in recompense for insulting him. I'd be interested to see exactly what our sources have to say on this one, but I should probably withdraw my earlier objection -- it may not be the worth of his face so much as the size of it that was in question, but it does seem like what it says on the tin. UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
described as "a holy virgin": would that be a nun?
I assume so, but I have no source for clarifying. BTW the source says that she was seduced, which rather contradicts the description.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In 914 Cyfeilliog was captured by the Vikings, and the event was recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: are we absolutely certain that the recording happened in 914 (not 915, for example?) If not, would lose the "and" and break the sentence instead.
It's not usual to give the season in "Summer 2000a" unless there's another one for e.g. the Winter. As written, the "a" makes it look as if there's going to be a Summer 2000b.
The 'easy' solve here would be to cut the word "Summer". Otherwise, you can use the |ref= parameter to give it the ID of "2000a" etc without having that in the date field. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A few replies done -- absolutely no quarrel with most, but there are a couple of tricky ones where I've made some tentative suggestions, or at least tried to make sure I've been clear as to the concern. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Many thanks again for your very thorough review. The map is now in place if you would like to edit it. I think I have now replied to your points apart from endashes, which I am not sure how to deal with.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support -- this has been an interesting and at times arcane process; I've enjoyed digging into cryptograms, face-worth and villas, and thank you for your patience with me while I've done so. By your leave, I'll sort the endashes myself, and maybe come back to the map at some point -- the first is a quick fix and the second absolutely optional. Very nice work. UndercoverClassicistT·
C10:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
UndercoverClassicist thanks for amending the alt text. The reason I made it a placemarker is that an editor has deleted the alt text on a couple of my FAs on the ground that it duplicates the information in the label, and another editor explained that the alt text should be a placemarker because its only effect is to display the label text instead of the file name. I do not know if that is correct.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
13:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't mean to pull you in contradictory directions, but that really isn't what alt text should do. The idea of alt text is that, as far as possible, readers who can't see the images can get the important visual information conveyed to them. It's true that it shouldn't duplicate the caption, but my alts didn't -- I used the alt text to give the visual information (that is, convey what the image looks like), while the caption's job is to convey what the image is and why it matters. Our own
MOS:ALT is not universally loved, but
the RNIB have a very concise guide here, which might be of use, or there's
another from Harvard here. While there's some debate as to what constitutes the best alt text, personally I don't see how an article can meet
MOS:ACCIM (which, as part of the MoS, is an FAC criterion) if it consciously doesn't try to use alt text -- that guideline includes Images and icons that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers. UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Were medieval English pounds equal in mass to modern pounds? If so, consider using the {convert} template to include the weight in kgs, in both the lead and body?
English pounds were 240 pennies. The Welsh did not have coinage in this period and I have been unable to find out what a Welsh pound was.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
10:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In the biblio, link to: Peter Bartrum, John Blair (historian), Andrew F. Wareham?
You could consider expanding the lead to at least 3 paragraphs, I believe 4 is the FA criteria. I think there is enough material to do so, if not you could split the lead into small paragraphs.
For the alt texts, why have we just left placeholders? We have only two images so adding the alts for them will take you very little time.
An editor has deleted alt text on several articles I have edited on the ground that it repeats the information in the label. I understand that the alt text just makes readers see the label instead of the file name, and it should therefore just be a placeholder.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
10:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"He is recorded in charters" there's a comma splice here that jars a bit, partly because of the changing tense in the middle. It may be well to split (full stop or sc), but I leave it up to you
I see from UndercoverClassiccist's comments above that you were planning to replace "According to a Canterbury list of Professions of Obedience" with "According to a Canterbury Cathedral roll" but it appears that did not happen? I think it would be a good change.
"The Asser who was the biographer of Alfred the Great spent a year ill in Caerwent at this time": we haven't given a date so there's no referent for "at this time". Around 885, I assume, looking at
Asser, which I wrote so long ago that I can remember little of it.
Imma ping
Ealdgyth here as I think she's the resident expert on this field. Is Arthur Bannister
this guy? Looks like otherwise we are dealing with major publishers and reputable authors, with my usual caveat about this not being a topic I am deeply familiar with.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
07:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
So this is another MRT article! But what's more interesting here is that the station was closed for a while even when the line was opened (20 June 2003). The announcement to close the station was rather last minute and hence led to some discontentment among the few residents living in the area. There was some lobbying by residents, MPs and grassroots leaders to open the station, including a rare form of public protest by putting up "white elephant" cardboard cutouts when a minister visited the area. While the station was projected to open only in 2008 in tandem with housing developments, the government eventually relented and the station opened in January 2006. A curious little drama for the "white elephant" station.
ZKang123 (
talk)
08:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Limited comments by Nick-D
The material on the protests stands out for me, as it seems a bit under-developed. I have some comments:
The police response seems absurdly heavy handed. Google Scholar returns some references which seem to discuss this, including as an example of the limited opportunities Singaporeans have to protest
This scholarly book has some good discussion of the incident, noting that it was an example of the problems the Singapore government was experiencing at the time in terms of building the train line and (more significantly) responding to public concerns.
Very interesting. Though the PAP book essentially covers what I managed to find (given it's published by SPH Holdings, which definitely would have access to the news articles I've cited about the incident). I try not to detract too much focus from the station subject, and commentary of the protests in nature is something that can be explored in another potential article (
White Elephant saga, perhaps, as the PAP book calls it.) There's actually further context from another source (
p56) on how the slump in housing development of the Singapore northeast was due to the 1997 financial crisis.
Just keeping an archive of a cited source from the 2nd journal page
here. Not sure how to incorporate it, given the editor isn't really an authority on what determines a national political issue or not. I added a citation of what Chua Beng Huat remarked about the paranoia.--
ZKang123 (
talk)
11:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The station will also serve Sengkang Grand Residencies – an upcoming integrated development, and a future bus interchange. remove the comma
I've used a slightly different rewording.
Buangkok station is a designated Civil Defence shelter, and the two entrances of the station are enveloped by white Teflon sheets.. Id split these two sentences, like something like "Buangkok station is a designated Civil Defence shelter. The two entrances of the station are enveloped by white Teflon sheets."
Done. Though the problem is that the lead seems a little choppy here.
history
The North East Line (NEL) project, which was first proposed in 1984,[1] received government approval in January 1996. ==> "The North East Line (NEL) project, first proposed in 1984,[1] received government approval in January 1996."
I think I prefer to retain "which was"
for redevelopment into an important new town. ==> "for redevelopment into a new town."
Done.
Just days before the opening of the NEL, on 17 June 2003, operator ==> "On 17 June 2003, just days before the opening of the NEL, operator"
I've used a slightly different rewording.
along with the other stations, due to the lack remove the comma
Done.
open the following January, after SBS Transit remove the comma
Done.
required for them to sell the shirts, while also warning the organisers remove the comma
I think a comma here is necessary given the clauses are rather long.
still traveled to the adjacent change "traveled" to "travelled", as in Singaporean English (i think)
Fixed.
details
The station is designed by Altoon + Porter Architects and 3HP Architects. change "is" to "was"; unless they're still designing the station
Fixed.
artwork
Leow drew parallels to the little dots and pixels of TV and computer images which blur out certain images add a comma before "which"
"Dissatisfaction with the station's continued closure had increased after the announcement of transport fare hikes." I don't fully understand the link, the source implies it is due to having to pay more and not getting a better service?
The dates on White elephant incidents and station opening are slightly unclear, after mentioning "27 July 2005". After that no years are mentioned until "pushed to 2008".
No history after the opening? Did ridership eventually increase?
From September 1995 to May 1996,
Mariah Carey spent six months at number one on the US
Billboard Hot 100 chart with three singles from Daydream.
Columbia Records released "Forever" as the fourth US single and fifth overall. No other Carey song would surpass "Forever"'s peak of number two on the adult contemporary chart in the US until "
Oh Santa!" some 14 years later, perhaps showing how making this type of music did not last "forever" for her :P Thanks for any comments about the article,
Heartfox (
talk)
00:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments
""Forever" was related to Carey's past work." - I think maybe ""Forever" was compared to Carey's past work." would work better
In the reception section, there's a bit of a mixing of tenses. You have "Pitchfork writer Jamieson Cox said it shows" but "Cleveland.com writer Troy L. Smith said it paled"
"thought it was one of her best singles that did not reach number one" => "thought it was one of her best singles not to reach number one" --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
20:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - apologies, I didn't realise you had replied last weekend. Always best to tag me as I regularly forget I have even reviewed articles so don't come back to check for replies :-D --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
19:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Review from brachy0008
Hi there! Thanks for your help on
So It Goes.... I decided to do this article, and it’s my first FAC (got some advice from an experienced FA nominator,
ZKang123). I’ll try to dig up as much content as possible.
Image review
Image checks out.
Thanks for checking this.
Prose review
Since "Forever" was promoted to GA status in 2010, I think it may need more brushing up. I would also focus a bit more on wording than my GA reviews.
Anything specific you noticed? The article has been completely rewritten since 2010.
I'll try to find some comments on the prose. However, given the comment you addressed, I would mainly focus on the wordings.
Lead
The lead is a bit relatively short... You can try expanding it a bit more.
Unterberger consequently described the release as a victory lap. Smith said it showed how Columbia was "trying to milk the success of Daydream". Critics from music magazines predicted the song would become a success. seems a bit choppy. Just a concern.
Combined the first two sentences: "Unterberger consequently described the release as a victory lap and Smith said it showed how Columbia was 'trying to milk the success of Daydream'."
Heartfox (
talk)
07:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Source review (minor)
I would mainly focus on the source formatting (I would be pissy about it, that's the tea) because I would be confident that the sourcing is verifiable.
FN 27: Since Penske Media Corporation runs Rolling Stone (which is reliable in culture), I’d assume that Gold Derby would be reliable as well. But best double check it. Also missing archive link.
And that should be all the points I have. So, first reviewer has done all his points, now address the ones I have put out so far, and wait for the next reviewer to come by and review it.
I would slightly revise this part, (Described as referencing music of the 1950s and 1960s), to say "Described by critics as" to attribute who is describing the song in this manner.
Revised
This is more of a clarification question, but has Mariah performed this song at any point after the
Daydream World Tour? I would imagine that you have exhausted all coverage on this song, but I was more so just curious about this.
The lead and the article mention how the song references music of the 1950s and 1960s. Would links to
1950s in music and
1960s in music be helpful or would they be too broad?
Linked
I was initially a bit confused by the Nick Krewen of The Spectator quote (i.e. "into the real world of human emotion with truly soulstirring performances") as I was uncertain of the comparison that the critic was making (i.e. moving in "the real world" from what and where). In the source, he specifies this transition from as moving "beyond the Barbie Doll plasticity of her debutant existence". To be clear, I am not saying that you should add this quote, but the critic is discussing a transition, and the article only mentions one part of it so a bit of its original context is lost.
Restored full quote
For this part, (suggested it was worse than "
One Sweet Day" and "
Open Arms"), I think it would be beneficial to say the years that these songs were released as it is not directly clear in the prose that these are the other singles from the same album, which is more so implied from the sentence placement.
Added years
This is more a matter of personal preference, but I am not sure about the need for
File:Tokyo Dome (52480559907).jpg, particularly if the clear template is needed to avoid issues with it running into the next section heading. That and I am just not sure that an exterior shot of the venue is particularly helpful for readers. Again, it is up to you though.
Prefer to keep as it's better than nothing I guess
That is fair. As I said above, it is more of a matter of personal preference, and I can see the value of keeping the image.
Aoba47 (
talk)
02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that the
Macintosh link should be shortened to Mac. I believe that Mac is the more commonly-known name for the computer. I honestly was uncertain of what this was referencing until I clicked on the link. I do not really think of the computer with that name. The target article also does not use that name either.
"Macintosh" is given in the liner notes and the article notes it was the official name of the hardware until 1999, after "Forever" was recorded.
Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. I agree that it is best to stay true to what is in the liner notes.
Aoba47 (
talk)
02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I hope that these comments are helpful, and I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion once everything has been addressed. I have always really enjoyed this song, but that could be because I happened to watch that season of American Idol while it was airing back in 2008 (and that makes me feel ancient thinking about it lol). I hope you are having a good start to your week and are doing well.
Aoba47 (
talk)
01:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Aoba47: Thank you for the review! 20 days in and only now is there an acknowledgement from Wikimedia that Newspapers.com access is messed up, so I wasn't able to search there for the Idol performance, but I did go on Google and ProQuest so I think the new paragraph is hopefully as good as can be anyways.
Heartfox (
talk)
01:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for addressing everything. I am glad that there is at least an acknowledgement of the issues with Newspapers.com and although it is frustrating, hopefully a solution is being worked on and will be implemented soon. The new paragraph looks good to me as it focuses on the main points. I was debating on whether or not other details should be included, specifically Mariah Carey being a mentor in the episode and this being Kristy Lee Cook's elimination, but that seems more about the show than the song. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Wonderful work as always.
Aoba47 (
talk)
02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for checking. I think the current version does a very good job with summarizing what the reader needs to know about the performance.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about
Carly Rae Jepsen's 2022 song "Talking to Yourself". Pride month might be over, but it is never a bad time to listen to a good old-fashioned Carly Rae Jepsen synth-pop song to boost one's mood. Built into an album ironically titled The Loneliest Time is this club-friendly track that still feels underrated even though critics raved about it briefly after its release. At least the Japanese liked it! Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.- NØ18:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Aoba47
The lead specifies that Benjamin Berger and Ryan Rabin co-wrote the song and make up the production team
Captain Cuts, but it does say that they actually produced the song.
The lead specifies that reviewers praised the production as "infectious and danceable", but I do not see that claim supported in the "Critical reception" section with an overview sentence or another sign that this was a view shared by multiple critics.
Siroky and Sanchez called the chorus catchy, and the others said something along the lines of calling it a hit or fit for the dancefloor. I have revised this sentence to a more general one, which hopefully takes care of it.
The
Billboard Japan chart placement should be discussed in the prose. I am not sure that a separate table and section are needed for a single chart placement, but even if it is kept, chart placements should be discussed in the prose. You could wait to see what other reviewers have to say about the inclusion of the table and section as it could be just something that I am noticing.
I would prefer to keep it.
That is understandable. My main concern was the chart placement not being discussed in the prose and that has now been addressed.
Aoba47 (
talk)
14:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am uncertain about the "embarked" word choice in this part, (Embarked on
the Dedicated Tour). I think something like "While on
the Dedicated Tour" would be more suitable.
I am unsure about the word choice for this part, (creativity was stimulated by the
COVID-19 pandemic). It makes it seem like Jepsen was inspired directly by the pandemic itself rather than getting inspired after being stuck at home during
COVID-19 lockdowns. I think that this part could be worded better and more clearly.
The "endured bereavements" wording seems a tad over-dramatic, and I think could be replaced with something else.
For this part, (She worked with several producers and created more than 100 songs), I am not sure the "with several producers" part is necessary. It is generally assumed unless otherwise stated that when an artist works on music, they are working with producers and others. That and I find it to be vague as "several" could mean any number. I think just saying that "She created more than 100 songs" would be more concise and would not lose any information.
Is the day that Jepsen announced the album, (August 1, 2022), relevant for any reason? I believe that all the reader would need to know is when the album was released and that there were two other singles put out before its release.
I believe it helps put a timeline to when the album's production had definitely been completed and the tracklist chosen.
I am not fully convinced, but I do understand your point. It is not a major point for me so I would be okay with it staying in the article and it would not hold up my review in any way.
Aoba47 (
talk)
14:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Was there any further coverage on the music video or on the performances during the tour?
The music video does not have any coverage, considering there really isn't much going on in it. And the tour has shockingly received no reviews from reliable sources I could find.
That makes sense. That was the vibe that I got while reading the article, but I just wanted to confirm that with you. Thank you for the response.
Aoba47 (
talk)
14:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Would an audio sample fit in the "Composition and lyrics" section or would there be concerns that it would potentially overwhelm the section (or any other concerns in general about one)? I was only asking as I could see a strong justification for one illustrating the 1980s vibes that are being discussed here.
I would link
engineered,
mastered,
mixed, and
programmed to help with readers unfamiliar with that level of music jargon. I would link them in the prose and in the section with the credits.
For this part, (and influences of the
1980s), I would instead say (and influences from the
1980s music) to clarify where the link goes.
In the "Composition and lyrics" section, there are two sentences in a row that use "According to X critic". One of these instances should be revised to avoid repetition.
I was confused by this part, (the song does not specify if it was a serious relationship, friends-with-benefits, or just a crush). The article has consistently referred to the subject of this song as an "ex-lover" and that to me implies more than a crush.
This is a very good observation. There is a general critical consensus the song is about an ex so I have made this an attributed opinion.
I tried to look for any other citations for this song.
This source from
Attitude says that she performed this song at
Glastonbury Festival 2023. I am not sure if the source is appropriate for a FA so I would leave that up to you, and the citation does not go into much detail other than she performed it. Other than that (and again, I'd trust your judgement about it), it appears that you have covered everything else.
I hope that these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC, and I hope you are doing well.
Aoba47 (
talk)
22:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for addressing everything. Great work with the article as always. I am always happy to see a song article up for a FAC. I support this FAC for promotion.
Aoba47 (
talk)
14:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
An accompanying music video for "Talking to Yourself" was released alongside it. -- I think this will work as "The music video for "Talking to Yourself" was released alongside it"
and performed it at Glastonbury Festival 2023 -- at the Glastonbury Festival 2023.
Chris DeVille of Stereogum thought it recalled the 1980s pastiche of Jepsen's albums Emotion (2015) and Dedicated (2019) -- does the reviewer mean the song drew parallels or is reminiscent of her previous albums 1980s theme? Maybe some wording change to "recalled"
Thanks for doing a prose review as well,
Pseud 14! I do not know if I will be working on any other Jepsen articles, but this song was an immediate standout to me. I have fixed the issues along with some copyedits.--NØ18:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"praised its production as catchy and commented on the lyrics" - "commented on" is a bit vague and doesn't really convey whether the comments were positive or negative. Possible to reword to give a tiny bit more detail?
"lockdowns following the COVID-19 pandemic" => "lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic"
"unable to join her family" => "being unable to join her family"
The openings of the three paragraphs under "Composition and lyrics" are all very similar - any way to reword?
"PopMatters's Jeffrey Davies" - while not technically wrong, this looks a bit odd with the "s's" and the second s not being italic. Maybe "Jeffrey Davies of PopMatters".......?
"described it as a sanguine track and "dance-pop anthem"" => "described it as a sanguine track and a "dance-pop anthem""
"and honed it among Jepsen's most high-energy songs" - I don't think "honed" is the right word here at all. Maybe "named"?
"using some diverting production brandishes" - "brandish" isn't a noun, so this doesn't work. I think maybe you mean "using some diverting production flourishes" --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
21:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems like sources are consistently formatted and are mostly dedicated magazines. I wonder if somewhere there is a list of reliable magazines on music topics. Spotcheck upon request.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"recalls a previous relationship with an ex-lover". "a previous relationship" and "an ex-lover" seems a little clunky due to the redundancy. Perhaps delete "previous"?
"While on the Dedicated Tour". Perhaps tell us when this took place?
It was preceded by the singles "Western Wind" and "Beach House"". I assume that these were both on the album? If so, could we be told?
"The song was included on the set list of the tour". Which tour?
File:Lise_Meitner_(1878-1968),_lecturing_at_Catholic_University,_Washington,_D.C.,_1946.jpg: is a more specific tag available? Ditto File:Lise_Meitner_standing_at_meeting_with_Arthur_H._Compton_and_Katherine_Cornell.jpg
File:Lise_Meitner12.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg
File:Hahn_and_Meitner_in_1912.jpg: when and where was this first published?
In a commemorative brochure for the opening of the KWI in 1912. A copy was in Otto Hahn's papers, and is now in the Smithsonian. The Max Planck also has a copy.
Hawkeye7(discuss)03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Chemist_Lise_Meitner_with_students.jpg: the source seems to indicate this is not a NRC work?
She was particularly inspired by Boltzmann, and was said to often speak with contagious enthusiasm of his lectures. I'm not sure about "contagious" here, and it should be "about" rather than "of"
Meitner and Hahn in their laboratory, in 1913. When a colleague she did not recognise said that they had met before, Meitner replied: "You probably mistake me for Professor Hahn. Image caption is confusing
of which he gave ten per cent to Meitner. Is this %?
MOS:PERCENT: "The body of non-scientific/non-technical articles may use either the % symbol or the word(s) percent (American English) or per cent (British English)"
In 1945 the Nobel Committee for Chemistry in Sweden that selected the Nobel Prize in Chemistry decided to award that prize solely to Hahn: Colon should be a full stop
Women were not allowed to attend public institutions of higher education in Vienna until 1897, and she completed her final year of school in 1892 I think this would make more sense with the clauses reversed, and moved after the following sentence; this way, it'd flow naturally into the "only career available" part.
"Circumspect" seems like a bit of an obscure word here. Also "egalitarian" is a bit confusing - I know we're talking about how Hahn drank a lot of Respect Women Juice, but it's phrased confusingly in this portion.
Germany was very formal society at the time. Oppenheimer, for example, once made the mistake of addressing
Arnold Sommerfeld as "Professor" instead of "
Geheimrat". Removed. I need to strike the right note here. For a man of his time, Hahn was progressive in his attitudes towards women.
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Later that year, perhaps fearing that Meitner was in financial difficulties and might return to Vienna, since her father had died in 1910, Planck appointed her his assistant at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in the Friedrich Wilhelm University I think it might be best to remove the "since her father had died" clause. Maybe split it up; "Meitner may have entered financial difficulties after the death of her father in 1910. Possibly due to this, Planck appointed her..."
You reference prices in marks a lot, but a modern reader has no context. Is there a way we can have conversions? There's likely a template for the mark. (Tho these might be best as efns after each quote rather than as in-line text)
This isn't really a prose thing, but I notice a paucity of images in the middle sections. The diagram of the
Auger effect might be good at the beginning of the Beta Radiation section. More importantly, there's gotta be something that fits for the Nazi Germany, Transmutation, and Nobel Prize for nuclear fission sections, right?
The exhibition table being left-aligned creates a weird break in the text in combination with the massive Frisch quote. Might be better to right-align it.
Moreover; the Frisch quote is nice, but it is massive. Could there be a way to pare it down a bit more with a (...) or two?
The bust of Meitner image is a bit low-res and hard to make out. What about "file:Lise Meitner Denkmal vor dem Lise-Meitner-Wohnheim in Kaiserslautern2.jpg"? Bit more photogenic.
There are quite a few places where I think the article would benefit from being more clear and explicit about the geography and geopolitics. Those conditions, especially during the pre-World War I period, will only become more unfamiliar to readers as time goes on, so I think it important to future-proof the article, as it were. I've made a number of specific comments about this below.
"Meitner's earliest research began at age eight, when she kept a notebook of her records underneath her pillow." – I can't say I quite understand what this is saying.
"She completed her final year of school in 1892 [...] In 1899, Meitner began taking private lessons with two other young women, cramming the missing eight years of secondary education into just two." – eight missing years?
"an article on
optics by
Lord Rayleigh that detailed an experiment that produced results that Rayleigh had been unable to explain" – a bit choppy with three instances of "that" so close together, but this is really a nitpick.
"Meitner went to the
Friedrich Wilhelm University" – here we should probably state where this was located geographically. She moved to a different country, after all.
"Planck invited her to his home, and allowed her to attend his lectures, which was an unusual gesture by Planck, who was on record as opposing the admission of women to universities in general, but he was willing to admit that there was the occasional exception; apparently he recognised Meitner as one of the exceptions." – this sentence does not "flow" particularly well and could probably be improved by copyediting (possibly by splitting the sentence).
"She became friends with Planck's twin daughters Emma and Grete" – I might indicate something about their age here. Easiest would probably be to state the year they were born.
"(In fact, they were
isotopes of known elements, but the concept of an isotope, along with the term, was only propounded by
Frederick Soddy in 1913.)" – entire sentences in parentheses is rarely the best approach, and I don't think this is one of the exceptions.
"In Montreal, Hahn had become accustomed to collaboration with physicists, including at least one woman,
Harriet Brooks." – this is really minor tinkering, but I think this would be better if the second comma were replaced with "stronger" stronger punctuation (I would suggest an em dash).
"Women were not yet admitted to universities in
Prussia." – Germany (or the
German Empire) has not yet been mentioned. Considering that, I would gloss this as "the German state of Prussia".
"radioactive recoil, in which a daughter nucleus is forcefully ejected from its matrix as it recoils at the moment of decay" – this is rather technical. In order to make it more accessible, I would link
daughter nucleus and provide either an appropriate link for "matrix" or explain it in some other way.
"Meitner was particularly interested in
beta radiation. By this time, they were known to be
electrons." – I'm guessing "they" here is a result of the preceding sentence previously using "beta particles", but it doesn't work with "beta radiation", and using "radiation" rather than "particles" is the right call.
"Meitner received an attractive offer of an academic position in
Prague" – I would try to find some way to note that Prague was then part of
Austria-Hungary (the significance being that she would have left Germany for her home country if she had accepted the offer).
"Fischer arranged for her salary to be doubled to 3,000 marks" – is there any particular reason her previous salary did not get a mention prior to this point? The paragraph does note that she held "the same rank as Hahn (although her salary was still less)".
Actinium being element 89 is rather important context that is missing here.
"the search for the mother isotope of
actinium. According to the
radioactive displacement law of Fajans and Soddy, this had to be an isotope of the undiscovered element 91" – I'm confused. They knew about beta decay, and the article has already stated that Hahn and Meitner made money off of radium-228 ("mesothorium"), which beta decays to actinium (as do other
isotopes of radium, for that matter). Why did they assume the mother isotope had to be an alpha emitter?
"However, the isotope they had found was a beta emitter, and therefore could not be the mother isotope of actinium." – I understand why beta decay of element 91 cannot produce element 89, but I don't think this is clear to the average reader.
"In 1914 Hahn and Meitner developed a new technique for separating the
tantalum group from
pitchblende, which they hoped would speed the isolation of the new isotope." – this is jumping back in time a bit, so I would say that they had done so.
"not only Hahn but most of the students, laboratory assistants and technicians had been called up" – I gather this is "called up" in the sense of "summoned to serve in the armed forces" as opposed to "personally selected (for some particular purpose more generally)". Maybe I'm an outlier, but I come across this phrase more frequently in the latter sense than in the former, and so think this should be rephrased somewhat to eliminate ambiguity/lack of clarity.
"they devised a series of indicator tests to eliminate other known alpha emitters. The only known ones with similar chemical behaviour were
lead-210 (which decays to alpha emitter
polonium-210) and
thorium-230" – this doesn't quite work. I might suggest replacing the first "alpha emitters" with "sources of alpha [particles/radiation]". I would also add "via
bismuth-210" to the parenthetical statement.
"The connection to uranium remained a mystery, as neither of the known
isotopes of uranium decayed into protactinium." – I don't think it's clear why a connection to uranium should be expected in the first place? I might also note which those known isotopes of uranium were.
"At a conference in 1937, Meitner shares the front row with (left to right)
Niels Bohr,
Werner Heisenberg,
Wolfgang Pauli,
Otto Stern and
Rudolf Ladenburg;
Hilde Levi is the only other woman in the room." – there are seven people in the front row, so one name is missing. Who is sitting closest to the camera? I would also add indicate Levi's position in the room in the caption.
The unidentified man is the one at the very end (if nothing else, our article on
Rudolf Ladenburg uses a cropped version of this very image, showing the man sitting next to Meitner), right? In that case, the current "[...]
Otto Stern, an unidentified man and
Rudolf Ladenburg" should be ""[...]
Otto Stern,
Rudolf Ladenburg, and an unidentified man".Levi stands out okay in the full-size image, but not so much in miniature versions that one may see on this article under typical viewing conditions (screen size and resolution, and so on). I also think it says something that Meitner is in the front row while Levi is furthest back, and that the caption should note this.
TompaDompa (
talk)
18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"It appeared that the
law of conservation of energy did not hold for beta decay" – it is not obvious how this conclusion follows from what was stated before.
I think it works now, assuming I have understood it correctly—the difference between the spectrum's measured energy and the disintegration energy was viewed as a real difference (as opposed to being within the expected margin of error for the setup), meaning there was an unexplained "loss" of energy. Did I get that right?
TompaDompa (
talk)
18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, but it is the implication of this that bothered the physicists. Quantum theory hold that the electrons can only have discrete energy states. How then can they not have when ejected? (As an aside: Chadwick conducted this experiment while in an internment camp with a home-made Geiger counter and a tube of toothpaste.) Here, Meitner shows her tenacity as a physicist. This has important results later.
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"
Irène Curie and
Frédéric Joliot irradiated aluminium foil with alpha particles, and found that this results in a short-lived radioactive
isotope of phosphorus. They noted that
positron emission continued after the neutron emissions ceased." – neutron emissions? Not alpha particle bombardment? It would make perfect sense to me if positron emission continuing after the alpha irradiation ceased was viewed as evidence of radioactivity (as opposed to the bombardment "knocking loose" positrons directly or something), but I can't quite figure out the text as it is, which is why I'm suspecting an error of some kind (or maybe I'm just bad at nuclear physics).
"On 1 August she took the train to
Stockholm, where she was met at
Göteborg station by
Eva von Bahr." – this phrasing makes it sound like she was met by von Bahr at Göteborg station in Stockholm, which is of course nonsensical. Did she take the Stockholm-bound train and disembark at Göteborg? Or did she take the train to Stockholm and was joined from Göteborg by von Bahr? The former sounds much more likely as Kungälv, where they went next, is much closer to Göteborg than to Stockholm.
"the results of the experiments, particularly the supposed discovery of isomers of radium" – the what now? Unless I've missed something major, this has not been mentioned previously.
"Hahn and Strassmann isolated the three radium isotopes" – as above: which? Also, is "isotopes" here and "isomers" in the preceding section correct, or should they match?
"Hahn had mistakenly believed that the
atomic masses had to add up to 239 rather than the
atomic numbers adding up to 92, and thought it was masurium (
technetium), and so did not check for it: 235 92U + n → 56Ba + 36Kr + some n" – surely that should be
uranium-238 on the left-hand side rather than
uranium-235, if the atomic mass should add up to be 239?
I don't think this heading really works. It sticks out a bit from the other (which it wouldn't if it were plain "Nobel Prize"), but more importantly it belies that Meitner did not receive the Nobel Prize. I don't have any good alternative suggestion right now, however.
Changed to "Nobel Prize"
"On 15 November 1945, the
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced that Hahn had been awarded the 1944
Nobel Prize in Chemistry" – this looks like an error, but it isn't one. I would definitely add an explanatory footnote about the one-year delay.
"The five-member physics committee included Manne Siegbahn, his former student Erik Hulthén, the professor of experimental physics at
Uppsala University, and Axel Lindh, who eventually succeeded Hulthén." – if that's three people, the first and third commas need to be semicolons.
"The poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner" – that their relationship was poor came as news to me, as there was not really anything obvious above to suggest so—or did I miss it?
"The poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner was a factor here, as was the bias towards experimental rather than theoretical physics (a bias that did not help
Chien-Shiung Wu when she was omitted from the Nobel Prize for her experimental work and the prize awarded to two men for their theoretical work)." - this borders on snide. The intended meaning is clearly that the exclusion was due to bias against women, the implicit (but unsubtle) argument being that even a bias in favour of a particular subfield was later not enough for a woman to be awarded. If the accusation of gender bias is attributable to appropriate sources, make it explicitly and attribute it to those sources. If it is not, remove the implicit one. If the mention of
Chien-Shiung Wu being omitted from the Nobel Prize is retained, the year should be given.
"Hahn's receipt of a Nobel Prize was long expected." – the word "receipt" stands out to me as I almost never encounter it in any other sense than, well,
receipt. I would suggest rephrasing here.
This section feels quite a bit like it was written to be later in the article than it currently is, beginning with "Despite the many honours that Meitner received in her lifetime" (as though referring back to the "Awards and honours" section), discussing the poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner (which is mentioned in the following section, "Later life", even if only briefly), and just generally covering events that happened at a later point in time than the first couple of paragraphs of the following section. This is, I think, a rather serious issue with the structure of the article at present. My suggestion would be to remove this section, add the Nobel Prize stuff in its proper chronological place in the following section in a "just the facts" manner, and move the analysis of the Nobel Prize stuff to the last section (which could optionally be renamed "Legacy" or something).
"Her sister Gisela and brother-in-law Karl Lion moved to England, Meitner also considered moving to Britain." – a comma is not the right punctuation here.
"Siegbahn's obstruction of Meitner's Nobel Prize" – the description of this turn of events earlier in the article does not really seem to fit the term "obstruction".
"The intention was that Meitner would have the salary and title of a "research professor"—one without teaching duties." – does the source say anything about whether having or not having teaching duties would be seen as preferable here?
"In 2000, the
European Physical Society established the biannual "Lise Meitner Prize"" – there exists a
Lise Meitner Prize article, and going by that article it should be "biennial" rather than "biannual".
The list of items named after Meitner appears to largely be cited to sources on the items themselves, rather than sources on Meitner or sources on items named after Meitner. This is not ideal from a
WP:PROPORTION perspective. How is the relative importance of the different items (compared to each other) assessed to make sure the weight is due? Likewise, how is the relative importance of this aspect of the overall topic (
Lise Meitner) compared to other aspects assessed to make sure the weight is due? From a
WP:PROPORTION perspective, this is the equivalent of the much-maligned (
and now deprecated) practice of sourcing "In popular culture" sections to primary sources.
Were my point about whether the information is correct/verifiable, that would be sufficient. But that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is about whether the information is
WP:DUE, or more specifically
WP:PROPORTIONAL.
TompaDompa (
talk)
17:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Why have we not used the sources in the Further Reading section in the article? If they don't have anything unique, I would suggest removing them; if they do, then you can always include them in the biblio and cite them.
I'm pleased to see an article about a female scientist here, thank you for such an excellent effort. With the caveat that I am not a native speaker, here are some comments. Feel free to ignore.
The repetition of her name in bold is not great. I know of no specific guideline but in earlier FAs I have applied the use of " to introduce the commonly used first name. For example Nancy Sophie Cornélie "Corry" Tendeloo. So could Elise "Lise" Meitner be an option?
There is a specific guideline.
MOS:BOLD: "Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the
lead. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that
redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not"
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I avoided the construct 'Elise "Lise" Meitner' because that would give the impression that it was a nickname, and it was not. Note that she signed her papers "Dr. Lise Meitner".
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
who was one of those responsible for the discovery of the element protactinium and the discovery of nuclear fission --> who was instrumental in the discovery of protactinium and nuclear fission
She also adopted the shortened name "Lise" --> is it known when?
Not known. Her matura was recorded under the name Elise Meitner. "Lise's name also changed slightly from its original Elise. In Berlin such things might have caused a flurry of paperwork; in Vienna it made no difference."
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
She completed her final year of school --> from reading onwards I gather this is not secondary school. Would it not be better to explicitly say primary school here?
She went to a high school for girls that went to what in my country would be year 8. This might be consider primary school depending on where the reader is. So it would not be better.
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
but women were not allowed to attend public institutions of higher education in Vienna until 1897--> I don't get the "but". And would the list of subjects at school not be better placed with the earlier sentence about final year of school?
she went further and made predictions based on her explanation, and then verified them experimentally --> this seems like a notable event that should be described in a bit more detail: what kind of optics issue are we talking about, what did she predict, how did she verify?
This led Ernest Rutherford to predict the nuclear atom. She submitted her findings to the Physikalische Zeitschrift on 29 June 1907. --> From this order I infer that Rutherford made the prediction before her publication, and thus that there was some sort of informal communication between them. Is this the case?
, and shared her love of music --> because of that comma, I read this with Meitner being the subject of the verb shared. But I guess you meant the twins to be the subject, am I right?
During the first years Meitner worked together with Hahn they co-authored three papers in 1908, and six more in 1909 --> During the first two years Meitner worked together with Hahn, they co-authored nine papers: three in 1908, six in 1909
Vor allem steht ihre chemische Verschiedenheit von allen bisher bekannten Elementen außerhalb jeder Diskussion --> I don't think we need the German here
I find it remarkable that Meitner lived so long and did not seem to have suffered any radiation damage. She must have been really careful from the beginning. This is just a thought, no need to act on it.
"On 1 August she took the train to
Göteborg station in Sweden." I don't think it was possible to do this journey by train in the 1940s. Was it?
John (
talk)
07:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty sure the
Øresund would have been in the way, which was not bridged until 2000. I imagine some kind of ferry or
boat train must have been involved in 1938. It sounds funny if you know the geography to just say "took the train". What do the sources say?
John (
talk)
10:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
On 1 August, she left for Sweden. Again the trip was beautiful. Eva von Bahr-Bergius was waiting for her at the Göteborg station. Together they continued by train and then steamer to Eva's home in Kungälv, a small town on the west coast where Lise planned to stay until September.
I trimmed the "Jewish" from the lead sentence. Her Jewishness was only defintionally important to the Nazis. She was a scientist, not a religious figure. We find out about her ethnicity and the trouble it caused her in her life, but I do not think it is needed in the first sentence. Happy to discuss, of course.
John (
talk)
Well, this is a high-profile topic if there ever was one. Keeping my usual caveat about not being familiar with the topic in mind, I wonder if there is any dedicated discussion to the conflict with the Nazis. It seems like we are using mostly academic publications and major publishers. What makes
http://www.orlandoleibovitz.com/Lise_Meitner_and_Nuclear_Fission.html a reliable source? #112, should that give Nobel Prize rather than www.nobelprize.org? Especially since #113 does. Bit inconsistent with retrieval dates - #118 doesn't have one but #145 does? I wonder why only one German biography is used. What is the logic between placing some publications into Further Reading?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
07:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The first edition of the Tour de France Femmes (a cycling race) – held in 2022 after years of campaigning for a women's Tour de France race.
This is a second attempt (nominated before, and I didn't get to fixing things in time – these have now been resolved). The article is a GA and has been through the WP:GOCE process. Wish me luck!
Turini2 (
talk)
08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Does anyone else have comments on this? Ready and waiting to make any required edits or answer queries that people have. :)
Turini2 (
talk)
09:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments from Reidgreg
As noted above, I copyedited the article in Nov 2023 (
copyedited version) and may be biased toward that version.
I'm still not a fan of the wide infobox; the map is not terribly legible, so I'm not sure the point of having it take up that much room.
I feel that the five-paragraph lead could probably be consolidated to two or three paragraphs for an article of this size. My copyedit version handled it after the lead paragraph as a results-oriented summary, putting the winners first as that's the most important result; I can see from the previous FAC review that some other editors prefer a chronological summary of the race. Can't say that I agree, but in any case it should be simpler and more concise.
The race would take place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris. If it can be confirmed to have happened, use past tense.
and not being hard enough for the professional peloton Not being difficult enough or challenging enough.
pushed for La Course to evolve into a multi day stage race, with former cyclist & commentator multi-stage, cyclist and commentator.
As a matter of completeness, should there be a brief mention of how this race affected the
second and
third editions of the race?
Tweaks made. I also prefer your version of the lead – I expanded it slightly to accommodate the request for a chronological telling of the race following the last FAC review. In terms of the infobox, it's following the pattern of other Tour de France articles (e.g. FA
2012 Tour de France). Thanks for your help!
Turini2 (
talk)
07:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As per the below, the lead now has three paragraphs - an introduction, 1st/2nd/3rd in general classification, and the winners of the other classifications.
Turini2 (
talk)
09:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
The lead is IMO a little long in proportion to the article, and
MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests it should consist of "One or two paragraphs".
"French rider Jeannie Longo won the 1987, 1988 and 1989 editions of the race, gaining fame in the process". This seems a little random. A factoid about one rider dropped into the history of the race.
Would I be correct in assuming that no women's race took place in 2010, 2011, 2012, nor 2013? If so, perhaps this could be stated.
"with sponsors welcoming the visibility of the Champs-Élysées". How is this relevant to the article?
In the lead, I have struggled with including all relevant information requested while keeping the length. Pointers welcome!
The lead is not supposed to include all relevant information, it is intended to briefly summarise the article. I have put a draft of a slimmed down version on the talk page. See what you think. Note that it is not normal to include citations in the lead. (Nor the infobox.) As a summary, anything in the lead will be covered more fully in the main article, where it will be cited in more detail.
Have rewritten the lead, now much shorter.
Jeannie Longo is a reasonably famous sportswoman, particularly in France - happy to remove, but thought a useful (and referenced) historical tidbit.
Almost the definition of things not to include. Either expand the mention to explain why and how Longo particularly influenced the development of the Tour de France Femmes - assuming she did - or take it out.
Removed.
Realistically, the last "Tour de France Féminin" was in 1989 - the organisers of the men's race didn't allow them to use their trademark. Hence the "although the name of the event changed several times" phrasing. There were other
ersatz women's races that tried to be a ""Tour de France Féminin" - e.g.
La Route de France. It's complicated!
That's why we FAC nominators get the big bucks! (Try explaining 3rd century BC naval tactics.) from whenever you start, if there was some sort of proto-TdFF you need to mention briefly it, if there wasn't you need to say so, if it was complicated you need to briefly explain the nature of the complication. What you do, you have done well, but what seem to be gaps stand out.
Have rephrased and reworded, to make clearer.
Women's cycling historically has not been on live TV or well supported commercially - sources back up that sponsors of teams were very happy to be "sharing the stage" with the Tour de France. Again, happy to remove or rephrase.
I meant that thee and me might understand the connection between the TdF and the visibility of the Champs-Élysées, but a non-aficionado will have no idea what you are talking about. And as an encyclopedia we are supposed to be explaining things for a general audience.
Have reworded, and added a slight bit to the background.
"and not being challenging enough for the professional peloton". What is "the professional peloton"? And why "the" and not 'a'?
Piped to clarify
"Riders and campaigners pushed for La Course to evolve into a multi-stage race, cyclist & commentator Joanna Rowsell stating". The comma should be either a full stop or a semi colon.
Fixed
"We need mountain climbs, flat stages, time trials and a Champs-Elysees finish". Reading this made me realise that the article just assumes that the reader is aware of the TdF for men to quite a detailed level. I think you need to explain it somewhere near the start of Background, including what all of these things are and touching on the different jerseys. I assume that you can steal most of this from the TdF article. Having just reread, I am eg unsure from the article whether La Course by Le Tour de France was a stage race or not. Or what a stage is.
I've added a sentence on what the Tour de France is at the start of Background... I note that FA
2012 Tour de France does not provide this level of background information. Have tweaked things to clarify.
"Pushing back on criticism". "on" → 'at'.
Fixed
Did la Course by Le Tour de France occur in each year from 2013 to 2021?
Rephrased
"with Anna van der Breggen stating ... and Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating ..." Who are these two that a reader might care about their opinions? And synonym time, can we avoid two times "stating".
Clarified
I am going to pause here. I think I have given you a fair bit to think about, come back on and/or get on with and I would like to get this foundation stage of the article sorted before moving on to the detail.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
16:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Right, thanks for that. It is now, IMO, in better shape. However, moving on I feel that we may be getting into something akin to a
fix loop. For example
'The overall length of the event was met with agreement, with some teams noting that they do not "yet have the staff or numbers ... for a three-week event."' As it happens, I know the relevance of "a three-week event", but a passing reader may not and I don't see it explained elsewhere in the article. I feel, as I suspect the nominator does, that this is an important point, in which case it needs explaining.
There is a section called "Mountain stages", but no explanation of what they are, nor their significance. Similarly re the several mentions of "summit finish".
"chasing back after a
mechanical". I am not sure that "chasing back" will be readily understood. I am sure that "a mechanical" won't. While it is piped,
MOS:NOFORCELINK says "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." There are several other examples of a Wikilink being used instead of an in line explanation. (And where, IMO, a reader in unlikely to understand what is meant from context and where understanding the text is important to understanding the article.)
Given the points above, each of which is an example of a broader point which I am unhappy with, I am currently leaning oppose. Unfortunately, while happy in principle to discuss this and open to changing my mind - there is a lot of good work in the article and it is not that far off FA standard - I am going to be away from any internet connection for most of a week. So apologies for an anticipated slow response.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I consider I have addressed these three points, as well as making some wider edits to clarify things and unknown terms. In terms of your wider point about a fix loop, this is why I had the article copyedited prior to bringing it to FAC.
Turini2 (
talk)
17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
They are all own works from wikimedia users and all licensed under Creative Commons. All images are relevant to the article. The image "2019-10-26 14-54-37 planche-des-belles-filles.jpg" lacks an alt text but the others have alt texts. All images have captions. The caption The final stage of the race finished at the hors catégorie (English: beyond category) La Super Planche des Belles Filles climb needs to end with a period as it is a full sentence. I suggest removing the expression "the hors catégorie (English: beyond category)" because readers may not be familiar with this technical term, the translation in parenthesis is not helpful, and the information is not essential to understand the image. The caption Large crowds greeted the Tour
also needs to end with a period.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
10:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The
Battle of Tinian isn't as well known as
Battle of Saipan, but it was an important part of the Mariana Islands campaign of World War II. It was mostly a US Marines show, but the other services were heavily involved. The battle is a good case study of the process of command decision making. The island became an important base for B-29 bombers and in August 1945 the
atomic bombing missions were launched from there, which is what it is best known for today, if at all. There is plenty written about it though, and the article could have gone much deeper into the fighting.
Hawkeye7(discuss)00:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"the Combined Chiefs of Staff". Perhaps 'the US and British Combined Chiefs of Staff' to fill in the blanks for readers not familiar with the nomenclature of the higher echelons during WWII?
"Tinian lay too close to Saipan to allow it to be bypassed and remain in Japanese hands. The 9,000-strong Japanese garrison was eliminated, and the island joined Saipan and Guam as a base for Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers" is out of chronological order and repeats what is given in more detail later. Suggest deleting.
"known as the Orange plans ... along the lines envisaged in the Orange Plan". Plural or singular?
Plural. Plans were continually updated. There were many variants, such as Orange-Black (Japan + Germany) and Orange-Red (Japan + the UK).
Hawkeye7(discuss)21:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"By 10 August, Japanese casualties included 404 taken prisoner and 5,745 dead that were buried by the Americans." This leaves some 2,850 unaccounted for. Do any of the sources suggest how they might be accounted?
It may be worth adding that. If only to clarify that while the battle was over all resistance was not, hence the "Mopping up" section.
When the Japanese forces were reduced to the point where they were no longer considered a threat to the West Coast of the United States, the American commander would declare the island "secure", and "mopping up" operations would begin. In some cases, more Japanese were killed during mopping up than in the battle. Stan Savige (on Bougainville) and Bob Eichelberger (on Leyte) reported that they had killed more Japanese than G-2 reported were present in the first place, but there were still plenty more.
Hawkeye7(discuss)01:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The paragraph starting "Tinian was considered a target from the outset ..." It would be helpful to state here somewhere the distance between the two islands.
" On 12 March, the Joint Chiefs of Staff directed Nimitz to neutralize Truk and occupy the Mariana Islands, with a target date of 15 June ... With the conclusion of the Battle of Saipan on 9 July, preparations began for the attack on Tinian." Perhaps a sentence or two on the battle of Saipan?
In the lead the battle ends on 2 August ("Resistance continued through 2 August"), in the infobox on 1 August.
There are several cases where
false precision has been introduced - eg 100 feet given as 30.5 m or 1/2 mile as 0.80 km - which could do with reviewing.
"with its two battalions of 155 mm guns and two battalions of 155 mm howitzers". So how many actual weapons was this? Similarly "for a total of thirteen battalions."
Each 155mm gun battalion had 12 guns, manned by 26 officers, 2 warrant officers and 529 enlisted men (TO 6-55 31 July 1943). Each 155 mm howitzer battalion had 12 howitzers manned by 29 officers, 2 warrant officers and 500 enlisted men (TO 6-35 15 July 1943). Added that there were twelve tubes per battalion.
Hawkeye7(discuss)22:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"the support of observation aircraft from Stinson OY Sentinel aircraft". Needs some sort of tweak, perhaps delete the first "aircraft"?
"50 dead Japanese were inside." That reads very oddly. How about 'they were garrisoned by 50 Japanese, who were all killed'?
We don't know that. There might have been more, some of who withdrew, and some of the dead may have committed suicide. Tightened text to clarify that fifty dead Japanese were found inside.
Hawkeye7(discuss)22:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I was part of the A Class review at WPMH and found the article to be a great read on an expansive topic. I have some minor suggestions which you could look into,
Hawkeye7:
Since the 3 units of the US Army were all part of the V Amphibious, perhaps you could wrap these up into a {tree list}?
When I looked at the infobox image, I thought it was the only one which didn't have alt text. To my surprise, none of the images have alt texts. Why so? As an aside, many of the images are good ones which could go FP as Adam said, you should look into co-nominating some of them.
Also, how much deeper could we have gone into the fighting? Would it have been day by day details or something more substantial? I ask because that would impact the comprehensiveness.
Yes, into the day-to-day fighting in greater depth. There is already a
subarticle on base development. The article currently has 8,350 words, and going into the fighting in much greater detail would add a great deal more. I feared that there would be complaints that the article was
WP:TOOBIG.
Hawkeye7(discuss)19:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If you have the time, I would appreciate if you could look into my recent FA nom, linked
here.
Infobox says Ogata and Oie are killed in action but main text doesn't appear to corroborate this
The text says that "Ogata was among the fallen, but his body was never identified". Sources do not record what happened to Captain Oya, but he did not survive the battle. Should the {{KIA}} template be removed?
Hawkeye7(discuss)22:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Apologies, that was meant to be Kakuta, not Ogata. Looking at their articles, which say they both committed suicide on Tinian, they are referenced to Brooks, Victor (2005) Hell is Upon Us: D-Day in the Pacific. I don't know if you have access to that? Otherwise if you have sources that do say they at least didn't survive the battle then specifically mentioning that in main text would be enough.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk)
22:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I was able to find Hell is Upon Us and have added it to the references. Hoffman reported a story about Kakuta, but Morison cast doubt on it and I removed it from the article. Added a sentence sourced to Brooks that neither Kakuta nor Oie survived. Could not find verification of the Wikipedia article on Oie's claim that Fred Osgood took his knife, although the Library of Congress confirms that Osgood served on Tinian with the V Amphibious Corps Amphibious Reconnaissance Battalion.
[17]Hawkeye7(discuss)00:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Main text says 2,610 civilians dead not 2,600
Infobox changed to match the text.
Would be sensible to actually mention World War II early in the main text
What's your rule for using or ignoring "USS" for ships? I would have expected it to be "Colorado and the destroyer USS Norman Scott" and "Colorado, cruiser USS Cleveland and destroyer USS Remey" rather than the current wording
"All three assault battalions were ashore by 08:20" Does this line up with the previous description? " 24th Marines to land on White Beach 1, one battalion at a time" and "the 25th Marines landed two battalions on White Beach 2" doesn't necessarily indicate three battalions to me
"Captain Isumi's mobile counterattack force" You haven't mentioned Isumi before, so when reading this I got the idea this was a different force to the earlier mentioned 1st Battalion, 135th Infantry Regiment mobile counterattack force, which I assume it is not? If Isumi isn't that relevant might be best to remove mention of him
The lede says the Tinian Town feint "diverted defenders" but main text only says "distract". It's not clear whether Japanese troops actually moved away from the north to combat the feint
Hi
Hawkeye7, setting this up as a placeholder, will do the review tomorrow. Please feel free to respond after you return from your break. How is the Olympics live experience?
Matarisvan (
talk)
18:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
The infobox image is public domain with a valid PD tag.
Map of the Battle of Tinian (1944).svg is a featured image. It has a relevant CC tag.
The remaining images are all PD photographs that are taken by the US military, generally marines or navy. These have appropriate PD tags.
Suggest adding Japanese Peace Memorial - Tinian - panoramio (1).jpg, which is included in the Japanese wikipedia article.
The dominance of images from the US armed forces is understandable but to provide a more
neutral point of view, it would be good to have some contemporary illustrations from the perspective of the local populous or the Japanese. Are these available?
simongraham (
talk)
20:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
NPOV is always a problem with the Pacific War articles, as one side was nearly annihilated. Sometimes we have POW interrogation records, but not always, and Japanese sources are often not translated. We have no Japanese photographs of the battle on Commons, which is not unusual. The local population was deported to Japan after the war, so today, the island is inhabited by Chamorros who came from other islands and their descendants.
Hawkeye7(discuss)06:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
One of the most exciting games in American soccer history, which pitted
Hollywood money against a
blue-collar underdog, and broke several records (and one leg) in 130+ minutes of action. Most of this article was written in the days before and after the game, but has undergone a fair amount of changes through a GAN last year and a more recent GOCE copyedit. I believe it is my finest match article so far of the four MLS Cup articles I have sent to FAC. SounderBruce00:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"Both clubs finished the regular season atop the Supporters' Shield standings" - pedantically, they can't both have finished atop the standings. Maybe say something like "the two teams tied for the most points in the MLS, but LAFC topped the Supporters' Shield standings based on......" (also at the equivalent point in the body)
Fixed by mentioning conference tables.
Soccer is linked in the lead but not in the body
Fixed.
"and was contested by 28 teams that are organized into" => "and was contested by 28 teams organized into"
Fixed.
"MLS Cup 2022 was the fourth final to be contested between two regular season winners" - "winners" is a bit vague, maybe say "conference champions"....?
Used "seeds" instead.
"LAFC took first place in Western Conference during the streak" => "LAFC took first place in the Western Conference during the streak"
Fixed.
"By the mid-point in the season in late June" => "By the mid-point of the season in late June"
Fixed.
"LAFC had amassed a 11–3–3 record" => "LAFC had amassed an 11–3–3 record"
Fixed.
"The Union sent Blake, and defenders" - don't think that comma is needed
Fixed.
"who were without forwa rd Talles Magno" - there's a random space in the middle of a word
Fixed.
"but instead finished a mis-timed clearance from the NYCFC defense" => "but instead finishing a mis-timed clearance from the NYCFC defense"
Reworded to be more clear, the sequence was quite chaotic.
Elliott image caption needs a full stop
Added.
"LAFC won a free kick from a similar spot in the 39th minute they almost used to score" => "LAFC won a free kick from a similar spot in the 39th minute which they almost used to score"
Fixed with some tweaks.
"In the 128th minute, LAFC equalized through a Diego Palacios cross that Gareth Bale headed in" => "In the 128th minute, LAFC equalized when Gareth Bale headed in a Diego Palacios cross"
"(now known as BMO Stadium)" - don't think this is relevant as this name came into use after the final was played. I would either remove this or say "from ... known as BMO Stadium"
Moved to the Venue section, since it still has some minor relevance.
Would add "from 2023" instead of "now" since the latter word is a bit vague.
Changed and cited.
"... but LAFC won the Supporters' Shield with the wins tiebreaker." ==> So LAFC won the tiebreaker and were allowed to play the match at their home stadium. Why was/is there no neutral ground to host the final?
The highest-seeded finalist hosts; the explanation is given at the
MLS Cup article and probably doesn't make sense to repeat in the articles for each edition.
Understood, thanks
"LAFC also finished as runners-up in the 2020 CONCACAF Champions League but missed the playoffs in 2021" ==> these are different competitions, I therefore think something like "..., and missed..." (or what you prefer) would fit better here than "but".
Fixed.
Maybe link words such as goalkeeper (in the body of the article), corner kick and draw (in the body and lede)?
Added.
"11–3–3 record" ==> maybe use the
template here to explain that this means 11 wins, 3 losses and 3 draws?
Added.
"Five minuites later" - typo
Fixed.
"equaled the highest-scoring MLS Cup final alongside the 2003 final" ==> who were the teams in 2003 and what was the score?
Added.
"in the Champions League semifinals" ==> semifinals is written with no capital letter, but e.g., "Conference Semifinals" is. Is it standard practice to write the stages of the American competitions with a capital letters but the continental ones without one?
There is a long-running MOS dispute over capitalization and how it works in American sports, but the gist is that the "Conference Semifinals/Finals" are a proper title and branded separately (similar to the Divisional Series in baseball) while in international competitions they are not given special treatment and thus not capitalized.
A man and a woman enslaved in the United States find an opportunity during the War of 1812 to escape their home country and settle down as free people in rural Nova Scotia. Half a century later, their son travels to the American South as a US Navy sailor in the war to end slavery. His grave went unmarked until 2010 when he was honored with a Civil War-era military funeral service. This is one of those instances where you go on vacation, read a historical marker, look to Wikipedia for more information, then end up overhauling the article. I have 7 successful FA nominations so far, plus two FLs. This is my first using non-American English, so I would especially appreciate if anyone can find me misusing Canadian English. Thank you in advance for reading through the article and commenting on the nomination!
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
21:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVetCrop.png/File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVet.jpg need a US tag
{{PD-1996}} added since Canadian copyright law would place it in the public domain as of 1990 (75 years past the 1905 date of creation).
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
13:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Nikkimaria: The earliest publication I can find is the 2010 newspaper article cited in the article. Your question has prompted me to check on the image's original creation date and, according to
the record at the archive that holds the photo, it was created in 1903. For that reason, I have changed the US copyright tag again, this time to {{PD-US-unpublished}}.
File:Harper's_weekly_(1864)_(14784619962)_Crop.jpg: is a more specific tag available?
File:Gun_deck_USS_Richmond_LOC_4a14697v_Crop.jpg: why is this believed to be a work of the federal government? It's credited to what appears to be a private company.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
23:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's a good point. I changed the tag to {{PD-US-unpublished}} since the photographer is unknown but the work was created before 1904.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
13:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Nikkimaria: I believe all image issues you brought up are resolved, including the issue with File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVetCrop.png/File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVet.jpg. Do you agree?
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
23:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"He suffered a serious hand injury and received a Civil War Campaign Medal" → is this the same medal from the previous sentence about the grenade (I assumed so, given the hand injury)? If so, I'd break off the previous sentence after "naval mines" and have a separate sentence about the grenade episode that includes this information rather than repeating the medal bit
"Jackson retired from commercial sailing in 1875, but continued managing" → You can change "Jackson" to "He" since we're still talking about him from the previous sentence, where he's named
"Gun #10, USS Richmond" → unless this is standard practice for these types of things, I would recommend changing to "Gun No. 10" per
MOS:POUND
I can't find a standard. The source uses #, but I think its more appropriate to follow the MOS, so I just changed to match your recommendation.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Early life
"their parents petitioned" → I know what you mean here, but "their" could be a little ambiguous since you've mentioned the children and the families in the first part of this sentence
"In adulthood, Jackson was more than six feet tall" → this doesn't quite fit in here; I would also lean towards questioning its relevance but if you can find a place where it fits I wouldn't object
Removed. Because Jackson is not a super well-documented person, I feel like I need to include every fact I could find about him. This was obviously the hardest to weave into the narrative.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
American Civil War
"At this point in the Civil War" → Does this refer to the specific date of his enlistment or the duration of his service?
"Exploiting Mexico's neutrality, the Confederacy used that country's ports" → it seems a tad clunky to me to name "Mexico" and then use "that country" later in the same sentence. I feel like a rewording that can eliminate the need for separate clauses would be better, perhaps "The Confederacy exploited Mexico's neutrality by using its ports for international trade" or something better you can come up with
"a role he continued to serve" → this is a little picky, but I'd prefer "a role in which he continued to serve" since it sounds more natural to say you "serve in a role" rather than "serve a role"
"At the time, mines were called "torpedoes"." → I think this would be better as a footnote that came after the quote, rather than a full sentence in and of itself. As is, it's a bit confusing as the reader why I'm being told this until I read the next sentence
I think this fact is too crucial for understanding the quote to be relegated to a footnote. Looking over that section, I can't think of a better way to include Farragut's famous quote and have the reader understand what it means. Let me know if you have other thoughts on this.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dugan Murphy Definitely see where you're coming from. Perhaps the two sentences could be combined with a semicolon? "At the time, mines were called "torpedoes"; following the command "Damn the torpedoes..." or something like that? This won't keep me from supporting but the wording of just that sentence still seems off just a bit to me.
PCN02WPS (
talk |
contribs)
18:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I combined the "at the time" sentence with the previous one rather than the following one. Thank you for the idea. The same information is there in the same order, but maybe now the "torpedoes" definition seems less disconnected.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
22:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Nova Scotia became one of four provinces via Canadian Confederation" → this reads a little awkwardly to me; perhaps "as a result of Canadian Confederation"?
Percy Paris's title (which is quite unwieldy) should be capitalized to stay consistent with the other titles in that sentence
Thank you for catching that. Another editor moved everything around in that sentence, which I didn't notice made this necessary. Done.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your attention to the article and your help in improving it! I did sort-of follow your recommendation regarding the torpedoes issue.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
22:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
The lead seems very long for a relatively short article, and
MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests it should consist of "One or two paragraphs".
Is the use of a review of Lincoln's Trident: The West Gulf Blockading Squadron During the Civil War rather than the book itself deliberate?
Yes, in the sense that it provides a summary. I used it as a source for some basic information about the WGBS to contextualize the information more specific to Jackson that I got from other sources.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"to accept a position as ship's cook on the Saint John, New Brunswick-based Marlborough, sailing from Liverpool to New York City." This implies that he boarded the ship in Liverpool. Is that correct? If so, is it known how he got there?
"advancing to a new post on the USS Potomac". Suggest "advancing" → 'moving'.
The VANSDA source said "advanced", so I figured I would use that here to make clear that he was moving into a higher status position.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok.
"actively blockading off the coast of Veracruz, Mexico." That should be 'actively blockading the coast of Veracruz, Mexico.' Also, at this point a reader is thinking "Why is the Union navy blockading Mexico?!"
"Documentation of the injury varies in both cause and severity." Do you mean something like 'Documentation relating to the injury varies in its descriptions of both its cause and severity'?
"Like most Black Canadian veterans of the Union Navy,[d] Jackson returned to his home country" read together with note d "About half of the Black Canadian veterans of the Union Army stayed in the US" does not make sense to me.
"Benjamin Jackson (January 2, 1835 – August 20, 1915) was a Canadian sailor and farmer"; "Like most Black British North American veterans of the Union Navy". Canadian, British?
Jackson was born in the British North American colony of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia was still a British colony until two years after the Civil War ended, when it gained independence through confederation with the other now-Canadian provinces (48 years before Jackson's death). So it seems right to me to introduce him as Canadian in the lead, but refer to the Civil War vets as British North American if they are from anywhere in what is now Canada. Let me know if you have further thoughts on that, particularly if there is a policy on this I'm not aware of.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
22:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this is important information about Jackson and should be in the article. I think your summary above - in green - is admirable. (I assume it is readily sourced. :-) ) Why not insert it somewhere in "Early life"?
I reworded the first two sentences of the Early life section to clarify that Nova Scotia was a colony at the time of his birth. I also added a sentence to the Employment and family section to mark the moment when the Jacksons became Canadian citizens via Confederation.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
18:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"He was still working as a peddler by 1907." "by" → 'in'.
"Jackson started receiving a military pension of US$4 (equivalent to $79.62 in 2023) a month upon discharge from the navy." Suggest 'Jackson received a military pension of US$4 (equivalent to $79.62 in 2023) a month upon discharge from the navy.'
"The pension increased to US$8 a month in 1888, then $10 in 1890, then $14 in 1892." Maybe 'The pension increased to US$8 a month in 1888, $10 in 1890, and $14 in 1892' to avoid the repeat of "then"?
"He later increased it to $17 a month, then $20 circa 1910". "He"? Do you mean 'It was'?
I was trying to make clear that the increases came because of Jackson's persistence with the pension office, but I realize the other sentences around this one make that clear. Changed to "it was".
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Gog the Mild: Thank you for the additional comments! I particularly appreciate having the eyes of a Civil War buff read over the article. I have addressed all of your comments. Do you think anything warrants further discussion?
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Good work. A couple of thoughts above. (I would not consider myself a Civil War buff, I am not even American. But I am a MilHist buff and passably knowledgeable on the
age of sail.)
Gog the Mild (
talk)
18:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks! I feel better about the whole Canada vs. British North America dynamic after adding a little more clarifying content. Do you see anything else worth discussing about the article?
Matarisvan
I reviewed this article at the peer review and found it well written and likely to pass FAC. There is only one thing I would like to suggest,
Dugan Murphy:
Consider restructuring the lead so that it is 4 paragraphs long, which is the FAC criteria.
Hi, I am on a work trip till the 22nd and don't have my laptop on me. I hope to get a source review done by the 23rd or 24th. I hope that is alright. Cheers
Matarisvan (
talk)
18:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Coordinators are free to say otherwise, but I think that should be just fine. I'm still working on attracting more reviewers to look at other aspects of the article.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
19:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Jackson earned a Civil War pension for more than 50 years," I might say "received" rather than "earned". He earned it through his service, he received it later.
"In 1867, Canadian Confederation made Nova Scotia one of four provinces; Jackson and his family became Canadian citizens" I have my doubts on this. I did not think Canada had a separate citizenship until 1947. I would not think that Jackson's status as a British subject changed in 1867.
@
Wehwalt: Thank you for these comments, especially for catching the citizenship thing. That was me misreading the source and not fully grasping the difference between a subject and a citizen. Do you see any other issues keeping this from being FAC-quality?
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. It looks good. No, I didn't see anything in particular that would prevent it from becoming a FA, but I didn't check into the sources in detail and it's not really my area of expertise (such as it is) so there may be things I would miss.
Wehwalt (
talk)
21:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about the
Fountain Fire, a large and destructive
wildfire in rural
Northern California in 1992. The fire itself largely took place over two dramatic days in late August, but its effects persisted in the region long afterward. It destroyed multiple small communities along the
State Route 299 corridor and was only contained by the efforts of more than 4,400 firefighters, making it one of the most destructive and expensive wildfires in state history; as fires in the Golden State have gotten bigger and badder it no longer makes any top 10 lists but remains no slouch. The article was successfully nominated for GA in January 2023 and received a peer review in February 2024. This is my first FAC nomination.
Lead: what is "long-range spotting"? (Googling I get things about hunting telescopes).
"Spotting" refers to wildfire behavior wherein embers and firebrands are lofted by wind or the fire's own convective smoke column and, landing in unburnt vegetation, ignite and thus spread the fire quickly and unpredictably. I've changed the lead to "...behavior such as long-range
spot fires", wiki-linking to
spot fire and
crown fire next to it for good measure. —
Penitentes (
talk)
13:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Background: TIL {{
rp}} has a quote option. I am not sure I like it, but my personal preference is not a FAC criterion.
Could you say something here about what the vegetation / forests in Shasta County were like before the fire?
Great thought. I've added a short paragraph to the "Background" section giving some general geographic context and describing the forest—I don't think it feels redundant to the information given in the "Post-fire landscape" section but please do tell me if you feel that way. —
Penitentes (
talk)
14:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
August 20: " Investigators found pine trees two–three feet (0.61–0.91 m) in diameter snapped in half.[15][19] Such vortices have been recorded ..." so was this snapping blamed on fire vortices?
A map of the local area helping the reader see what is where (a bit more zoomed in than the main map) would be great to understand this section better.
August 22: what is a "hand line"? (I apologise for my lack of fire and firefighting related vocabulary)
Hand line refers to
firebreaks dug/cut using hand tools instead of by bulldozers, as is also common. No need for an apology, I'm so immersed in the subject that it's very helpful to know what terms can and can't be gleaned by fresh readers. I've rephrased it in the article to "constructed
firebreaks by hand" and added that wiki-link to firebreak. —
Penitentes (
talk)
14:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Firefighting effort: is it worth giving more context on the $22 million by using {{
inflation}} or similar?
Closures and evacuations: how long did the evacuation order last?
I agree that this is necessary. It'll take a little longer to dig through the sources but I will try and do it this evening/this weekend, along with the map you mentioned above. —
Penitentes (
talk)
15:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, I think this is largely done. It's difficult to pinpoint what communities were evacuated for which time periods, but I've added this text, which is supported by existing references. "Some residents of burned areas were able to access their properties on August 23 and 24. By August 25, Big Bend, Moose Camp, and Hillcrest were the only communities still under mandatory evacuation orders, and almost all evacuees were able to return by August 28." —
Penitentes (
talk)
21:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, found a Los Angeles Times source and was able to add this new sentence right before the two sentences above: "The majority of these evacuees were able to return to their homes on August 22, leaving 2,000–3,000 still displaced from Moose Camp, Montgomery Creek, Hillcrest, and Round Mountain." I think this now pretty well covers the coverage and duration of the evac orders to the extent the sourcing allows. —
Penitentes (
talk)
14:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Salvage logging: " 10 families belonging to the Pit River Tribe of Native Americans occupied Smith Camp " had occupied?
The prose is in excellent shape already. Some specialist terminology could perhaps be glossed/avoided, but overall I find very little to complain about. I am amazed that this is your first FAC. —
Kusma (
talk)
22:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's very kind! I've responded to all of the comments above, and made changes pursuant to them (barring the new map and the evacuation duration). —
Penitentes (
talk)
15:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Excellent changes. I am happy to hear you are working on an additional map and have one minor point above, but this is already good enough for me to support. —
Kusma (
talk)
21:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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)
15:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Understood. I've left notes on a couple WikiProject talk pages inviting users to comment, but assuming those do not pan out I'll happily accept the archival (any feedback > no feedback) and spend some time reviewing GANs and FACs before I re-nominate this article. —
Penitentes (
talk)
16:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Matarisvan
Hi
Penitentes, good to see this article up at FAC. I was the reviewer at the peer review and found the article to be very well written. I can happily support this article for promotion to FA class. Also, I would appreciate if you could check out a PR I opened recently, linked
here. Thanks in advance, and cheers
Matarisvan (
talk)
11:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi Matarisvan, that's very kind! I was very happy to receive your feedback in my PR request—they were helpful suggestions all—and I'd be happy to lend some time to yours. —
Penitentes (
talk)
18:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The source image for
File:Fountain Fire burn scar.jpg should be correct, the full image extent just doesn't show unless you click it on the source page. If there's a way I can clarify that, let me know!
Converted Bonnicksen to 'cite report'. If #92 is the FEMA link, there's no actual associated report, so it should be OK as is?
@
Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks for your patience! I've added licenses for all underlying data for both of the maps. If any concerns remain relating to the above points, let me know; if not, I will move on to addressing your spot-check comments below tomorrow. —
Penitentes (
talk)
03:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about an 8-mile-long railroad in Rhode Island with a surprisingly long and storied history. It ran from 1876 to 1981 and exists today as the
William C. O'Neill Bike Path. The article recently passed GA, and with the help of a book on the railroad I've been able to expand it to the point I believe it is ready for FAC. It's been over a year since my last nomination, so forgive me if I am a little rusty.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
16:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review
Suggest adding alt text
File:Nn_Narragansett_Pier_Railroad._Steam_locomotive_on_steel_bridge.jpg: when and where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Ditto File:NPRR_No_1_'Narragansett'_built_by_Mason_in_1876_and_used_until_about_1891.jpg
These were uploaded by an editor who is, to put it bluntly, not competent (I removed a swath of text they added to the article which was basically copied from online). They've uploaded all sorts of photos like this that they found online and just assumed were public domain without any investigation. The photo of locomotive 1 is also found in the Edward J. Ozog collection:
[18]. The other image can be replaced with a variety of alternatives.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
13:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the long delay in response - I've gone through a difficult move, started a new job, and had my car die on me in the past week. I'm not really sure how to respond to that - the end result of what you're proposing is to delete half the photos from the article (though
[19] may be ok as a postcard which was therefore published). I don't have much in the way of further information on these photos, other that most were published in A Short Haul to the Bay in 1969. I would attempt to keep some of these photos as fair use if they are deleted, because it would be gutting the photos of the article to the point important information would be lost.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
According to
[22], Brown has been collecting these portraits since the 1800s. The portrait collection has been exhibited online by Brown's
Center for Digital Scholarship. The portraits are physically located across the university in various buildings and libraries.
Per Commons, I am unclear on if the original exhibiting of the portraits in university buildings counts as the publication date, or the later (appears to be around 2003) online hosting does. That said, I think we have to be realistic that a portrait completed in 1880 is unlikely to still be protected by copyright.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
15:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I happened upon another portrait of Rowland G. Hazard today, which I uploaded
here. First published in 1889 so unambiguously public domain. I'm still not convinced the current photo in the article isn't also public domain but we have an alternative.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
00:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Streamline_Bus_and_Car-Evans_Motor-Harris_%26_Ewing-1930.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
Nikkimaria (
talk)
05:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll admit to having a penchant for short leads, but in this case
MOS:LEADLENGTH agrees with me. The main body is about 4200 words, which suggests 2-3 paragraphs. Some suggestions for things that can be cut, but these are just a few examples. I'll leave it to you to see what else can be trimmed:
"chiefly Rowland G. Hazard", for a summary, no need to go into this level of detail
"Peace Dale and Wakefield" it's enough to just say "textile mills", no need to specify the towns they were in for this summary.
"absorbed by the Hazards", of course they absorbed it, they owned a thing that was losing money, who else was going to absorb the loss?
"The Hazards also operated a connecting steamboat service to Newport." This article is about the railroad, so that's not essential for a summary.
inherited a mill I'm guessing that means
textile mill, but only because I know a bit about New England history. You should specify what type of mill. Oh, yeah, you say so in the next sentence, but still better to add one word up front to keep the reader from wondering.
The Hazards at first focused on Are you talking here about the father or the sons?
The Hazard family had a very annoying habit of naming one person "Rowland Hazard", his son "Rowland Gibson Hazard", and his son "Rowland Hazard". According to Henwood, the Hazards we are concerned with are Rowland Gibson Hazard, founder of the railroad, and his brother Isaac Peace Hazard. Rowland Hazard, founder of the mills, retired in 1819 according to Henwood, but Heppner says the brothers inherited the mill from him in the late 1820s. Trying to piece together the truth here.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I feel your pain. When I wrote
Margaret Sibella Brown, I discovered that the family seemed to name every newborn girl some variation on Sibella for many generations. I guess when you've got a name that works, you just stick with it :-)
RoySmith(talk)16:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
but focused exclusively on rephrase to avoid repetitive use of "focused"
destroyed the factory and necessitated rebuilding If the factory was destroyed, then it's obvious that it was necessary to rebuild if they were going to continue the business. On the other hand, it wasn't really necessary; they could have just sold the land for another use and not rebuilt at all. So some clarification would help here.
They made a choice to rebuild and to take the opportunity afforded by this to change their product line. I've gathered from elsewhere that a major incident where Rowland G. Hazard intervened in favor of a free black man from Newport being held falsely as an escaped slave in Louisiana, and secured the release of over 100 others in similar situations. He also was active with the Republican Party once that came into being. I redid the sentences here.
this source draws a direct link between Hazard's activities and the change in business as well, but dates the change to 1849. Not sure which is correct.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm still having trouble with this section. When you say "had begun to harm the sale of cotton products in the slaveholding southern states" are you saying that the south in general was buying fewer cotton products, or that southern buyers were specifically not buying from the Hazards as a political protest/boycott? I'm guessing the later, in which case, how about something like:
Rowland G. Hazard's strong abolitionist sympathies had begun to harm his ability to sell cotton products in the slaveholding southern states, as southern buyers turned to other suppliers. This led the brothers to switch to manufacturing high-quality wool products which they could sell into more favorable markets.
I'm guessing that wool was more popular in the north, where it was colder so people needed fabrics from which they could make warmer clothes? Be that as it may, I'm still thinking you want a paragraph break here. One paragraph would talk about their choice of products in response to market pressures: moving away from cotton to avoid the (I'm assuming) boycott issues, and separately moving from low-grade woolens to higher-grade woolens because (I'm assuming) that was more profitable. And then, in a second paragraph, talk about the engineering factors; switching to a different power source (steam vs water) and the issues that arose from that having to do with transporting coal for the steam boilers.
RoySmith(talk)23:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Rowland G. Hazard's strong abolitionist sympathies harmed the sale of cotton products in the slaveholding southern states this is an abrupt change of topic. What does this have to do with what comes before (the fire and rebuilding) or after (the re-powering to use steam)? Seems like it belongs in another section somewhere.
The significance of this, according to Heppner, was a shift in products from lower quality cottons, wools, and linens to woolen yarns of high quality. The transition from water power to steam power took place shortly afterwards, leading to a need for coal (imported by ship from mid-Atlantic ports like Philadelphia, as Rhode Island had little in the way of coal). The mills being several miles from the port at Narragansett Pier made getting the coal there a problem, as there were no trucks back then. This was one of the reasons the Hazards built the railroad. Heppner does tend to go into what some might call off topic or too much exposition, in that he tried to make a book enjoyable both for experts with the subject matter and the general reader, so maybe some of this detail can be trimmed from the article. The key point is that when the mills switched to steam power it provided impetus for a railroad to get the coal from the port to the mills. Henwood also mentions Rowland G. Hazard as an abolitionist but doesn't link that to the railroad directly. He does mention Rowland G.'s investments in the building of the Union Pacific Railroad which I appear to have neglected to add to the article previously.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
neither efficient or cheap for the mill drop "for the mill". For whom else would the efficiency or cost be an issue? Also, I suppose this is a style preference, but saying "inefficient and expensive" seems more straight forward. Taking that one step further, being inefficient implies extra cost, so maybe all that could be reduced to just "was expensive".
I reworded as "The boilers required coal, imported to the coastal town of Narragansett Pier four miles (6.4 km) southeast by ships and then loaded on wagons and brought to the mills by wagons, a process costly in both time and money." Henwood mentions the coal could be bought cheaply from Philadelphia and imported by schooner, but a railroad was needed to move the coal cheaply and quickly from the docks to the mills.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
(commonly known as the Stonington Line, for its western terminus in Stonington, Connecticut) This is a long and complicated sentence. I'd leave this parenthetical out completely, as knowing it doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of this article's subject.
I can definitely remove most of the parenthetical, but I've been told that if I'm going to use an alternate name (and the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad was almost universally known as the Stonington Line) that name needs to be introduced.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
hampered the mill's ability In the lead, you talk about two mills (Peace Dale and Wakefield), but here you say there's just one. That needs to be sorted out.
That sentence in the lead is one of the only sentences remaining from before I rewrote the article. While Karr says mills in Peace Dale and Wakefield, Heppner and Henwood concur that the Hazards' mills were in Peace Dale, though Henwood states mills were also present in nearby Wakefield (the two villages are so close together you can walk from one to the other in less than half an hour). He writes "By mid-century, the textile industry had developed and was centered in the villages of Peace Dale and nearby Wakefield. The Peace Dale Manufacturing Company, controlled by the Hazard family, dominated the economic life of the community". The driving force for building the railroad was the Hazard family mills, but they certainly wouldn't turn away other paying freight customers. I'm going to change the lead to just discuss the Hazard family mills in Peace Dale.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Elisha R. Potter provided an additional $15,000 in funding, use {{inflation}} (here and elsewhere)
when the stockholders held a meeting on January 26, 1876, I'd say "subsequent meeting". Yes, you can work out from the dates that this isn't the same meeting referred to earlier, but this'll make it more obvious. Stopping to figure out the chronology interrupts the reader's flow, so save them the effort.
The Stonington Line also agreed to subscribe $15,000 towards the line's construction between 1875 and 1876. More fuzzy chronology. After you talk about a meeting in 1876, you back up to talk about an agreement in 1875. It's also not immediately clear what "the line" refers to. The Stonington Line or the proposed Narragansett Pier line?
This is sourced to the Stonington Line's annual report dated October 1876
[24]. The directors wrote "In accordance with the policy heretofore pursued, of aiding to a moderate extent in the construction of Branch Roads likely to increase the business of this Company, $15,000 has been invested in the capital stock of the Narragansett Pier Railroad, at par." The report is "for the 13 months ending 30th September, 1876" making it unclear which year the investment was made exactly. This made the Stonington Line the biggest stockholder besides members of the Hazard family. Open to suggestions on how to word this better. Perhaps we drop "between 1875 and 1876" since the investment had to have been made before the line opened and that should be fairly clear to the reader.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reworded as "The Stonington Line also agreed to subscribe $15,000 towards the line's construction in hopes that the opening of the new railroad would provide it with more business."
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm going to (politely) press you on using {{inflation}}. For stuff that happened 150-ish years ago, our readers won't have a feel for whether $15,000 is a lot, an astronomical lot, or something in between.
RoySmith(talk)21:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Now done, except for the sentence in the Great Depression section where four dollar amounts are called out. I think adding the inflation templates 4 times in a row would be very unwieldy for reading.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That seems reasonable, although maybe just convert the first one in the sentence? BTW, take a look at the markup in
American Bank Note Company Printing Plant where I got it to generate a less verbose version, for example $10 million ($339 million in 2023). I think I've settled on using the default "equivalant to" version the first time in an article, then the shorter version after that.
RoySmith(talk)13:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A locomotive was purchased from the Mason Machine Works... this is an overly complex sentence. The inclusion of a multiple-sentence quote makes it particularly difficult to parse. Also, when was the purchase? And what's a "flag stave"?
Flag staves allow for the mounting of flags on a locomotive
like this. They were an optional extra Rowland G. Hazard had no right to demand when he was paying a rock bottom price for the locomotive. The locomotive was ordered in May 1876 and arrived in June, both of which I have clarified in the text. I've broken up the sentence.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
22:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
single tickets were available for travel on both railroads I assume this was some kind of revenue-share arrangement? If there's any information available, it might be interesting to explain a bit how that worked. Did the customer get a discount vs purchasing the two fares separately?
Henwood writes "Tickets were sold to all points on the Stonington Road under the tariff arrangement with that carrier, but the Narragansett Pier Railroad was unable to make similar "drawback" arrangements with other New England lines". That's all the detail the book gives.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
22:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
the railroad's sole passenger car I'm guessing this was
Mixed train operation? If so, link to that.
There was mixed train operation later on, but at this point the company ran separate passenger and freight trains. The locomotive would shuttle back and forth with the line's sole passenger car.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
22:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Travelers from Providence could reach Narragansett Pier in approximately 80 minutes' time as a sad commentary on the current state of rail in the US, that is significantly faster than Google Maps claims you can do today.
Travelers from as far away as New York City ... to the Narragansett Pier Railroad for the final stretch overly long and complex sentence.
(done with everything through the end of "Second period of Hazard Family operations")
(picking up with "American Associates ownership" in
Special:Permalink/1231293569)
at a cost of $25,000, saying "for" would be simpler (thinking lovingly of my copy of Strunk and White).
Actually, I'd refactor these two sentences into "American Associates purchased the railroad from the Hazard family in April 1946 at a cost of $25,000.[2][59] American was the family trust of Royal Little who was also the founder and owner of Textron, then a textiles company."
Passenger service was subsequently officially terminated at the end of that year Why "officially"? That makes me think that service continued in some unofficial capacity. Also, drop "subsequently" that's implicit in "at the end of that year".
The authorization to terminate passenger service didn't come from the RI Public Utilities Commission until the end of the year, and as a common carrier the railroad couldn't just decide not to carry them on its own. The few remaining passengers were carried either in taxis or the railroad superintendent's car from June until the railroad received permission to end passenger service. De facto, there were no passenger trains run after June 1952. Unlike the
Wood River Branch Railroad, I don't see any indication passengers were carried on trains informally after this point (that is, until Hanold enters the picture later). Added to the article.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
With passenger service gone, only minimal freight traffic was carried to and from Narragansett Pier I'm not understanding this sentence. It seems to imply that the ending of passenger service was the cause of the decreased freight traffic.
The intended message is that passenger service was pretty much all that went to Narragansett Pier. Hanold says the company average 3 inbound freight cars a year there, and the higher outbound total of 51 carloads over the last 5 years was only due to a military base being decommissioned and the military shipping out a bunch of their equipment by rail. Added more detail about this.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think there's a few left. I am dealing with a difficult situation irl still (I don't have a car and am working to get a new one) and that has greatly limited my editing time. I was hoping to have that dealt with by now but it's taking longer than I'd like.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Update, happy to report that my IRL circumstances have improved as I have a car finally. I should be much more active in the coming week and hopefully address most if not all of the remaining reviewer comments. Thank you all for your patience.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
20:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
RoySmith: The article should be ready for you to take a second look now. The only thing I'd say is outstanding is the lead section, but given Dugan Murphy below supports the lead section as is (and I agree with him personally) I'm reluctant to cut much more from it.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll defer on the lead length. The only thing I'm still going to push on is the bit in "Background and formation" about the abolitionist sympathies. What you've got now is awkward. I've suggested one way in my comments above that it might get reworked, but I'm not wedded to that. I do think this needs some kind of reworking to make it all flow better.
RoySmith(talk)23:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Poor's Manual is more fully titled "Poor's Manual of the Railroads of the United States". I would also throw in the volume number (37) since that's readily available.
Setting over a dozen citations to Railroads of Rhode Island across a page range of pp. 126–133, 155–157 seems unfair to the reader, especially when you use sfns for Henwood, who is also cited throughout.
Karr is also a book with a page range reused several time, but I would call that less egregious because the whole thing only uses a 3-page range
Utterly a prose nitpick in the middle of my source review, but "compelled by complaints to reduce its passenger fares in 1901, though passengers continued to complain" - complaint/complain in the same sentence feels repetitive.
That's actually it, I didn't find much formatting to snark about
I did clarify in the caption of the legacy image that it's a replica station, feel free to revert if I misunderstood
Spot checks
Not required but doing anyway to be extra. Performed basically at random from what seemed interesting or was accessible.
Ref 1 good
I don't have full access to Heppner, but information checked through Google snippets didn't turn up any issues
Ref 18 good
Ref 20 was annoying to find on the page, but checks out
Refs 27, 28, 29 all good
Refs 33, 34, 36, 37 also good - I've asked to look at ref 35 mainly since I'm already doing this paragraph Recieved and checks out.
Ref 50 good, access via TWL - might be nice to have a link to the ProQuest version, since it's "via" ProQuest, I had to go looking myself :P
Ref 57 good
Ref 62 I can't access but the info is supported by Heppner even though it's not cited here (was looking at Heppner citation for Wakefield Branch Company buying a locomotive and it's nearby in Heppner)
I'm satisfied by the source formatting. Spot checks turned up no issues with either accuracy or copyvio. Sources used are appropriately high-quality; old newspaper sources are used judiciously to support non-contentious statements or reportage as it was stated at the time. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)07:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It appears that the last name of the author of the book in the references list is Henwood, and his middle initials are N. J. The way it is written out, it looks like "N. J. Henwood" is his last name. I recommend moving the initials to the first name parameter. That would of course mean editing all the SFN citations to match.
What do you think about moving the Heppner reference listing to the General references section and using more page-specific inline citations to it, as you do with the Henwood book?
Why is the Legacy section a subsection of the Later owners section rather than at the same hierarchical level?
I felt weird about having a section at the same level with only a few sentences, but if consensus is making this a full section header is the way to go I'm fine with that.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
How is the See also section helpful to the reader?
The intent was to link the other Rhode Island shortlines, most of which have long histories like this one. I've debated making a good topic on these since all 5 entries are GA or higher.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe this is just me, but I would prefer to see the References section changed to "Citations" and the General references section changed to "References". I'm saying that because I've seen "General references" used for lower-quality articles that acknowledge generally where the information came from but lack inline citations.
Rowland G. Hazard's strong abolitionist sympathies harmed the sale of cotton products in the slaveholding southern states. Is that because anti-abolitionists boycotted Hazard's products?
This played a part, yes. I made substantial changes to this area in response to RoySmith's comments above which hopefully make this clearer for you as well.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I recommend changing "slaveholding southern states" to "slave states" and Wikilinking
slave state. That is, in case that sentence is rewritten to take the focus away from slave states to people within them who may have been boycotting Hazard's products.
not long after the rebuild steam power started to be used instead – This phrase needs a comma after "rebuild", but I recommend this rewording instead: "it converted to steam power shortly after the rebuild".
The sentence that starts The boilers required coal is a bit unwieldy. I think it would be easier to read if broken up. Also, the "or" should be "nor". If kept as one sentence, you could change wagons, which was neither efficient or cheap for the mill. to "wagons; this was neither efficient nor cheap for the mill."
approval for a new charter in 1868 – was there an old charter?
No, this was the first charter, so I removed "new".
The charter was approved in 1868, and the survey was completed "promptly" afterward, but construction couldn't start because of a financial panic that didn't start until 5 years later? Is it that "promptly" means 5+ years or neither party had ever built a railroad before implies a 5-year delay?
The Hazards struggled to raise funding for the railroad. The Stonington Line's $15,000 didn't come until 1875/6. Beyond the Hazard family, there wasn't really anyone in the area at that time with the money to drop on financing a new railroad beyond small purchases of shares by local residents and businesses. Henwood says "There was a long struggle to raise money, and many disappointing setbacks were encountered. As a result of the Panic of 1873, the financial climate grew increasingly chilly for new enterprises." I have made this more explicit in the text.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
19:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
could count on sounds a little too far off
WP:NPOV for my taste.
The two uses of Rowland G. Hazard's full name in the Construction section would read better as just "Hazard". By that point, there haven't been any mentions of other Hazards for a while.
At least the first mention of his full name is appropriate, I believe, especially since "Hazards" plural is used in the previous sentence. Rowland G. was the biggest driver for funding and building the railroad, but his relative John N. Hazard was company president (Henwood writes, He was of a studious and retiring disposition, and spent more time with his books and chemical experiments than he did on railroad affairs). I am personally inclined to keep the second mention as well; two uses of the full name over three fairly lengthy paragraphs seems reasonable to me.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
23:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would like to see a couple of contextual words to help the reader understand what a flag stand/stave is. Like, "Disappointed that he would be unable to fly flags from the front of the train, Hazard complained: 'We do not find flag stands on the engine'".
The sources emphasize that Mason, very much busy running an entire manufacturing company, was so peeved by Hazard that he took time out of his day to write a personal response lambasting his demands. Henwood says "On July 24th, the exasperated builder took time to reply to this customer who had purchased the grand total of one locomotive at a minimum price and then demanded extra frills", and Heppner states this was the culmination of multiple letters sent to Mason by Hazard. For that reason, I think it is necessary.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
reply to Hazard stating should be "reply to Hazard, stating:".
The exasperated Mason quote is a bit long. I think it would be better to summarize most of it and only quote the interesting non-NPOV bits like "expensive and boyish".
I removed "One pump is sufficient", which I felt was not very interesting compared to the "expensive and boyish" comment and Mason's pointed words about how the locomotive was the cheapest he had ever sold.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Add something to define side-dump car if you're going to use that term. You could Wikilink
Side dump car in the hopes that it is someday expanded, but at this time, it is very unhelpful.
I agree that the gondola article needs some expansion (I wrote the history section there). I've added that link as a starting point, since at least the photo there makes is clearer what's being referred to.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
23:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Culprit is poor word choice for maintaining NPOV.
I believe this is an accurate reflection of the source, which has an entire section entitled "amateurs assemble a railroad" and repeatedly points out their last minute scrambles to address issues and ill preparation for the task of running a railroad. I think we need to remember that NPOV does not mean "no POV".
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
(despite Hazard hoping to open the line on July 1) – I don't think this needs to be in parentheses.
Initially, four round trips were run daily for passengers, but demand quickly grew to the point this number was increased to six could be shorter and more straightforward: "The line initially ran four round trips per day, but demand quickly grew this number to six"
filled to the brim is a poor choice of phrase for maintaining NPOV.
Respectfully disagree. It is accurate to the source and not an opinion. I am a proponent of encyclopedic writing and interesting writing, and don't see the two as being at odds. This is an encyclopedia written by humans for humans, and I do not see anything in NPOV that says writing such as this example is against policy.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
ice was imported in trains for cooling during the summers – being a Maine historian familiar with the 19th-century New England ice industry, I take this to mean that ice shipped on this line was used for refrigeration and maybe air conditioning. If that's the case, I recommend making that more obvious.
Yes, it was precisely that. I see how this might be interpreted as cooling the trains themselves, so I reworded. The sentence is now "ice was imported in trains for local use as a coolant during the summers" with "ice was imported" linked to
ice trade. Since you're more familiar with this topic, let me know if this conveys the meaning properly.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
was started could just be "started".
I don't agree, I believe "was started" is the proper language as the act of starting was something done by the employees, not something the engine did by itself.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
necessary - passengers – that should be an en dash, not a hyphen.
Halfway through the Operation by the Hazard Family section, Narragansett Pier is being referred to as a resort town, but until then, the reader has only heard about the town's industrial concerns. I recommend adding a little bit to the Background section about the town's resort economy. Or at the very least, preface the first mention of Narragansett Pier of a resort town with something like "Narragansett Pier's tourism economy was also growing" or something like that.
I apparently read your mind, because I only just read this now but added Narragansett Pier's potential as a coastal resort had been known to businessmen since the construction of its first hotel in 1856, but significant growth was held back by poor transportation links earlier today.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
second locomotive used – I had to read this twice. The second locomotive was second-hand?
Yes, their urgency for a second locomotive combined with limited funding meant they ended up with a used locomotive (originally built 1872) from the Providence and Worcester Railroad. Reworded as "purchased a used locomotive from the Providence and Worcester Railroad".
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
20,000 short tons (18,000 long tons; 18,000 t) of freight – What does this mean?
The Wikilink for "passenger train" comes late in the body. I recommend moving the link to the first use of that term, earlier in the body. I also recommend a piped link from "passenger business" in the lead.
Does "the Pier" refer to the Narragansett Pier or a pier within Narragansett Pier?
"The Pier" is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. It should be if this is an abbreviation for the town name.
The Narragansett Pier Railroad was compelled by complaints to reduce its passenger fares in 1901, though passengers continued to complain that the railroad required long layover times for travelers connecting with trains to and from Providence. The two halves of this sentence don't seem as connected as the "though" connector makes it seem. Or am I missing something?
the trip to Narragansett Pier was only a matter of minutes – from where?
The monopoly allegation was also made in 1898 by proponents of a new steamboat wharf in Narragansett Pier that would connect to Providence, who pointed to the railroad's high rates (at the time 50 cents between Kingston and Narragansett pier) and surcharges on coal shipments. I recommend rewording and probably splitting into more than one sentence. Reading this the first time, it looked like Providence pointed, though I understand it was the proponents who pointed.
They found a buyer "They" are the Hazards, not the Pier, right?
They found a buyer in the New Haven, which under the control of J. P. Morgan was fearful of the Southern New England Railway and its plans to build a competing rail line in the area; were the Southern New England to buy the Narragansett Pier, it would have an outlet to Narragansett Bay. This sentence is unwieldy. Who is under Morgan's control? The buyer? How could Southern New England Railway buy the town of Narragansett Pier?
I think "small change" is a poor choice of phrase for maintaining NPOV.
Ditto "one-way track towards bankruptcy".
shareholders that distrusted should be "shareholders who distrusted".
Reworded to better describe what I intended to convey, which was that for a company that operated streetcars, trying to integrate a short line which only used steam locomotives was particularly difficult.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
01:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
I recommend changing Though it was never an intentional act, the Narragansett Pier Railroad's new owners neglected to "The Narragansett Pier Railroad's new owners unintentionally neglected". It's less wordy and, in my opinion, more aligned with NPOV.
The article starts using USRA without making clear what it is abbreviating.
which could not claim much importance in the war effort seems tacked onto its sentence without being that relevant to it.
How did the USRA cut passenger rail service and overwork the locomotives at the same time?
By neglecting their maintenance.
I would argue that the "finally" in "finally failed" is unnecessary and leans away from NPOV.
I don't understand what you mean. This is "finally" because there was a previous history of financial trouble. The "finally" makes it clear that this wasn't a spontaneous bankruptcy but the culmination of years of financial problems. That doesn't have anything to do with NPOV as I understand it.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As part of the resolution of the Rhode Island Company's assets, the Narragansett Pier lease was cancelled in 1920; the USRA returned operations to the Hazard family on March 1, 1920. So the lease was canceled, then the Hazards took back control?
This is because of the nationalization. The Sea View failed in 1919, but federal control didn't end until March 1, 1920, and the court cases dealing with the Rhode Island Company's assets concluded with the Narragansett Pier Railroad lease being cancelled before the end of federal control.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
already proven to be a maintenance headache just to get operational is a poor phrase choice for NPOV.
I don't really agree, but nevertheless I have redone this section to give more detail on the issues with the railcar and removed this phrasing in the process.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
citing competition by cars and trucks – given the predominant use of car for rolling stock, I recommend replacing with "automobile".
was not ignorant of the role of automobiles is poor phrasing for NPOV.
What part of this contradicts NPOV? NPOV does not mean that writing cannot be expressive, and the sentence is an accurate description of the state of affairs and a faithful representation of the views of the cited sources. Management knew that the automobile was a threat and decided "if you can't beat them, join them".
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
(in large part, this covered the route of the abandoned Sea View Railroad). I think this would read better as its own sentence outside parentheses.
spelled the end is not a great phrase for maintaining NPOV.
I don't know what to say to this beyond I simply do not agree. Using language such as this doesn't have anything to do with POV, and your interpretation seems to be that any sort of remotely expressive language is disallowed. I do not believe that is how NPOV is intended, and have never faced such criticisms before in any of my GANs or FACs.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
To improve readability, I think which sat on valuable land in demand for commercial use should be set apart from the rest of the sentence with en dashes rather than commas.
At the behest of the State of Rhode Island, which was building a highway crossing the railroad right-of-way near Narragansett Pier, the now seldom-used segment beyond Wakefield was abandoned, shortening the line to approximately five miles (8.0 km) in length. Unfortunately for the state, by the time the Interstate Commerce Commission gave the railroad permission to abandon the segment, work on the bridge had progressed to the point it was cheaper to complete it than to abandon its construction. I don't understand what's happening here.
The state asked the railroad to abandon the very infrequently used part of the line from Wakefield to Narragansett Pier so that a proposed highway crossing the route would no longer need a bridge. The railroad eventually obtained ICC approval, but by the time it came through work had already started on the bridge and it was now cheaper to simply finish the bridge than demolish what had been built and redo the highway to cross the former railroad alignment at grade.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Where does the quote "liquified fish guts" come from?
The entire Legacy section should be rewritten to improve shelf life: has been converted to "was converted" and since 2010 terminates under a mile from Narragansett Pier to "in 2010 was extended to a mile outside Narragansett Pier". For the last two sentences, adding "as of 2007/2017" is appropriate because those publications cannot say what is standing today.
I'm of the opinion that everything in the infobox should be drawn from the article body. Can you add the track gauge to the body? I'm also not sure the 8-mile length shows up in the body. The reporting mark doesn't.
The length was actually 8.5 miles, though officially reported as 8 in a number of sources. This has been corrected and both sourced and stated in the body. The reporting mark comes up as NAP in The Official Railway Equipment Register on Google books, though unfortunately only a snippet view is available. Nonetheless I have cited it as it shows enough to me that I can confirm the reporting mark is correct. I cannot conceive of any way to discuss a reporting mark in the body, and also disagree that the gauge needs to be explicitly discussed. Essentially every single railroad in North America has used standard gauge since the Civil War ended.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
09:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Kingston Station as well could use a comma before "as"
non-rail operations; steam locomotives: I don't think the second part of that sentence relates enough to the first part to justify joining them with a semicolon.
The last paragraph of the lead should be reworded to preserve shelf life. Most of the right-of-way has been converted could be "In the 21st century, most of the right-of-way was converted". And using now operates is asking for it to become out of date.
I don't see an issue with saying "most of the right-of-way has been converted". The trail isn't going anywhere, and the chances of it becoming a railroad ever again are infinitesimal sadly. I changed the wording of the last sentence to "along with a steam locomotive that has been restored to operation by the Everett Railroad".
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Modified further as "Several railroad structures have been preserved, along with a steam locomotive that was restored to operating status in 2015 by the Everett Railroad."
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Overall
Despite my long long list of comments, I think the prose is good enough to be FAC-worthy if all of those comments are addressed. Honestly, if I had it to do over again, I would say that this article should go back to peer review before writing out all those comments. Having done so, however, I think there's an opportunity to bring the article to FAC quality here. Earwig finds no likely plagiarism. It is certainly well-researched, assuming PMC's source check finds that the sources are all good and represent a comprehensive survey of the relevant sources. The article is certainly comprehensive in telling all the twists and turns in the railroad's history and I think the lead does a great job compressing all that detail into something that can be consumed quickly and easily.
Dugan Murphy (
talk)
22:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I appreciate that real life happens, but one of the FAC rules is "Nominators are expected to make efforts to ... address objections promptly." Some reviewer comments have been outstanding for a month, which is not acceptable. You may wish to consider withdrawing the nomination and renominating it when you have more time. In any event, if all outstanding comments are not addressed within 48 hours the nomination is liable to be archived.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
12:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I appreciate that real life happens Clearly, you do not. In the past month I moved, started a new job, and had my car die on the side of the road in the middle of the night. These presented challenges I did not anticipate at the time of nomination. I had points where I went days without even having the opportunity to log into Wikipedia at all due to real life concerns, which take precedence over an online encyclopedia. Despite all of this, I have been consistently working over the past week to address comments. Dugan Murphy left an extremely long list of comments (I count one hundred and five!!!!) that I have dedicated hours of my time to addressing. I had to do additional research and find new sources in response to some of his comments and to improve the article. Do me a favor and archive this now. And when people ask why editors refuse to participate in FAC, maybe remember this moment. I certainly won't be back anytime soon.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
23:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Gog the Mild and
Trainsandotherthings: I came to this FAC intending to review it because the subject matter (New England railroading) interests me. If I have your blessings, then I would like to help out this week with addressing outstanding comments.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
01:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll accept your generous offer, thank you. I believe most of the remaining concerns are prose concerns, as opposed to questions which require deep dives into the sources (unfortunately the best ones are offline).
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My fourth nomination, following the
Aston Martin DB9,
Aston Martin Rapide and the
Lagonda Taraf; the former two have both been promoted whilst the latter is awaiting its promotion. This article is about the 2012 Aston Martin Vanquish, a gorgeous car based upon the now 20 year old platform of the DB9. I believe this article is well written and well sourced. Enjoy the read!
750h+08:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review by Arconning
File:2014 Aston Martin Vanquish, skyfall silver.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
File:2015 Aston Martin Vanquish, rear left (Lisbon).jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:2014 Aston Martin Vanquish Volante 5.9 V12 (52055905516) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
File:2017 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato VH319Z.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:2017 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Rear.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:2019 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Shooting Brake no 73 at Greenwich 2019, front left.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
File:2019 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Shooting Brake no 73 at Greenwich 2019, rear left.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
File:2018 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Speedster in Golden Saffron, front right (Greenwich 2019).jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
File:2018 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Speedster in Golden Saffron, rear right (Greenwich 2019).jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
All images have good alt-text and are relevant to the article.
The six images under the section of "Vanquish Zagato" seem formatted well.
As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse, with adequate justification.
Is the promotional quote at the start of the History section necessary?
removed
Much of the first paragraph of the history section seems tangential: a succession of "at [date] [car show], Aston Martin unveiled the [car]" isn't very useful. What do they have to do with the 2012 Vanquish?
its background. Ive split that off.
"At the 2012 edition" month?
added
Is the Concorso's location needed?
removed
There seems very little discussion of the original Vanquish
its a completely unrelated car; in the car industry, same nameplate does not equal related car
"Aston Martin revealed a concept car called the Project AM310 Concept. In June 2012, the company announced that the production version of this concept" lots of "concept"ing going around; prose should be tighter.
fixed
"and succeeding the DBS." succeeding as what?
it replaces the DBS. ive specified that
"The Vanquish debuted at several events" I was under the impression that a debut happens once.
changed to “showcased”
" of the coupe" the
WP:ELEGVAR isn't helpful, especially as the car hasn't been called a coupe yet.
changed to “car”
A rather abrupt jump between "manufacture began" and "production ended", six years apart. Also seems like the variants would be better suited as subsections of "History"
I have moved this. It is a short section though. Not much is available on the convertible, so i don’t believe the latter suggestion is necessary
"the fourth generation of the vertical/horizontal platform" this platform has been linked before, and I still don't know what it is (
MOS:NOFORCELINK)
is this better?
"which is thirty per cent stiffer and lighter...was enhanced by 25 per cent" compared to?
fixed
There are four occurences of "The Vanquish features...", including two at the start of paragraphs, which makes the section feel slightly too promotional.
removed
WP:NOTSTATS says: "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing". This is the case for too much of the "Design and technology" section. Can you explain the necessity of the following statistics, and how do they compare in context with other cars:
The length and piston-number of the callipers
removed that
The ... something of the tyres (I have absolutely no clue what "255/35R20" is supposed to mean)
removed that too, really isn’t necessary
The individual fuel consumption ratings for city driving, highways, and combined (shouldn't the last be sufficient?)
agreed, removed the other two
The engine's power/torque output
every article on a car should have those stats
Is there nothing about the visual similiarities/differences with other cars?
This source takes that line.
comparisons with other cars generally aren’t helpful. Plus, the source provided just includes its predecessor and its concept
"hand-stitched leather and Alcantara" where on the car
explained via footnote
The tenses need a look: see e.g. the switch in "Its maximum speed remained unchanged, but its 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration has been changed to 4.2 seconds.
"Weighing 1,844 kilograms (4,065 lb), the Vanquish is 105 kilograms (231 lb) heavier than the coupe and 34 kilograms (75 lb) more massive more than its predecessor, the DBS Volante." Fair few points: the Vanquish is ... heavier than the Vanquish? "more massive more"? what's the difference between heavier and more massive? My understanding was that they were the same on Earth.
mistype; fixed
"The convertible top of the Volante ... operates in fourteen seconds" this is annoyingly imprecise: obviously you mean that it takes fourteen seconds to open and close, but instead the article just says it "operates", which could mean anything.
specified
"The car's boot space has been significantly increased over the Vanquish coupe, with a capacity of 279 litres (9.9 cu ft)" the article doesn't actually say what the Vanquish coupe's boot space is, only that its cargo space is nearly 100 litres larger than the convertible.
done
It would be better to move the sentence talking about dealing with added weight to immediately follow the sentence talking about said extra weight.
(refer to above)
Tenses again awry in the "Vanquish S" subsection
fixed
"an optional "graphics packs""?
removed
Is the Palmer quote needed?
I think its a nice add-on
Nothing about what differentiated the Zagato edition, aside from it being a collaboration?
Ive added some characteristics.
It is also the first and only section which talks about units produced. Is there nothing in the sources about corresponding figures for the other models?
Nope, unfortunately
Why does the "Variants" section talk about when "deliveries began", while the "History" section mentions when "manufacture" began and "production" ended? Are they the same thing?
Manufacture/production means when the first units rolled out of the production line. Deliveries is when the cars got delivered to the customers
Are the double images for each Zagato model needed? If yes, consider using
Template:Multiple image.
done
"Reviewers and automotive publishers mostly praised the Vanquish's opulent exterior and interior." gives the impression that the following paragraph is going to be about the opulence, but this is not the case. See
WP:RECEPTION for how to better organise a section.
removed.
For the current state of the article, I'm going to note a weak oppose. The lack of preparation for FAC is clearly evident through the varying levels of focus, prose issues, and general absence of polish. The good news is that it's not a bad article by any means, and is fairly short, so not hard to improve. To the nominator: if you want me to have another look, ping me when you're sure all issues (including ones not mentioned) have been fixed, and I'll have another (final) look.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
13:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
AirshipJungleman29: I believe I have addressed all your comments. I hope we can strike that oppose! Personally I don't think it's as bad as thought, I just think there's a lot of car jargon which may be confusing to non-car people.
750h+15:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"a presentation to a group of guests at the London Film Museum" → this is the only one of the three events in the sentence that doesn't have a month - recommend mentioning July as you do in the body
done
"with deliveries initiating in late 2013" → simplify wording, change "initiating" to "starting" or "beginning"
done
"performance, whilst a more significantly" → recommend eliminating "whilst" and breaking this sentence there (especially since "whilst" implies simultaneous events and these two events happened two years apart)
done
"comprising" → doesn't really fit with "various body styles" so I'd recommend using a different word there
fixed
History
No notes.
Design and tech
"Its structure" → the car's structure or the VH platform's structure?
fixed
"from the DBS, DB9 and Rapide" → serial comma is used earlier in the article but not here; either way is fine but this should be consistent
fixed
Variants
"Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance Aston Martin" → add comma before "Aston"
done
"maximum speed remained unchanged," [past tense] "but its 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration has been changed to 4.2 seconds" [present perfect continuous]
fixed
"which is crafted of triple-layer fabric" → sounds a little advertisement-y, maybe "made of"?
done
"The transmission response time was improved. The Vanquish S also features" → another tense shift
fixed
"composed of exposed carbon fibre, diamond-turned alloy wheels and carbon bonnet louvres" → another instance of no serial comma
fixed
"At the 2016 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este in May" → maybe "At the May 2016 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este" for simplicity?
done
"deliveries were also initiated in 2017" → for simplicity and changing the passive voice, maybe "deliveries also started in 2017"
done
"of the series—the" → recommend comma rather than dash
done
Reception
"bewitchingly beautiful always"." → since the whole sentence is in quotes, you can move the full stop inside the quote marks
I know a spotcheck isn't technically needed, but I thought I'd check a few since I found some spotcheck issues in a recent GA by 750h+. Footnote numbers refer to
this version.
FN 54 cites "In August 2014, Aston Martin introduced technical updates to the Vanquish model. The modifications included a new eight-speed automatic transmission, known as 'Touchtronic III', and an upgraded engine. The upgraded engine produces 424 kilowatts (576 PS) and 630 newton-metres (460 lbf⋅ft) of torque, sufficient to give the car a 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration time of 3.6 seconds; its maximum speed remained unchanged." Some of these details don't appear to be in the source: the August date, for example, and the power and torque figures. The 3.6 seconds time is for accelerating to 60 mph, not 62 mph. The maximum speed did in fact increase according to the source.
FN 65 cites "Its power output was increased to 595 horsepower (444 kW) whilst its torque output was increased to 630 newton-metres (465 lb⋅ft). Aston Martin improved the response time of the transmission. The Vanquish S also features a new body kit composed of exposed carbon fibre, diamond-turned alloy wheels and carbon bonnet louvres. The seats are upholstered in Bridge of Weir Caithness leather." The source says the torque was unchanged. A couple of phrases are repeated: "a new bodykit in exposed carbonfibre" is in the source -- I don't think I know what a bodykit is, but if it just means bodywork then this could be rephrased a little more. Some of the phrases that are repeated would be pretty hard to reword -- e.g. "carbon bonnet louvres". However, if I understand the source correctly, some of the items listed are options, so we shouldn't phrase this as though they were standard -- e.g. the Bridge of Weir Caithness leather.
FN 29 cites "Compared to the DBS, the torsional rigidity of the car was enhanced by 25 per cent due to the incorporation of a carbon fibre subframe and a large, extruded cross-member." Verified.
FN 62 cites "Its maximum speed remains unchanged, but its 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration has been changed to 4.2 seconds. Weighing 1,844 kilograms (4,065 lb), the Vanquish Volante is 105 kilograms (231 lb) heavier than the coupe and 34 kilograms (75 lb) heavier than the DBS Volante. The convertible top of the Volante, which is made of triple-layer fabric, can open in fourteen seconds. The car has a boot space capacity of 279 litres (9.9 cu ft). The suspension system was adjusted to accommodate the added weight. As with the coupe, its standard three-stage adaptive damping system offers normal, sport, and track modes, which also adjust the electronic stability control and throttle response." Verified.
FN 31 cites "The Vanquish features anti-roll bars and double wishbone suspension supported by coil springs." Verified.
FN 73 cites "Aston Martin debuted the roadster version—called the Vanquish Zagato Volante—at the 2016 edition of the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance". Verified, but the source says "convertible" rather than "roadster"; can you confirm that the two terms are interchangeable in British English?
FN 27 cites "The car's structure, which is thirty per cent stiffer and lighter than that of its predecessor, is composed of aluminium whilst its bodywork is made of carbon fibre." The source has "the aluminium structure is clothed in an all-carbonfibre body (30% stiffer and lighter too)". This is difficult to rephrase, so I'm not to concerned about the similarities here, but can we be sure the "stiffer and lighter" refers only to the alumninium? It seems it could be referring to the carbon fibre, or even to both.
The GA you reviewed was from a while back (the reason i opened the GA was mostly to see the results), not even i thought it was a good article. Anyways here are my responses
54: I removed “August”. 0-60 is about the same as 0-62.
65: a bodykit is not the same as bodywork. other concerns should be fixed
73: convertible is more understandable, so i have changed that.
27: the DBS, the Vanquish’s predecessor did not use carbon fibre in its construction, so it would most likely be talking about the aluminium. I’ve reworded this.
It's reassuring to hear that the GA wasn't characteristic of your work, though I think most GA reviewers would prefer it if the nominator checked any old articles reasonably thoroughly before nominating them. Anyway, I agree these issues are not so concerning. I've struck out most points above, but I think there are still issues with the first one -- please take a look. When that's done I'll do another spotcheck.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
17:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The article still says the maximum speed remained unchanged. Yes, 60 and 62 are very close, but I don't think we can use one to cite the other. Those are the only two points remaining from this spotcheck. I'll go ahead with the second spot check, probably first thing tomorrow.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
01:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Second spotcheck. Footnote numbers refer to
this version.
FNs 75 & 76 cite "At the 2017 edition of the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance, Aston Martin unveiled the Vanquish Zagato Speedster; 28 units were manufactured." Verified; optional, but you might move FN 75 to the end of the sentence. FN 76 does verify those last four words, but it's going to be easy for that citation to get detached since it's after the following sentence.
FN 45 cites 'John Simister of the newspaper The Independent criticised the car's two small rear seats, describing them "largely pointless", but he noted that the engine sounded "magnificently crisp and rich"'. Verified.
FNs 17 & 18 cite "At the 2012 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este in May, Aston Martin revealed a concept car called the Project AM310 Concept." Verified, but should "Concept" be capitalized? It doesn't seem to be in the sources.
FN 4 cites "The car's aluminium structure remains largely unchanged from the DBS, DB9 and Rapide, except for a redesigned front-end that is significantly lighter. This allows the engine to be mounted 0.7 inches (18 mm) lower than in the DBS." The source has "the aluminum structure remains largely the same as the DBS’s (and DB9’s and Vantage’s and Rapide’s), the front-end structure is significantly lighter and is redesigned to allow the engine to mount 0.7 inch lower than in the DBS". I think this is too close a paraphrase.
FNs 55 & 56 cite "The Vanquish's interior incorporates a tilt-telescoping steering wheel, bi-xenon headlamps, LED tail-lights, hand-stitched leather and Alcantara, power front seats with memory, and cooling and heating systems. Its connectivity features include Bluetooth, satellite radio and compatibility with USB and iPod. Other standard features include a thirteen-speaker Bang & Olufsen sound system." I don't see that it says "hand-stitched" anywhere on these pages, and I can't see any mention of iPod connectivity, though I might easily have missed both.
I'm going to stop there and not pass or fail this spotcheck; I'll leave it up to the coordinators to decide if they want to pursue this any further. The close paraphrasing I found this time is not terrible but I think it could be done better.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
12:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
While the issues don't seem to be too grave, the article still needs to be free from any discrepancy for it be considered for promotion.
750h+, I recommend that you go through the entirety of the sources again and once you're done, another spot-check should be done (by Mike if he's up for it or by someone else).
FrB.TG (
talk)
13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've taken on quite a bit of other work and would rather not add this, so I suggest adding it to the request list on WT:FAC for someone else to pick up. Might be as well to get a different pair of eyes on it anyway.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
18:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments by Epicgenius
I will look at this later. The nominator asked me to take a look on my talk page, but the comments I'll be leaving shortly are entirely my own. –
Epicgenius (
talk)
13:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Lead:
Para 1: "The second generation of the Aston Martin Vanquish is a grand touring car produced between 2012 and 2018 by the British automaker Aston Martin." - This wording makes it sound like the second generation is a grand touring car (whereas the first generation isn't), even if this is not the case. I suggest rephrasing to "The second generation of the Aston Martin Vanquish, a grand touring car, was produced between 2012 and 2018 by the British automaker Aston Martin."
Para 2: "previewed by a concept car called the "Project AM310"" - I don't know how it is in British English, but in American English that would be a very strange way to use the word "previewed". Usually we'd just say that the Vanquish's prototype was the Project AM310.
Para 2: "The Vanquish is based upon the same architecture of the DB9," - I would condense to "The Vanquish is based upon the DB9's architecture," since "same" is redundant here.
Para 3: "A more significantly modified version, called the Vanquish S, was launched in 2016" - Could you mention a few examples of these modifications?
In general, there are a lot of sentences that begin with "In [Date]". E.g. " At the 2005 edition", "In 2007", "At the 2012 edition", "In June 2012". If there aren't any other historical details that you can add, then I suggest mixing up your sentence structure. For example, you can put the date at the end of the sentence (such as "Aston Martin unveiled the DB9, a model initially designed by Ian Callum and completed by Henrik Fisker, at the Frankfurt Motor Show in 2004"). Alternatively, you can rephrase to avoid unnecessarily repeating the year. For example, "In June 2012" can be "That June", since the previous sentence already mentions June.
Para 1: I notice that the DB9, Vantage, and DBS are mentioned, but the Vantage isn't further elaborated upon in the text. How does the 2012 Vanquish relate to the Vantage?
Both addressed. The Vantage relates to the Vanquish in the way that they are both based upon the VH platform. The VH platform is used by the Rapide, DBS, DB9, Vantage, Vanquish, and a few others. Using this platform means that the cars share a significant number of their parts. I didn’t mention the Vantage later because there wasn’t need to.
750h+03:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Design and technology:
Para 1: "The torsional rigidity of the car was enhanced by 25 per cent in comparison to its predecessor" - Why not "The car has 25 percent more torsional rigidity than its predecessor" or something like that?
done
Para 1: "This allows the engine to be mounted 0.7 inches (18 mm) lower than in the DBS" - Out of curiosity, does this contribute to the weight or stability of the car at all?
didn't find any sources, most just gave the height change.
Para 2: "It is a two-door coupe available in both two and four-seating configurations" - I would add a hyphen after "two", since this is short for "two-seating". I.e. "two- and four-seating configurations".
done
Para 2: "a convertible version, known as the "Volante", was also produced" - Also in two- and four-seat configurations?
done
Para 2: "according to the Sunday Times, the car has a fuel economy rating of 298 grams per kilometre (16.9 oz/mi)" - I'm thinking this could be split out into its own sentence. When I first read this, I accidentally read it as "fuel consumption" rather than "fuel economy"; splitting the sentences would make it clear that these are two separate figures.
done
Para 3: "give the car a 0 to 97 km/h (60 mph) acceleration of 4.3 seconds" - As an American, this is worded strangely. Usually we say "allow the car to accelerate from 0 to 97 km/h (60 mph) in 4.3 seconds" or something similar. However, I know this might be different in other parts of the world.
I don't think it matters too much
Para 3: The above also applies to "sufficient to give the car a 0 to 97 km/h (60 mph) acceleration time of 3.6 seconds".
above
Para 4: "power front seats with memory" - Does this mean that the car will automatically adjust the position of the front seat, based on where it was positioned previously?
"deliveries began in late 2013" - Perhaps this could be split out into its own sentence. Alternatively, you could reword this as "Aston Martin debuted the Vanquish Volante—the convertible version of the Vanquish—at the 2013 edition of the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance,[59][60] and it began deliveries late 2013." As it is, the phrase "deliveries began in late 2013" seems like it doesn't really fit with the rest of the sentence, especially since this is passive voice, whereas the rest of the sentence is active voice. However, this is just a recommendation.
done
"The suspension system was adjusted to accommodate the added weight." - I feel like it would be better to place this sentence directly after the sentence about the vehicle's weight, rather than three sentences afterward.
done
Vanquish S
"The seats can be upholstered in Bridge of Weir Caithness leather." - For clarification, this is a modification offered by Aston Martin themselves, right?
yep
Vanquish Zagato
"Introduced at the May 2016 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este, the Vanquish Zagato Concept was a collaboration between Aston Martin and the coachbuilder Zagato." - The end of the sentence has a
MOS:SOB issue. I would reword it so it's clear that "coachbuilder" and "Zagato" are separate links, e.g. "the coachbuilding company Zagato".
done
"On June 21, 2016, Aston Martin announced plans to produce the Vanquish Zagato in a limited series of 99 units ... deliveries were also initiated in 2017 and 99 units were produced" - Depending on how this is interpreted, it's either confusing or repetitive.
The former were Aston Martin's initial plans, the latter were what actually gave to fruition
It seems like Aston Martin initially wanted to produce 99 Vanquish Zagatos, but ultimately produced 99 Vanquish Zagato Volantes, 28 Vanquish Zagato Speedsters, and 99 shooting brakes?
yep, and also 99 coupes
Also, is there a difference between these three?
body styles (as pictured in the multiple images template)
Discontinuation:
This is a fairly short section. Is it possible to merge it with one of the sections above, e.g. History?
Airship said that it went a bit quickly from production commencement to discontinuation, so I think it's best left like that
I've had a look at the reception section and don't see any major issues. I had one minor issue.
Per
WP:WHYCITE, I would recommend that you add a citation at the end of each quote, even if multiple quotes are cited to the same source. For example, the first two sentences of paragraph 2 contain two quotes from Mike Duff. I would put the reference after both sentences 1 and 2, instead of after sentence 2 only. Same goes for the first two sentences of paragraph 1.
I saw that this article needs one more spotcheck since the first one by Mike Christie was inconclusive.
...and an appearance at the Monterey Car Week in August.[26] supported by Jurnecka 2012
The Vanquish's aluminium structure is thirty per cent stiffer and lighter than that of its predecessor, and its bodywork is made of carbon fibre.[27] supported by Pollard 2012
...according to the Sunday Times, the car has a fuel economy rating of 298 grams per kilometre (16.9 oz/mi).[48] supported by the Sunday Times.
However, is "fuel economy rating" the right word or should this say "CO2 emission" or something similar instead? My knowledge of car metrics is quite limited so it might be good to check which technical term is correct.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
17:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm mainly asking because our article
Fuel economy in automobiles uses the units "kilometer per liter" and "miles per gallon" for fuel economy while we use "gram per kilometer", which confuses me. Is there a different sense in which the term "fuel economy rating" is used to measure CO2 since the source says "CO2: 298g/km"? My background in the relevant terminology is weak so I might need your help to untangle this confusion.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll try explain this best I can. The term "fuel economy rating" typically refers to how efficiently a vehicle uses fuel, measured in units like kilometers per liter or miles per gallon. On the other hand, CO2 emissions are usually measured in grams per kilometer. In the Sunday Times article, it seems they are referring to the car's CO2 emissions when they mention "298 grams per kilometer". I have changed it to CO2 emission-rating if that makes it more understandable.
750h+12:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
...The vehicle was initially available exclusively with a six-speed 'Touchtronic' automatic transmission manufactured by ZF Friedrichshafen.[53] supported by Siler 2014
Aston Martin introduced the Vanquish S, an updated version of the Vanquish, at the Los Angeles Auto Show in November 2016.[63][64] supported by both The Verge and Los Angeles Times.
Andy Palmer, the chief executive officer of Aston Martin, stated that the Vanquish S "[took] things a step further, confidently asserting itself within the Aston Martin range and distinguishing itself from the new DB11".[67][68] supported by both The Irish News and Kingston 2016a
deliveries were also initiated in 2017 and 99 units were produced.[75] supported by Kingston 2016b
Jeremy Clarkson, a prominent automotive journalist and television presenter, appreciated the car's styling, noting that "it's a lovely car [...] flowing and smooth when you want it to be, raucous and mad when you don't and utterly, bewitchingly beautiful always." Clarkson also praised its "delightful" interior, though one of his colleagues, A. A. Gill, disagreed, complaining that "it's like being in one of those executive-desk drawer dividers [...] I feel like I’m a roll of Sellotape".[81] supported by "2015 Aston Martin Vanquish". The Sunday Times
Mike Duff of the magazine Car and Driver stated that the interior of the Vanquish S features "beautiful materials and [an] elegant design[,] mostly distracting occupants from the reality that there really isn't very much to play with". Duff also held concerns with the Vanquish's usage of the VH platform, noting that "there's plenty of the stuff you'd find on a mainstream car costing a tenth of the [price]".[84] supported by Duff 2016
For the second quote, I would suggest including the last part of the quote (without the initial "there's") to make it clearer to the reader that he is talking about things missing, i.e., ...noting that "plenty of the stuff you'd find on a mainstream car costing a tenth of the [price of] a Vanquish S just isn't there"
done
At the 2005 edition of the Geneva International Motor Show, Aston Martin debuted the Vantage, a sports car designed by Callum and Fisker.[12][13] the part about the motor show is covered by "Global convergence under way in the automotive world" The Los Angeles Times, the part about the design is covered by Vale 2022, p. 444.
At the 2012 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este in May, Aston Martin revealed a concept car called the Project AM310 concept.[17][18] supported by Kozak 2012 and Lindberg 2012a
The Vanquish, designed by Marek Reichman,[28] supported by "The brains behind the world's most beautiful cars". The Windsor Star.
Length 4,720 mm (185.8 in)[4] supported by Gall 2012.
Model code AM310 supported by "Aston Martin reveals AM 310 Vanquish". Calgary Herald.
The first vehicles were delivered in early 2017.[73] supported by "Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato coupe is go". Bangkok Post.
Spot-check upon request; I see Mike Christie's comments above but I'll do one on request only. What is the logic behind giving some page numbers in the "References" section a link to Google Books and others none? Also it doesn't seem like the article titles are shown consistently. What makes the books cited and Edmunds.com reliable sources? "Aston Martin Vanquish S Volante 2017 first drive" is throwing a "not used" error. If
Car and Driver is a magazine, why is it in the websites section?
Road & Track,
Motor Trend,
Car (magazine) and
Autoweek too seem to be misplaced there.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
15:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
When you say "What is the logic behind giving some page numbers in the "References" section a link to Google Books and others none?", the ones with Google Books links are actually books, whilst the ones with page numbers that don't link to Google Books are magazines. Edmunds is reliable; it has been used by other FAs and has been used by the
New York Timeshere and
here, and the books are reliable; James Taylor is a journalist who has written for
Car and has also written various books;
Andrew Noakes has written for several car magazines; and Matthew Vale has written many books and magazines like
Classic & Sports Car. All of these books were reliably published. I have removed "Aston Martin Vanquish S Volante 2017 first drive". The magazines listed in the "magazines" section are print magazines; the others are online magazines.
750h+15:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've changed "Websites" to "Online magazines and websites" and I've changed "Magazines" to "Print magazines" if that helps.
750h+09:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is about volcanic activity at a group of volcanoes in northwestern British Columbia, Canada, that has existed for the last 7.5 million years or more. Volcanoguy14:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
750h+: I think your opinion is flawed. You haven't provided any evidence that this article fails 1c you just have a feeling that it does. I'm not aware of anything that claims some sources can't be used more than others. Souther 1992 is a 320 page document so of course it's going to be cited a lot. Volcanoguy17:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
750h+: Citing an author (or even a source) frequently does not fail 1c. The article not being well researched would do so. @
Volcanoguy has written for Wikipedia about this volcanic complex and has said this author is the one who has researched it most. it is logical, then, that this author would be more cited than any others.
Do you plan to do a source review, or is this high-level comment the extent of your work on this FAC. If you are not intending to do a source review, I will proceed with it. –
Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (
talk)
00:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. Regarding concerns about 1c of
WP:FACR the reason this article cites Souther a lot is because he was the only volcanologist who studied the MEVC in detail. As a result, his publications are significantly more detailed than others published since 1992. I've searched Google Scholar and elsewhere thoroughly for information about volcanism of the MEVC and added the relevant sources. I'd dare anyone to prove me wrong. Volcanoguy14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Image review by Arconning
File:MEVC map.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:EdzizaTopo.jpg - Public Domain
File:Raspberry Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Little Iskut Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Armadillo Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Nido Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Spectrum Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Pyramid Formation cross section.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Ice Peak Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Pillow Ridge Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Edziza042909-- 113-16.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Edziza Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Outcast Hill cross section.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Tahltan River mouth.png - Public Domain
File:Kakiddi Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
File:Tennena Cone.jpg - CC BY 2.0
File:Nahta cone from east june 2006 (Spectrum Range).JPG - CC BY-SA 3.0
File:Mess Lake Lava Field.jpg - Public Domain
File:Edziza obsidian.jpg - Public Domain
All images have good alt-text and are relevant to the article.
Images have proper licenses, images with links to their sources are live.
Recusing to review. I will note here that this seems a very long article given the topic, and I will be watching to see if an appropriate summary style approach has been adopted.
There are a lot of helpful maps, which I like, but perhaps the article could start with a
Template:Location map style map locating the feature in Canada or North America for the reader?
"The first magmatic cycle between 12 and 5.3 million years ago ... the second magmatic cycle between 6 and 1 million years ago". One cannot help but note the 700,000 year overlap.
Why are "Mount Edziza volcanic complex" and "British Columbia" linked in the lead but not the first sentence of the main article?
I think it's optional to relink things in the main article, no? I'm pretty sure I remember reading that in one of the guidelines unless something has changed. Volcanoguy14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The rule used to be that links should appear at first mention in both the lead and the article. This changed relatively recently to allow subsequent repeat links in the article "where readers might want to use them".
"Felsic pertains to magmatic rocks that are enriched in silicon, oxygen, aluminum, sodium and potassium." Grammar: you can have 'Felsic pertains to magmatic rocks that are rich in ...' (as in note b) or 'Felsic pertains to magmatic rocks that are enriched with ...'
"making it the second largest eruptive centre in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province". This seems a slightly clumsy way of introducing the MEVC as part of the NCVP.
"is thought to result from rifting of the North American Cordillera driven by changes in relative plate motion between the North American and Pacific plates." Only likely to be understood by aficionados. Either simplify or unpack.
I don't see what's so hard to understand in this sentence. Rift even outside of geology means to break/crack and from my experience people usually know what a plate is. I would also like to note that other reviewers in previous FACs didn't find this sentence a problem (I used it other articles). Please explain what is so technical about it. Volcanoguy16:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am hitting a surprisingly high number of issues given that I am only four paragraphs in. I note that the article has not been through either PR or GoCER, both of which would have been of benefit. I shall take a break, then pick a couple of random sections to sample, to see if it is just a rocky (pun intended) start.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
14:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I question whether some of the things you brought up are actual issues rather than just nitpicking. See my comments above. Volcanoguy15:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Given the responses and rereading my own comments I am leaning oppose, but will see what things are like elsewhere.
What's wrong with my responses? I don't have a problem with changing the text I just think maybe you're going a bit overboard on that one sentence about rifting and the plates. Volcanoguy18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Second magmatic cycle and Nido eruptive period
The map is most helpful, perhaps label the two members?
"such that the lava flows formed two separate lava fields at each end of the volcanic complex." Do you mean that, four lava fields in total, or should it be 'such that the lava flows formed two separate lava fields, one at each end of the volcanic complex'?
"Three major volcanoes of the Tenchen Member were active during the Nido eruptive period, all of which have since been reduced to eroded remnants. Alpha Peak was the oldest of the three major volcanoes ..." I don't think it is necessary to repeat "three major volcanoes" in consecutive sentences; perhaps 'them' in the second?
"365 metres (1,198 feet)". Seems a bit
false precision, perhaps insert a "|sigfig=2"? There seem to be other conversions in the article where a false degree of precision has been introduced. A "sigfig sweep" should catch them
"An eroded remnant of this volcano comprises a prominent rock pinnacle". Can one use "comprises" here? Several things need to be involved to be comprised. Perhaps 'forms'?
A feature which puzzles me is the summary of each eruptive period in "Second magmatic cycle". I would suggest ending this section at "... into three distinct eruptive periods". The subsequent text immediately describes them.
The eruptive periods of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex are represented by the geological formations making up the complex that's why they're mentioned. Not all of the subsequent text is mentioned in the eruptive period sections. For example, the "Nido eruptive period" does not mention the fact that the Nido Formation is exposed along the Mess Creek Escarpment, nor does it mention the fact that the Nido Formation lava flows appear to have originated from several separate eruptive centres along the eastern margin of the MEVC. The "Spectrum eruptive period" doesn't mention the fact that the Spectrum Formation is almost entirely underlain by the Nido Formation and consists mostly of trachyte and rhyolite. The "Pyramid eruptive period" also doesn't mention the fact that the Pyramid Formation overlies the Nido Formation. Volcanoguy15:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fifth magmatic cycle
"passive basaltic lava flows". What is a passive lava flow?
"Therefore, the MEVC has been demonstrated as a potential source for these two tephra layers along with Hoodoo Mountain, Heart Peaks and Level Mountain." I am struggling a bit with this sentence. I think it is "demonstrated". Is it being used in the sense of 'suggested'?
Citation 165 leads
this page. The cite is used to support:
"Fission track dating has yielded an age of 950 CE ± 6,000 years for the Sheep Track pumice" which I cannot see mentioned.
It is stated earlier in the article that only one eruption is known to have produced pumice during the fifth magmatic cycle and that was the Sheep Track eruption from the southwestern flank of Ice Peak near the end of the Big Raven eruptive period. In the "Eruptive history" tab being linked it clearly says that the eruption that occurred 0950 ± 6000 years ago produced pumice and came from the southwestern flank of Ice Peak. Click the date to see the details. Volcanoguy18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"A small but violent VEI-3 eruption burst from the southwestern flank of Ice Peak near the end of the Big Raven eruptive period" which I cannot see supported.
"Willow twigs preserved in ejecta from Williams Cone have yielded a radiocarbon date of 610 CE ± 150 years." The source goives the date of the last eruption as 950 CE and does not mention willow twigs, carbon dating nor an error bar.
Citation 110 leads to
this page which is used to support:
"Eruptions during Big Raven time continued within the last 2,000 years, but the precise age of the latest one is unknown." The source states both "Last Known Eruption 950 CE" and "ending with felsic and basaltic eruptions as late about 1,000 years ago."
That's for the last known eruption of Mount Edziza, not the volcanic complex as a whole. The latest eruption of the complex may have came from The Ash Pit near the Spectrum Range since it may be the youngest feature. The source for the Spectrum Range gives unknown for the last known eruption. Volcanoguy19:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"These cones are of Holocene age and occur on Mount Edziza, in the Snowshoe and Desolation lava fields and adjacent to the Spectrum Range." Cones in the Desolation lava fields is not supported.
"Prior to collapse, the summit of Mount Edziza was at least 610 metres (2,000 feet) higher than its current elevation of 2,786 metres (9,140 feet)." Only the current elevation is supported. Possibly the missing support is in Souther p 21, is it possible to make that available to me?
Supported by Souther 1992. There's no link to Souther's document you have to download it from the Canadian government website; see the doi provided for the source. Volcanoguy19:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Overall: well written, reasonably graspable by a non-expert IMO, and if a little lengthy, within the bounds of summary style (bar the seeming redundancy noted in "Second magmatic cycle"). The source to text discrepancies need to be explained.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
17:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Apologies, but have run out of time to get on with this review; I shall be away from the internet for the next week. If the nomination is still open when I get back I shall carry on. If it is considered for closure before then could the closing coordinator note that while I have not reviewed enough of the article to be able to support, I have seen nothing which would cause me to object to it being promoted.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
17:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"MEVC". Should be in brackets after the first mention in full.
It's in brackets after the first mention in full in the introduction. Do you mean it should also be bracketed in the article body? Volcanoguy23:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Volcanism of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province began 20 million years ago, having resulted from rifting of the North American Cordillera". I am not sure about the grammar here. Maybe '20 million years ago, a result of rifting', or '20 million years ago, resulting from', or '20 million years ago, which resulted in rifting'?
"five cycles of magmatic activity, each having produced less volcanic material" → 'five cycles of magmatic activity, each producingd less volcanic material'.
"40% of the total eruptive volume, having resulted from prolonged fractional crystallization" → '40% of the total eruptive volume, resulting from prolonged fractional crystallization'.
Comparing article source/citation list to original sources. Listed only if question or problem found.
Sources:
Lakeman, Thomas R.; Clague, John J.; et. al. (2008) – publisher in Wikipedia article given as "
NRC Research Press" which Wikilinks to a redirect to Canadian Science Publishing. Canadian Science Publishing seems to be the modern-day name (since 2010 according to its Wikipedia article) of the publisher, and is the name of the publisher used on the website where the article is located. Are you using NRC Research Press because it was the name of the publisher in 2008? If so, this is consistent with the instructions for the publisher parameter in template cite journal, which reads, "If the name of the publisher changed over time, use the name as stated in the publication or used at the time of the source's publication." Since I don't have the original journal article in front of me, just want to make sure it states the publisher as NRC Research Press.
Souther 1992 – It doesn't appear that Geological Survey of Canada is the publisher. It appears to be the first part of the work, which is Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir, 420. I think using cite report template is a better choice, report (using title param) is The Late Cenozoic Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex, British Columbia. With parameters I have set in this example, you get something that I think better reflects the publication.
{{Cite report |last1=Souther|first1=J. G.|author-link1=Jack Souther|title=The Late Cenozoic Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex, British Columbia| work=Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir |series=420| year=1992|isbn=0-660-14407-7|doi=10.4095/133497}}
If there is a publisher, you could/should add that parameter as well. The detailed
metadata page doesn't actually show a publisher. Perhaps it is Natural Resources Canada? If you can figure that out, add a publisher, too.
Souther, J. G. & Symons, D. T. A. (1974). Stratigraphy and paleomagnetism of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, northwest British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper, 73-32.
https://doi.org/10.4095/102538
So in the cite report template, I think you want work to be Geological Survey of Canada, Paper and series to be 73-32. Publisher possibly Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
Ref. 3:
map of Telegraph Creek – what does the A502 in your citation represent? I don't see it on the map.
A 502 is actually the name of the map; the series is 104 G. They're both provided in the top right corner of the map. Volcanoguy17:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Eewilson: It appears they have it the other way around on this map. On the Dease Lake topographic map they give 104 J for the map and A 502 as the series; you can see this
here. I'm not sure if the Telegraph Creek map details in this article should have 104 G for the map and A 502 as the series despite the map claiming otherwise. Volcanoguy00:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Done except I put Geological Survey of Canada in |work= and Open File in |series= since Open File and 1732 are together separately from Geological Survey of Canada in the report. Volcanoguy19:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ref. 13: Edwards, Benjamin R.; Russell, James K.; Jicha, Brian; Singer, Brad S.; Dunnington, Gwen; Jansen, Robert (2021). "A 3 m.y. record of volcanism..." is available online with a CC license. Maybe add the DOI to your citation template.
https://doi.org/10.1130/2020.2548(12). Or possibly use chapter-url since it's an open access chapter. Because this is a chapter in a book, the book editors need to be cited as well. You can find them in detail in the Front Matter PDF accessible at this link:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/books/book/2278/Untangling-the-Quaternary-Period-A-Legacy-of
Ref. 113: Skilling, I.; Edwards, B.; Hungerford, J.; Lamoreaux, K.; Endress, C.; Lloyd, A. (2006) – same question about page number(s) as with other conference (103). What is used as the source?
Ref. 182: Lamoreaux, K. A.; Skilling, I. P.; Endress, C.; Edwards, B.; Lloyd, A.; Hungerford, J. (2006) – same question about page number(s) as with other conferences (103 and 113). What is used as the source?
"five cycles of magmatic activity which were characterized by 13 periods of eruptive activity". "which were characterized by" does not make sense here. Maybe "in"?
"The 1,000-square-kilometre (390-square-mile) plateau". Is it almost exactly 1,000? If it is approximate then I suggest {{Convert|1000|km2|mi2|-2|adj=mid|abbr=off}} to round to 400.
"This volcanic complex comprises a broad, steep-sided, intermontane plateau that rises from a base elevation of 760 or 816 metres (2,500 or 2,675 feet).[5][9][10] A northerly-trending, elliptical, composite shield volcano consisting of multiple flat-lying lava flows forms the plateau. Four central volcanoes of felsic[a] composition overlie the plateau" This is confusing. You appear to say first that the whole complex is in one plateau, then that the plateau is one volcano, then that other volcanoes overlie the plateau.
The plateau is a part of the volcanic complex so "is on" wouldn't work either. Maybe change "comprise" to "includes" or "contains"? Volcanoguy19:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"having increased the rate of magmatism in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province" You are describing here the start of the volcanism, so what does it mean to say that it increased?
"Volcanism at the MEVC about 7 million years ago increased the rate of magmatism in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province from 100,000 cubic metres (3,500,000 cubic feet) per year to 300,000 cubic metres (11,000,000 cubic feet) per year". In other words, volcanism in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province occurred at a lower rate until the MEVC started erupting about 7 million years ago; the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province was already an area of volcanic activity before the MEVC existed. Volcanoguy02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"An eruption recurrence interval of 379 years has been calculated for the MEVC by dividing 11,000 years by the number of demonstrable Holocene eruptions". Presumably you mean the Holocene MEVC, but you imply the whole of it.
Magmatic cycles section. You do not need to keep repeating "second most productive", "third most productive" etc, just say that each cycle was less productive than the previous one.
You say that the first cycle occurred in three successive periods, the first from 12 to 5.4 mya, the second 7.2 mya, the third between 7 and 6 mya. Successive periods at the same time does not make sense.
It's a complex rather than a single volcano. Multiple volcanoes of the complex were active at different times, some longer than others. Volcanoguy00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You have several different dates for the start of the MEVC, in the lead 7.4 mya,in the 'Eruption rate and composition' section 7 mya, and 12 mya in 'Magmatic cycles'. In the lead you have 7.4 and 6.1 mya for the first cycle, in First magmatic cycle, you say "restricted to the Late Miocene between 12 and 5.3 million years ago". This is ambiguous whether you are giving the period of the first cycle or the Late Miocene, but in any case it is the cycle which is relevant.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
19:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dudley Miles: Changed "restricted to the Late Miocene between 12 and 5.3 million years ago" to "restricted to the Late Miocene between 7.5 and 6 million years ago", same in the lead. Note that in the "Eruption rate and composition" section it gives about 7 million years ago, which is an approximate date provided by the cited source rather than an exact one. In the "Raspberry eruptive period" section it says the "minimum age for the timing of Raspberry volcanism is 7.4–6.2 million years"; 7 million years would fall in that range. Volcanoguy19:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Volcanism of the Nido eruptive period was limited to the northern and southern ends of the MEVC". So the periods were not in specific areas or at successive times, so what does distinguish them? This is not explained.
Most of the periods occurred at successive times it's just that some of the older dates are not accurate. I've changed some of the dates around so please check to see if it's better. A few of the other periods like Arctic Lake, Klastline and Kakiddi occurred in specific areas. Volcanoguy01:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"The first age comes from basal basalt of the Kounugu Member overlying basement rocks and, if correct, implies that the Nido eruptions may have initiated during the Raspberry eruptive period." According to your dating the whole second cycle occurred during the Raspberry eruptive period.
"The next eruptive period, the Pillow Ridge period, occurred when the MEVC was still overlain by an ice sheet." You say above that the ice retreated during the previous Ice Peak period.
"Lava fountaining at the extreme northern end of the Arctic Lake Plateau created the Outcast Hill cinder cone which blocked westerly flowing streams to create a temporary lake against its eastern side." You do not need to say that a lava lake was temporary. Maybe change "temporary" to "lava" for clarity.
"both tephra layers may have been deposited shortly after the last glacial period". "after the last glacial period" is another way of saying the Holocene. I think it is better to stick to that term for clarity.
"during the height of the neoglaciation".
Neoglaciation is a term I have not come across before. According to the article on it the height was the
Little Ice Age, and if that is what you mean I think it would be much better to use the more familiar term.
There are very few dates in the Fifth cycle section, and unless I have missed it you do not make clear whether the eruptions in different fields were in different periods or approximately contemporary.
Most of the volcanic rocks produced during the fifth magmatic cycle have not been dated that's why there aren't many dates. Volcanic activity in the Desolation and Snowshoe lava fields occurred more or less simultaneously but I'm not sure about the Mess Lake Lava Field. Volcanoguy12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You mention the
Last Glacial Maximum and
Last Glacial Period. It would be helpful to add dates in brackets at first mention. I am not familar with the terms for North American glacial periods, but it would also be helpful to link to earlier ones when mentioning earlier eruptions through glacial deposits.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
08:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've added the timing of the Last Glacial Maximum, not sure about the Last Glacial Period since there doesn't seem to be an agreement on when it began and ended. Volcanoguy15:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I see that Eewilson has already commented on some of the sourcing, but adding here for completeness. #1 seems to be a reasonably well cited thesis, so it probably passes muster. "The Mechanics of Subglacial Basaltic Lava Flow Emplacement: Inferring Paleo-Ice Conditions" and " The Late Holocene White River Ash East Eruption and Pre-contact Culture Change in Northwest North America" are a bit more iffy, though, as I don't see many cites. Regarding the completeness criteria, perhaps
there are sources here that can be used. Why is "Stratigraphy and paleomagnetism of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, northwest British Columbia" not used as a source?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
15:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Those are PhD theses which are generally considered reliable. Masters theses on the other hand are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence per
WP:SCHOLARSHIP. As for "Stratigraphy and paleomagnetism of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, northwest British Columbia", it's an an outdated source. It seems the MEVC hadn't been subdivided into geological formations until the 1980s so I'm not sure where that source can be used in the article. Volcanoguy16:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not to mention the article already has 9,000+ words of readable prose. The more information the article has the more likely it will need to be cut down. Volcanoguy18:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. It examines competing theories about how people should act in general and in specific domains while considering the assumptions on which the theories rest. Thanks to
750h+ for encouraging this nomination and all the helpful suggestions during their GA review and to
Patrick Welsh for their peer review.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I’m sure others are gonna mention that an image at the top-right would be nice for the page, like Aristotle, but at the same time I get not having one.
I agree, it would be nice to have an image but I'm not aware of a representative image of ethics in general. Using an image of a philosopher for a general topic article can be tricky because it may favor a specific tradition. Maybe we could use the scales of justice but this is not that typically used for ethics per se. The image in
Ethics#Basic_concepts was used earlier as the lead image but it was stated in the peer review that it was too complicated for the lead.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
”Ethics or moral philosophy is the philosophical study of moral phenomena.” - thats a bit self referential. Philosophical study could probably just be “study”, but I’m not a fan of just linking “moral” and letting the wiki link do the lifting. The second sentence of the lead is better, since that’s a better Explain-it-like-I’m-5 description for the topic.
I moved the part about "moral philosophy" to the next sentence to make it less self-referential. I kept the "philosophical" to distinguish ethics form the non-philosophical study of moral phenomena, like moral psychology.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
”It is usually divided into three major fields: normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics.” - the “usually” sticks out to me (as does “fields”). Perhaps something like “The primary branches of ethics include…” I think “branch” is better than “field”, since that’s used in normative and metaethics articles.
”Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations, for example, by exploring the moral implications of the universal principles discovered in normative ethics within a specific domain.” - not sure if I’m reading it wrong, but is the “for example” needed?
This corresponds to the top-down methodology which is useful to establish the connection with normative ethics. With the "for example", we are on the safe side since some theorists also use a bottom-up methodology.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
”Moral psychology is a related empirical field and investigates psychological processes involved in morality, such as moral reasoning and the formation of moral character.” Three mentions of “moral” plus “morality.” Is there any way you could rewrite a bit to not use the five letters “moral” so many times? Like, could moral reasoning and moral character be piped to just “reasoning” and “character”?
The fourth paragraph seems like a repeat of the lead and what comes later, so it seems pretty redundant to mention normative/applied/metaethics again, particularly since you don’t go into the definition of “normative” or “meta.”
I shortened the passage and merged it into the first paragraph. I don't think we can fully remove it since the lead section is supposed to summarize sourced text in the body of the article and the other sections don't discuss this division.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I was briefly looking for the etymology, and I think that should be higher up in the definition section.
I moved it up as the third paragraph, which fits well since the following paragraph also discusses terminological issues.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Normative
”For example, given the particular impression that it is wrong to set a child on fire for fun, normative ethics aims to find more general principles that explain why this is the case, like the principle that one should not cause extreme suffering to the innocent, which may itself be explained in terms of a more general principle.” - eek, well, of course! As for why I brought this up, is the “for fun” part needed? Like, I’m not sure if it only applies as normative ethics if the argument is whether it is wrong to have fun doing that, or if it’s just wrong in general. Also, “given the particular impression that it is wrong” feels a bit off, but I’m not sure a better way to word it. Maybe it could be shorter and carry the same message? Like, “For example, the principle that one should not cause extreme suffering to the innocent explains why it is wrong to set a child on fire.” I feel like it has the same message, but it’s clearer and more succinct.
The example is taken from Kagan 1998 p. 1, which explicitly mentions that it is done "for the mere pleasure". The difficulty here is probably to find a concrete example where everyone agrees. Without the "for fun", there could be cases where it is acceptable, possibly if it is not done for pleasure but to prevent a highly contagious supervirus in child from spreading.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
”One difficulty for systems with several basic principles is that these principles may conflict with each other in some cases and lead to ethical dilemmas.” Such as the Trolley problem? I feel like it’s one of the best known ethical dilemmas, but maybe that’s just because I watched The Good Place. I see it appears later under “moral knowledge”, but it might be useful earlier in the article.
I usually try not to repeat examples in the same article. The prime example for this one would be David Ross and his prima facie duties. I'm not sure if it's necessary, but if we wanted, we could include an example along the lines of the second paragraph of
The_Right_and_the_Good#The_Right.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
”Different theories in normative ethics suggest different principles as the foundation of morality.” - try rewording to avoid saying “different” twice
”A more recently developed view additionally considers the distribution of value: It states that an equal distribution of goods is better than an unequal distribution even if the aggregate good is the same.” - recently as of when? 2020s? 20th century? After the fall of the Roman Empire?
The image caption: “Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are the founding fathers of utilitarianism.” - is there a source calling them the founding fathers? It feels a bit opinionated right now. A more neutral caption would be “Portraits of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who developed the field of utilitarianism.”
”Utilitarianism was initially formulated by Jeremy Bentham and further developed by John Stuart Mill.” - some date reference might be nice. Was this randomly out of nowhere, or part of a broader philosophical trend of the 1700s?
”Some critics of Bentham's utilitarianism argued that it is a "philosophy of swine" whose focus on the intensity of pleasure promotes an immoral lifestyle centered around indulgence in sensory pleasures.” - few issues here. First, you should attribute the quote, if it’s even necessary at all to refer it to swine (I’m guessing an oblique reference to pigs having long lasting orgasms?) It feels a bit out of place without the context. Also, could you avoid saying “pleasure” twice in the same sentence?
”Today, there are many variations of utilitarianism, including the difference between act and rule utilitarianism and between maximizing and satisficing utilitarianism.” - I’m not a fan of using “today”. Is that going to change to yesterday in 24 hours? I’ll have to Chex back and find out :P Alternately, perhaps something like “In the centuries since Bentham and Mill, variations of utilitarianism have developed, including…”
”For example, according to David Ross, it is wrong to break a promise even if no harm comes from it.” - maybe provide some context for who Ross is? You did that for Bentham and Mill, so that would be helpful. Also, maybe get rid of “for example” if you add something like “According to Scottish philosopher David Ross” (or however you think he needs to be introduced)
You don’t get into the difference of agent vs patient centered. Is that patient, like, having patience? Or a doctor’s patient?
I tried to clarify the relevant passages. They now read Agent-centered deontological theories focus on the person who acts and the duties they have ... Patient-centered theories, by contrast, focus on the people affect by actions the rights they have. Should we add a footnote to clarify the differences between patient as being affected vs having patience vs a doctor's patient?
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
”Divine command theory sees God as the source of morality.” - as an atheist, I’d rather not have “God” used here so matter of factly. Could you reword it to make it more neutral? God isn’t even linked here, and it’s written as if it’s an accepted fact that God exists.
”This position can be understood in analogy to Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that the magnitude of physical properties like mass, length, and duration depends on the frame of reference of the observer.” - idk if this is needed. I thought the previous sentence made complete sense already, and then when I got here I was wondering why it was here.
”An influential debate among moral realists is between naturalism and non-naturalism.” - you don’t really get into the debate, so is “influential” appropriate?
”Another thought experiment examines the moral implications of abortion by imagining a situation in which a person gets connected without their consent to an ill violinist. It explores whether it would be morally permissible to sever the connection within the next nine months even if this would lead to the violinist's death.” - ok this needs way more context. You should probably mention that the thought experiment is that it’s a pregnant ill violinist apparently? I was quite confused for a bit why it suddenly turned musical.
I added an extra sentence to clarify that this is an analogy about the relation between mother and fetus without any fetuses present in the imagined situation. The musical turn is indeed confusing. This is part of the original formulation of the thought experiment but it's not essential that it is a violinist.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Applied ethics
Why is military ethics bolded in the middle of the paragraph?
This is because of the redirect per
MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. I added a corresponding comment
Related fields
”For instance, the question of how nurses think about the ethical implications of abortion belongs to descriptive ethics.” - why nurses and not doctors who would actually be administering the procedure?
Because that's the example of descriptive ethics used in the source. With a corresponding source about doctors, we could also change it.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
History
Some of this is covered elsewhere in the article, which makes me wonder, perhaps this should be the second main section, after “Definition”? The article on philosophy, for example, starts with “Etymology” and has a history section before getting into the branches.
In principle, it could be done. Many overview works on ethics focus on the branches, concepts, and schools of ethics rather than the chronological development of the discipline. This indicates that the history is not the most important part of this article and should not come right at the beginning. Another difficulty would be that the history section uses various concepts that are explained in the other sections. If we wanted to have the history first, we might have to include a more detailed discussion of them already there, which could lead to various repetitions.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
One last comment. It’s a long read, at 8,941 words. Considering that this is an overview of the subject, and the many many links to various topics, I feel that the article should be condensed wherever possible. Perhaps remove redundant examples. Or, like the stuff in the history section that’s repeated elsewhere, you could trim it by having the history section first, and then removing the duplicate mentions of certain people.
Given the scope of the topic, I think we are not doing too bad length-wise. For a comparison, we are still below the 9000 mark of
WP:SIZERULE. Except for the big names like Kant and Bentham, I don't think there is much overlap between the history and the rest. I'll keep a lookout for opportunities to condense the material as I respond to other reviews.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I really appreciated your work on the article, and I enjoyed the read, so it’s my ethical duty to finally wrap up my review that I’ve been working on for… several hours. So here it is. Lemme know if you have any questions, @
Phlsph7:.
Hurricanehink mobile (
talk)
20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Amazing you've tackled this article! First impressions are good. Except for a small module on morality among primates at uni and failing to read the The Ethics of Ambiguity, I know nothing of the topic, so feel free to disregard anything you're not sure about / disagree with.
In the lead, the order is applied ethics before meta-ethics. Would it make sense to follow this in the article too? Metaethics is a more scary difficult subject, so we may want to start easier in the body too.
There has already been some discussion on the section order on the talk page and the peer review. Initially, meta-ethics was first to go from abstract to concrete. Then, because of the difficulty of its topic, it was moved to come after applied ethics. Then it was requested to have it before applied ethics since it "deals with much more general issues likely to be of interest to more readers". I don't feel strongly either way since there are good arguments for each approach. The order in the lead section was mainly chosen because it's easier to present the topics this way in a single paragraph.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As a general note: I'm moving in the direction of a support, but do want to do a second read to see if I can come up with more ideas on how to make the article understandable to a sufficiently broad audience. In particular, the bits around Kant are tough to explain, and not quite there yet in my view. I'll be on holiday, busy with work, and then hosting parents, so I might not come back till the 8th of July. I don't think I'll forget, but ping me if I do.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
19:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm happy to hear that the article is moving in the right direction. I hope you enjoy your small wiki holiday. In the meantime, I'll see what I can do about the subsection "Kantianism" and I hope we can overcome this stumbling block.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Second read
Have been listening to
In Our Time over the holidays and their episodes on moral philosophy over the last years. They were all about individuals of the
wartime quartet (embarrasing red link, but Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch etc), so hope I can say slightly more sensible things on the second read on the topic of language and virtue ethics.
The main branches of ethics include normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics. --> Do we need both "main" and "include" (rather than are). Are there further main branches?
This is the most common division but some theorists prefer a different approach. Using this more careful formulation avoids upsetting them.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Instead, he argues that there are universal principles that apply to everyone independent of their individual desires. --> is individual needed in the sentences? their desires may be sufficient.
It asks whether moral statements can be true, how moral knowledge is possible, and how moral judgments motivate people. --> the examples --> I wonder if the first example makes sense for those who have not been schooled in
truth tables and with a basic background in logic. Maybe the example of whether there are objective moral statements is more accessible. I find the second example somewhat vague to. What does it refer to?
For the first example, I used objective moral facts instead. The second example refers to what is discussed in the subsection
Moral knowledge, that is, foundationalism, coherentism, and the like. We could use a more specific example, but that would negatively impact generality.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Virtue theorists see the manifestation of virtues, like courage and compassion, as the fundamental principle of morality. --> A pedantic point, but the episode on
Philippa Foot made a distinction between a value theorist (who does the theory) and a value ethicist (who believe the above). Feel free to ignore, as alternative wording may make things uglier.
I'm not sure that this distinction is generally accepted but it is an interesting point. I changed our formulation to "Virtue ethics" to be on the safe side without introducing verbal gymnastics.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ethics is closely connected to value theory, which studies the nature and types of value. --> This feels tautological. Can we say anything concrete about this?
Descriptive ethics provides value-neutral descriptions of the dominant moral codes and beliefs in different societies and considers their historical dimension. --> do we need the word value-neutral here? I don't think pure value-neutral discriptions exists, as most words in language are not perfectly neutral.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
08:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I removed the term. Its main point was emphasize that descriptive ethicists try not to pick sides about which moral code is correct.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Brilliant, thanks. That's a support from me. Hope that a new reviewer will also look at how to simplify and make the article more concrete.
—Femke 🐦 (
talk)
09:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
File:Head of Aristotle.jpg, File:EMB - Buddha stehend.jpg, and File:Head of Laozi marble Tang Dynasty (618-906 CE) Shaanxi Province China.jpg are all CC-BY-SA photos of a PD statue.
File:Jeremy Bentham by Henry William Pickersgill detail.jpg, File:John Stuart Mill by London Stereoscopic Company, c1870.jpg, File:Immanuel Kant - Gemaelde 1.jpg, File:Little boy.jpg, File:1914 George Edward Moore (cropped).jpg are all PD photos.
File:Philippa Foot 1939.jpg is not PD in the US. I've nominated it for deletion.
File:JuergenHabermas.jpg is CC-BY-SA
File:Trolley Problem.svg is CC-BY-SA
File:Cesarean section.jpg is CC-BY-SA
File:Battery hens -Bastos, Sao Paulo, Brazil-31March2007.jpg is CC-BY
Drive-by: Don't have time for a full review, but saw this while reading the page which stuck out and thought I'd add a comment An exception is J. L. Mackie's error theory, which combines cognitivism with moral nihilism by claiming that all moral statements are false because there are no moral facts - all error theory is an exception, not just that espoused by J. L. Mackie. Maybe Mackie should be mentioned in the history section instead. Relatedly Moral skeptics reject the idea that moral knowledge is possible by arguing that people are unable to distinguish between right and wrong behavior isn't that what they're arguing for, not the argument itself? I guess there isn't room to include questions about our access to moral facts or the (non)explanatory role of ethical concepts, but this could be worded better at least.
Shapeyness (
talk)
19:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Shapeyness and thanks for taking a look at the article. I moved Mackie to the history section and I switched the explanation in the sentence on moral skeptics around.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Spot-check upon request. Is there a logic why some page numbers are linked and others aren't, and some references give sections and others page numbers? I don't think that Springer DOI links need archives, and I am not sure that Google Books archives are useful, either. Some books with ISBN links have retrieval dates and others don't. Looks like sources are from prominent university publishers and journals ... but I notice that they seem to be mostly Western sources; even if sources about non-Western ethics are used they seem to be Western sources. Can't speak much about whether the sources picked are representative.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello
Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for doing the source review! I usually use section titles for web sources and page numbers for books and journals. For some books in ebook format, I also use section numbers if they do not have page numbers or if the page numbers depend on the reading device. If I'm aware of a Google Books page offering a preview of the page, I usually add a link to it. But this is not possible for all books, which is why some page numbers have links while others don't.
I removed the Springer DOI archives. Let me know if you think the Google Books archive links also need to be removed. The problem is that IABot adds them automatically, so all the links would be re-added the next time it runs. I count 91 archived Google Books links so removing them by hand each time after IABot runs would be time-intensive.
Some books with an ISBN have a website added in the template, for example, because the website provides a preview of the book. These books have access dates for the website. Access dates are also automatically added by IABot. I included several sources from non-Western publishers before the nomination, such as Sinha 2014, Satyanarayana 2009, Nadkarni 2011, Murthy 2009, Fernando 2010, Dalal 2010, Dalai Lama 2007, Armour 2001, Junru 2019, Ntuli 2002, and Pera & Tonder 2005. High-quality English philosophy sources from non-Western publishers are a little hard to find but I can try to find more in case the current ones are not sufficient.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
terms of consequences but in terms of outcome with outcome being defined ==> " terms of consequences but in terms of outcome, with the outcome being defined"
it is an act consequentialism that sees ==> "it is an act of consequentialism that sees"
I kept it since "act consequentialism" is a technical term in this instance (it contrasts with rule consequentialism).
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In this regard, they are desirable as a means but, unlike happiness, not desirable as an end. remove the second "desirable"
They may include principles like to tell the truth, keep promises, and not intentionally harm others. ==> "They may include principles like telling the truth, keeping promises, and not intentionally harming others."
someone has a duty to benefit another person if this other person ==> "someone must benefit another person if this other person"
I kept the term "duty" so it is clear to the reader that this sentence is about the relation between duties and rights.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
for example, because of weakness of the will. ==> "for example, because of the weakness of the will."
As ever, kudos for taking on one of the site's biggest and thorniest articles. I am very much not a philosopher, but I hope the below is useful.
Deontologists say morality consists in fulfilling duties, like telling the truth and keeping promises.: is the duties part of this always true? As I understand it, deontologists believe (and I'd use a word like that, rather than say, which is imprecise in this situation: someone might say something that is not fully in accordance with their beliefs) that the act itself determines its moral value -- granted, that can often (always?) be squeezed into a duty to e.g. obey God, follow key moral principles, promote one's own spiritual health, and so on, but what's the value in making that additional step here?
Both characterizations are found in the literature and are used side by side. Descriptions focusing more deontology itself tend to talk about duties. Descriptions focusing on the contrast with consequentialism tend to talk about acts being good in themselves. Here are some examples:
* From
[27]: Deontology asserts that there are several distinct duties ... All [deontologists] agree ... that there are occasions when it would be wrong for us to act in a way that would maximize the good, because we would be in breach of some (other) duty.
* From Crisp 2005: According to deontology, certain acts are right or wrong in themselves.
* From the entry "Deontological Ethics" of the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy: By the middle of the twentieth century, “deontology” acquired its more specific meaning, which refers to a particular conception or theory of our moral duties.
* From the entry "Ethics" of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy: [According to deontology,] some principles of right and wrong, notably principles of justice and honesty, prescribe actions even though more evil than good would result from doing them.
The last source talks of "principles" rather than duties. We could also use this more general term but it would make the sentence more abstract.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Happy here, then -- if it's good enough for the grown-ups in philosophy, it's good enough for us. Do any of their formulations rule out e.g. "the duty to maximise human happiness", though? Given that we are making an explicit contrast with consequentialism here, I think it might be helpful to get some form of words that says "it's about the act itself" in here. UndercoverClassicistT·
C07:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's a good idea about mentioning the other characterization as well: why choose when we can have both? I added a short phrase.
The point about a "duty to maximise human happiness" is interesting because it mixes deontology and consequentialism/utilitarianism. Some deontologists have this principle as one of their duties among others. For example, this is the case for David Ross's duty of beneficence, see
The_Right_and_the_Good#The_Right.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
08:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I must admit that I get a bit lost working through the idea of a deontological duty to ensure the positive consequences of your actions by manifesting a virtue -- that seems to be all three ethical schools at once! -- but that's probably not the sort of thing we want to bother with in the lead. Is there anything to be said further down about "hybrid" philosophies, though, insofar as they exist, such as religious codes -- deontological -- that insist upon certain virtues? Again, I appreciate that I'm coming in with no expertise and that the answer may simply be "no". UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There would be something to said but I'm not sure that we should say it in this article. We hint to it in the section "Normative ethics": The three most influential schools of thought are consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics.[15] These schools are usually presented as exclusive alternatives, but depending on how they are defined, they can overlap and do not necessarily exclude one another. The standard treatments of these schools of thought usually only address this on the sidelines, if at all.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
10:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd suggest reorganising the second paragraph of the lead so that we don't blur together modes of ethical study (e.g. Normative ethics, applied ethics, metaethics) with schools of ethical thought (e.g. deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics).
The paragraph currently says:
Normative ethics aims to find general principles that govern how people should act. According to consequentialists, an act is right if it leads to the best consequences. Deontologists say morality consists in fulfilling duties, like telling the truth and keeping promises. Virtue ethics sees the manifestation of virtues, like courage and compassion, as the fundamental principle of morality. Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations, such as abortion, treatment of animals, and business practices. Metaethics examines the underlying assumptions and concepts of ethics. It asks whether there are objective moral facts, how moral knowledge is possible, and how moral judgments motivate people.
We could change it something like:
Normative ethics aims to find general principles that govern how people should act. Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations, such as abortion, treatment of animals, and business practices. Metaethics examines the underlying assumptions and concepts of ethics. It asks whether there are objective moral facts, how moral knowledge is possible, and how moral judgments motivate people. Influential normative theories are consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. According to consequentialists, an act is right if it leads to the best consequences. Deontologists say morality consists in fulfilling duties, like telling the truth and keeping promises. Virtue ethics sees the manifestation of virtues, like courage and compassion, as the fundamental principle of morality.
The main change is that the passage on consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics was moved to the end and one additional sentence needed to be added to reintroduce normative ethics. I slightly prefer the first option but the second option could also work.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I like the paragraph as you've written it on second go -- I think making the link between normative ethics and deontology/consequentialism/virtue ethics clearer is a good move. This version is much clearer as to the categorisation of the things we're talking about. UndercoverClassicistT·
C08:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
the Ancient Greek word êthos (ἦθος), meaning "character, personal disposition". .... The term morality originates in the Latin word moralis, meaning manners and character. I would pick a lane for how we handle glosses in formatting -- two different styles on display here in the same paragraph.
A matter of taste, perhaps, but I'm not sold on "says" as a verb with an abstract idea as its "speaker": I can wear "the Pope says..." or even "the Bible says...", but I struggle with "Catholicism says...". Suggest "teaches", or alternatively talking about the people who believe it.
The main advantage of the term is that it is simple to understand and keeps the text accessible. We could use alternatives terms like "affirm", "assert", and "state" if it is an issue. Some of our sources also use the term: from
[28]: A consequentialist theory says that ... virtue theory says that ...
That's fair enough: I don't really have a concrete, policy-based objection here, and different people have different stylistics tastes -- I wouldn't want to impose mine any more than I'd want reviewers to impose theirs when I've got an article are up for review. UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A core intuition behind consequentialism is that what matters is not the past but the future and that it should be shaped to achieve the best possible outcome: could this be expressed more concisely thus?
The act itself is usually not seen as part of the consequences. This means that if an act has intrinsic value or disvalue, it is not included as a relevant factor. Some consequentialists try to avoid this complication by including the act itself as part of the consequences.: I need a little more explanation here as to why this is a problem, or a complication.
Are there any suitable images for the consequentialism section? Perhaps not unrelatedly, I notice that we haven't talked about any concrete people or movements until we get down to utilitarianism (bar a very brief and slightly isolated mention of Mohism). Can we do anything to set the scene about where these ideas came from, and how influential they were (or weren't) until Bentham came along?
The term "consequentialism" was first introduced in the 20th century by
G. E. M. Anscombe. Her image would be a good choice but, as far as I'm aware, we have no free image of her other than
an odd drawing. Most of the well-known consequentialists are utilitarians. We could use
Henry Sidgwick or
Peter Singer but they came after Bentham so it might be odd to present them before him.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would definitely get Anscombe's name and chronology into the Consequentialism section, even if her image is tricky. From the article of the same name, it does seem that most consequentialists are late C19th and later (which, again, I think is worth flagging up), but then we also have Machiavelli mentioned there, and William Godwin. UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
utilitarianism, which states that the moral value of acts only depends on the pleasure they cause.: pleasure or suffering, surely, unless we're talking about particularly sadistic utilitarians?
I added this clarification. Utilitarians sometimes use the term "pleasure" in a wider sense to encompass both the positive and the negative but this could be confusing to the reader.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Traditionally, consequentialists were only concerned with the total of value or the aggregate good.: not a fan of the word traditionally: we mean, here, "before the 20th century", not that it was a matter of any kind of tradition. I think it's wise to be precise.
. An important distinction is between act and rule consequentialism: this is a case for suspended hyphens: act- and rule-consequentialism, or else for repeating consequentialism. It's not obvious, to a reader who knows nothing about the topic, that the distinction isn't between rule consequentialism and something else called act.
I went for the second option. Hyphens would also work but we would have to change the spelling of all the other instances as well. The terms are used both with and without hyphens in the literature.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
At the risk of being terribly boring, this is a special case where you use hyphens irrespective of whether they are "normally" used for that term (so: "I made chocolate- and strawberry-cakes for the party" -- without the hyphens, you only made one type of cake), but it does look pretty weird when you do, so I think trying to rephrase to avoid the need is a good move. UndercoverClassicistT·
C07:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
For example, if not lying is one of the best rules, then according to rule consequentialism, a person should not lie even in specific cases where lying would lead to better consequences: might be clearer in the positive: if telling the truth...?
More to follow -- I am very impressed by the clarity of the article so far, and how ably it helps me keep sight of the wood without getting too distracted by the trees. UndercoverClassicistT·
C19:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Unlike consequentialists, deontologists hold that the validity of general moral principles does not depend on their consequences: again, is that always true? Do any say, for example, "we should always follow the rule of not harming others because doing so leads to the best outcome/avoids us going to Hell?" Or is that when you've crossed the line and become a rule utilitarian? I know we say According to moral philosopher David Ross, it is wrong to break a promise even if no harm comes from it, but Ross means from breaking that specific promise, not (necessarily) from people generally breaking promises. I don't think many deontological theorists would argue that the world would be rosy if everyone broke the/their rules.
I think you have point here. It's true for the typical forms of deontology and sources often present it this way, including the source of this statement. I changed it to "does not directly depend". This would also cover the duty of beneficence by Ross discussed earlier, so we should be fine.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
save the life of several others: save the lives, I think?
Can we give any examples of agent-centred and patient-centred deontological theories?
Many of the main deontologists combine elements of both, which makes it a little difficult to provide clear-cut and accessible examples of well-known philosophers. The examples often have to be qualified in some way, as in our example later: contractualism is often understood as a patient-centered form of deontology.Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
He states that moral action should not follow fixed goals that people desire, such as being happy. Instead, he argues that there are universal principles that apply to everyone independent of their desires.: I'm not sure I've quite grasped the meaning of "fixed goals that people desire", since he does say that people should follow fixed principles, and that wise people should generally desire to follow them. Is "fixed" quite right here, or is he saying that people shouldn't make decisions willy-nilly based on what feels right in that particular moment, but rather should follow consistent rules in every situation?
I tried to reformulate it to get the idea better across. The main point is that, for Kant, it's not about desires or outcomes but about following principles, even if one does not like the principles and the outcomes they lead to.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd put a date on Kant. I'm not sure what I feel about putting him before divine command theory and the social contract, both of which are much older -- I think the structure works well, and I'm not sure that a strictly chronological one would be better, but it does slightly paper over the fact that deontological ethics, for most of its history, looked nothing like what Kant was talking about.
I added the dates. The chronological approach is only really found in the history section of this article. One of the reasons for having Kant first is that, as far as deontology is concerned, he is significantly more important.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Should we have a brief bit in the Kant section about post-Kant Kantian ethics?
I think that's true if you wouldn't describe anyone later than Kant as both a) important and b) Kantian -- so I can see, for example, why you wouldn't include Hegel or Nietzsche up here, but has anyone calling themselves a Kantian sharpened or otherwise shifted Kantian thought, in the same way that Mill did for utilitarian thought, or someone like Aquinas did for Christian ethics? UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Before Hegel, there would be Fichte and Schelling in the tradition of German idealism. There are also Schopenhauer, the Neo-Kantians, John Rawls, and Christine Korsgaard. However, I don't think the relation here is as close as the one between Bentham and Mill. For example, the
article "Deontological Ethics" of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has its own subsection dedicated to Kant and mentions him in various other places, but it doesn't mention any of the ones listed above except for Rawls in one instance. Rawls fits better into the paragraph on social contract theory, where our article currently mentions him.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
On my recurring point about putting names on ideas -- I know that it's perhaps a dangerous game to choose a few out of a huge number, but if Kant gets a mention (and a picture!) for the categorical imperative, should e.g. Rousseau and Rawls get a name-check for the social contract?
I added a short sentence. We could add a picture but we would probably have to remove Habermas's picture so it doesn't get too crowded.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
16:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Similarly, I think we should put dates on the various schools of virtue ethics: when we say "Eudaimonism is the classical view", what do we mean by classical? Most readers will know that Aristotle was an ancient Greek, but not all will be able to date him beyond "a long time ago", and I think it's helpful to note that practically all of our surviving Stoics are centuries later than he is.
I reformulated the passage to avoid the term "classical". I added dates for Aristotle and Stoicism. Originally, I mostly tried to have the historical context in the history section and use the remaining sections to focus more on the theories themselves rather than their historical context.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
16:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would tread very lightly around "Indigenous belief systems" (isn't Greek philosophy an indigenous belief system of Greece?): I think we're on the right side of the line at the moment, but there's a real danger of tokenising or flattening them, or as presenting them as somehow simpler or less serious than "proper" philosophical movements, simply because we haven't found out the names of the people who came up with them.
At the moment, I'm happy to grumble ineffectually on this one: I'm not personally a fan of the divide between "indigenous" art/culture/storytelling/philosophy/whatever and "proper" Western equivalents -- where possible, I think it's best to try to handle them together and to place them on equal footing. However, there's a difference between "I would do it differently" and "the way it's done here is wrong": as I said, I think we're on the right side of the line here, and are following a perfectly justifiable approach. UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Metaethical theories typically do not directly adopt substantive positions on normative ethical theories: it's difficult to avoid sounding abstruse in an article on metaethics, I know, but perhaps this would be clearer as something like "do not generally pass judgement on the quality of a given normative ethical theory" or something like that?
Ethics is concerned with normative statements about what ought to be the case, in contrast to descriptive statements, which are about what is the case: this is
Hume's guillotine, isn't it? Philippa Foot, in particular, would be quite upset with us affirming it so baldly. Indeed, the article on the is–ought problem has a very chunky section of "responses" dedicated to people quibbling it.
It's closely related to the is–ought problem or Hume's guillotine, which states that one cannot deduce a normative statement from a descriptive statement. I added a corresponding footnote and slightly modified the text.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Obligation and permission are contrasting terms that can be defined through each other: to be obligated to do something means that one is not permitted not to do it and to be permitted to do something means that one is not obligated not to do it: I'm not really seeing how this definition is any different to the everyday meaning of those terms, and in turn what it's value is in this particular article?
Maybe I'm underestimating our readers, but I'm not sure that they are aware of this precise relation. If we want to go deeper into it, we could give them the formula in deontic logic: and . But i'm not sure how helpful this would be.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In body text, I think that notation would be unhelpful, though I can see a better argument for it in a footnote (similar to how, for example, we often handle quotations in non-English languages: just give the translation in the text, give the original in a footnote). UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
When used in a general sense, good contrasts with bad: italics on good and bad per
MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Likewise, in the following, evil and bad.
To be morally responsible for an action usually means that the person possessed and exercised certain capacities or some form of control.: present tense here, surely?
it is an objective fact whether there is an obligation to keep a promise just as it is an objective fact whether a thing has a black color: I'd stick a comma after promise for readability. I would also suggest picking a different example: after all, colour vocabulary is notoriously cross-culturally tricky (famously, in Homer, the sea is wine-coloured), and indeed many people have experience of arguing with a partner as to whether a shade of paint is really red rather than terracotta... that's before you ask if someone's skin is "black", which is a famous example of how linguistic categories are socially constructed.
It implies that if two people disagree about a moral evaluation then at least one of them is wrong. This observation is sometimes taken as an argument against moral realism since moral disagreement is widespread in most fields: as written, this sounds a bit limp to me. If you give two people a difficult mathematical problem, they are likely to disagree on the answer, but nobody would argue that this means it doesn't have one, only that the problem is hard. In the same way, the fact that people disagree on whether climate change is real or the existence of an afterlife is not good evidence that neither argument has a true answer.
I think the key point in this argument is that the disagreement is widespread. Personally, I agree with you that the argument is not a solid proof against moral realism. However, it still carries some force. For example, if everyone agreed on all moral evaluations, people would be less likely to doubt moral realism.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You're probably covered enough by "has been taken as" -- the structure of the eyeball has been taken as proof of the existence of God, after all, even though it's famously bad evidence for it. It's certainly not unrelated to the point it's trying to prove. UndercoverClassicistT·
C17:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
suicide is permitted: suggest amending permissible: as written, this reads as a legal or a social statement rather than a moral one.
A different explanation states that morality arises from moral emotions, which are not the same for everyone: I would name Emotivism, rather than relegating its name to the link (
WP:EASTEREGG might apply here).
They are opposed to both objective moral facts defended by moral realism and subjective moral facts defended by moral relativism: I'm not sure "are opposed to" means "don't believe in": I'm opposed to animal cruelty, but I'm fairly sure it exists. Suggest "they reject the existence both of objective moral facts..."
Moral nihilism, like moral relativism, recognizes that people judge actions as right or wrong from different perspectives. However, it disagrees that this practice involves morality and sees it as just one type of human behavior: and/or as filling a social function? As we've written it, it sounds as though moral nihilists all think that making moral judgements is stupid and/or pointless: do any of them say something like "moral judgements are arbitrary, but the fact that we make them is important and interesting for our psychology/how our societies work?"
I think the more common view among moral nihilists is that moral beliefs/practices are harmful. Nietzsche frequently makes this point. It's quite possible that some moral nihilists see morality as a useful fiction but I'm not sure that the article should get too much into this.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
According to the traditionally influential view of natural law ethics, morality is based on a natural law created by God: traditionally, again -- but is it always "God"? Not, for example, "the gods", "a deity", "a divinely ordained natural law" or similar? To me, with the capital, we're narrowing ourselves to the Judeo-Christian one (and possibly the Muslim one, but not all readers will agree).
You are right that this is a narrowed perspective. This is mainly because the view was mostly developed in Christian philosophy and is presented this way in the sources. For example, Murphy 2019a says that "the paradigmatic natural law view holds that (1) the natural law is given by God" and talks about "God’s will", "God’s eternal plan", and "God’s choosing". I reformulated the sentence to remove the "traditionally".
Phlsph7 (
talk)
11:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If we're going to implicitly case natural law as a Christian belief, we should be explicit about it and say something like "according to the Christian view of natural-law ethics". On the other hand, if we're not comfortable tying it to Christianity, we need to make sure that our framing works for non-Christian forms. UndercoverClassicistT·
C13:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The sentence now reads: For example, natural law ethics, an influential position in Christian ethics, says that morality is based on a natural law created by God.Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-naturalism accepts that moral properties form part of reality: not sure about accepts that in this kind of phrase (
MOS:SAID) -- this implies that the statement is true: "he accepts that she is dead" rules out, in normal speech, the possibility that she isn't. There are one or two other instances. Here, we could solve it by moving "argues" to this position.
Cognitivism only claims that moral statements have a truth value but is not interested in which truth value they have: not sure only... but... is idiomatic: it works fine if you cut only, or go for "have a truth-value: it is not ..."
The semantic position of cognitivism is closely related to the ontological position of moral realism: I think the division between semantic ideas and ontological ideas is important to clarify this bit, and it would be worth spending a sentence or so at the outset to outline what makes the cognitivism–noncognitivism spectrum different from the realism–nihilism one. "Position" might be slightly ambiguous: it can mean "placement" (so 'semantic position' means 'where something is positioned in terms of semantics' -- something can, for example, have both a horizontal and a vertical) or, as here, "attitude of mind", where the options are usually mutually exclusive.
I reformulated it with an expanded explanation to bring in the contrast between the meaning of moral terms and the existence of moral facts.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's good, though I think the end of cognitivism is closely related to the ontological theory of moral realism about the existence of moral facts is now awkward for prose and slightly unclear. Suggest a full stop after moral realism; you could then do something like "Moral realists believe that moral truths exist, so moral realists [must? generally?] therefore follow the cognitivist principle that moral statements can be true. However, error theory combines cognitivism with moral nihilism by claiming...."? UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A different interpretation is that they express other types of meaning contents: other types of meanings? If "meaning contents" is intentional, I think we need a bit more handholding as to what it, well, means.
According to this view, the statement "Murder is wrong" expresses that the speaker has a negative moral attitude towards murder or dislikes it: or disapproves of it? "Dislikes" can mean "derives negative pleasure from it", and we often dislike doing things we have positive moral views of (going for a long run in the rain, for example).
the statement "Murder is wrong" expresses ... general moral truths, like "lying is wrong", are self-evident: are we capitalising the first words of these compound-noun phrases? It's not consistent at the moment.
Maybe we can go for the rule: start with uppercase if the text between quotation marks can stand as full sentence. I tried to implement it, I hope I didn't miss anything.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Moral skepticism is often criticized based on the claim that it leads to immoral behavior.: again, this isn't a particularly good criticism (atheism gets the same charge levelled at it), particularly as moral sceptics would presumably say that immoral behaviour doesn't exist in any way that human beings can recognise it? However, perhaps we're covered by presenting this as a "some people say...".
Strictly speaking, we are just reporting what others say. The criticism-section of Sinnott-Armstrong 2019 starts with Opponents often accuse moral skepticism of leading to immorality.
This is pedantic, but is that our source material? If so, we need a slight rephrase: we can't use that for moral skepticism is often criticised. Conspiracy theorists often say that lizard people rule the world, but that it is not often said, because there are not many conspiracy theorists. Bringing opponents, critics etc back will solve this. UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
people can act against moral judgments: suggest adding their own moral judgements, so that we're clear we don't mean "people can do things that are disapproved of by their peers".
psychopaths or sociopaths, who fail to either judge that a behavior is wrong or translate their judgment into action: the word sociopath is no longer considered meaningful in psychology: psycopathy, on the other hand, has quite a strict meaning, mostly centring around a lack of inhibitions and empathy. These might be philosophical psychopaths in the vein of philosophical zombies, but I'd suggest avoiding the weeds by just going for "people who fail either to judge...". Surely, though, quite a few of those metaethical theories we've just covered would take some sort of issue with the statement "he has failed to judge that his behaviour is wrong"?
I removed the mention of socipaths. DeLapp, § 5. Psychology and Metaethics explicitly discusses psychopaths from the perspectives of internalism and externalism so I think it should be fine to keep the term.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
16:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(How) does Delapp define psychopaths, in this context? If they simply use the word to mean "people who don't believe that (e.g.) hurting others is wrong", that's out of whack with the usual/"proper" meaning. Again, my point about zombies: philosophers will often use the word to mean "imaginary people who look like you and I but don't have any internal life", and that's fine, but we shouldn't do so without explaining that we're doing it, because our readers will take zombie to mean "brain-eating dead people". UndercoverClassicistT·
C20:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delapp does not define the term, I don't think this is meant as a special philosophical technical term. Rosati 2016 also discusses the relation to psychopaths. I reformulated the passage to ensure that all claims are attributed. An alternative would be to remove the sentence.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
12:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If I may, I think we've got it backwards -- it's not that these philosophers particularly care about applying their findings to real psychopaths, but they seem to be using imagined psychopaths as illustrative examples to craft their theories. How about something like When considering people who consistently break moral codes –termed "psychopaths" by Delapp and Rosati – internalists argue that they must not know that their behaviour is wrong, or else that they feel little motivational force to translate their moral knowledge into action.
If nothing else, I'm a little uncomfortable deferring to philosophers for a definition of psychopath, which is after all a medical term -- we wouldn't, for example, present a philosophers views of taxonomy as authoritative over those of scientists, if they were relevant to their arguments on bioethics, but we would frame them as "givens" in that argument: something like "the ethicist John Smith believes that Venus flytraps, because they eat food, should be considered animals and so have animal rights". We wouldn't say "Venus flytraps are animals" and cite Smith. UndercoverClassicistT·
C12:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure that this is the definition Delapp and Rosati use. There are a lot of sources on the relation between psychopathy and moral motivation, such as
[29],
[30],
[31], and
[32]. I think we shouldn't assume that they all talk about imagined psychopaths rather than real ones.
Our sentence currently says: The debate between internalism and externalism is relevant for explaining the behavior of psychopaths, with some moral theorists suggesting that psychopaths do not know that their behavior is wrong while others propose that psychopaths know it but feel little motivational force to translate this knowledge into action. We could replace "the behavior of psychopaths" with the more general term "psychological deviance". The other mentions of psychopaths are all attributed so we state nothing controversial in wikivoice. But given the difficulties in making progress here, it might be best to just remove the sentence.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
15:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I suppose my issue here is: if this is a discussion about actual, diagnosed psychopaths, it's not great to have that discussion entirely among philosophers rather than psychiatrists. If it's simply an attempt to probe the bounds of a theory, and correct a potential objection to motivational internalism ("some people do things that are wrong"), we shouldn't unnecessarily use terminology that has a precise meaning and doesn't quite fit with the way we want to use it. However, if the latter, I'm not sure why we need psychopaths here at all, since psychologically normal sinners would seem to be just as much a problem to the motivational internalists. From a psychiatrist's point of view, psychopaths commit antisocial actions because they have less empathy, less fear and fewer inhibitions than most people, but that's not quite the sort of conversation we're having here. UndercoverClassicistT·
C16:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
it may not be clear how the Kantian requirement of respecting everyone's personhood applies to a fetus and what the long-term consequences are in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number: we've crossed into two different belief systems here: I'd make that clear, and amend to something like "or, from a utilitarian perspective, what the long-term consequences..."
which may not be universally applicable to other domains: at the moment, a tautology: I'd advise cutting universally, as it wouldn't be nothing if e.g. lessons from medicine could also be applied in sport, but not in romance.
In either case, inquiry into applied ethics is often triggered by ethical dilemmas to solve cases in which a person is subject to conflicting moral requirements: clearer and more concise if cut thus?
Bioethics is a wide field that covers moral problems associated with living organisms and biological disciplines: suggest cutting is a wide field that -- I'm not saying it's wrong, but we haven't described other fields in this way, and I don't think we should give the impression that bioethics is any wider than other fields.
These differences concern, for example, how to treat non-living entities like rocks and non-sentient entities like plants in contrast to animals and whether humans have a different moral status than other animals.: optional, but perhaps more readable with a comma before the final and.
Medical ethics ... has its origins in the Hippocratic Oath: I would be careful about giving the oath too much credit, especially early on: it's a big deal in modern medicine but wasn't really in the ancient world. I would be happier saying that this is one of the earliest known texts to engage directly with medical ethics (though exactly how old is a slightly tricky one), rather than claiming it as a fountainhead for everything that came after. There are a couple of Late Antique texts which are much more straightforwardly ethical codes (rather than contracts of obligation), particularly the {{lang|la|
Formula Comitis Archiatrorum, much more obviously foundational to what has followed, and which aren't, at least as far as I know, recognisably derived from the Hippocratic oath. One thing that does need to be clear here is that the oath is only the oldest surviving work in its field -- it's almost certain that older discussions of medical ethics have been lost.
One debate focuses on the moral status of fetuses, for example, whether they are full-fledged persons and whether abortion is a form of murder: "one debate" reads oddly, since we already had this conversation a section or so earlier: I think there's value in approaching the same issue from another perspective, but perhaps nod to the fact that readers have already seen it?
At the end of life, ethical issues arise about whether a person has the right to end their life in cases of terminal illness and if doctors may help them do so.: could cut at the end of life, and (if you like) broaden this statement: plenty of recent discussion has focused on people who are not, medically at least, anywhere near the end of life, but nevertheless want help in getting there.
many stakeholders are directly and indirectly involved in corporate decisions, such as the CEO, the board of directors, and the shareholders.: all of these are directly involved in at least some decisions: could we swap one of these for a group that are indirectly involved? Or are we counting shareholders as the latter?
I think the shareholders fit more in the indirectly-group: they do not make the day-by-day corporate decisions but other stakeholders are often keen on making them happy.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Military ethics is a closely related field: lose the bold here.
MOS:BOLDREDIRECT has Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section, or at the beginning of another section (emphasis mine): that doesn't apply here. UndercoverClassicistT·
C17:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Right, but we use that in titles, not descriptions of parts of a work. Here, the same logic applies as with the "p" in e.g. "p. 4": unless we're going to write "Smith 2024, Page 3", we should decap both. UndercoverClassicistT·
C17:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
An entity has intrinsic value if it is good in itself or good for its own sake: is this only entities, or can it be e.g. actions and virtues?
In philosophy, "entity" is often understood as one of the widest terms. In this sense, it would include actions and virtues.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
axiological hedonists say that pleasure is the only source of intrinsic value with the magnitude of value corresponding to the degree of pleasure: better with a comma before with, but consider and that the magnitude of value corresponds to...
deontological theories tend to reject the idea that what is good can be used to define what is right: I'm not sure I totally understand this one -- can you give (here or in the article) a case study? Kantians think reason is a good, so can be used to derive what is right; Christians think God is good, so following God's law is right, surely?
Good example of a theorist, but I must admit I'm still confused as to what that means in practice. Is this just another form of Hume's guillotine -- the idea that when we say "kindness is good" and "it is right to show kindness", we're making two different kinds of statements, and one can't be used to infer the other? UndercoverClassicistT·
C09:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's one way to express it. Roughly simplified, as I understand it: an action can be (1) right and good, (2) right and not good, (3) not right and good, (4) not right and not good. According to consequentialists, we only need to know what is good in order to know what is right. So good and right are not really independent and the options (2) and (3) do not apply. Deontologists disagree. This is a rough simplification so we would probably need various disclaimers but I hope the basic idea is clear.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
10:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That sounds like an important distinction, especially as far as (2) and (3) are concerned. I suppose that's (for example) the idea that it could be right under religious law to stone someone for wearing mixed fibres, even though not much good comes of it (except abstract ideas like purifying the community and warning off potential sinners?) Any way of getting that into the article without going too deep into the weeds? UndercoverClassicistT·
C11:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We allude to this fact at various places, like the contrast between following duties vs the value of consequences, the example of not breaking a promise even if no harm comes of it, and the recently added footnote. When overview sources mention this fact, they usually do so in passing without going much into detail.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
15:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this section would be clearer if we brought back one of those concrete examples (like, for example, the idea of breaking a promise being wrong even if it brings good things as a consequence), but happy to defer to you. UndercoverClassicistT·
C15:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Some theorists, like Mark Rowlands, argue that morality is not limited to humans: I find it interesting that Rowlands got a name-check here but nobody got one in bioethics or Just War. Perhaps consider sticking Singer and Augustine/Aquinas up there? We seemed to be channelling the latter in particular.
I would put some dates on the different societies in the first couple of paragraphs of History -- we've whooshed through about 3,000 years but given the casual reader the impression that this all took place at basically the same time.
The ancient and medieval paragraphs on ethical history are impressively multicultural, but once we get to Hobbes, we don't really have anyone outside the European cultural sphere -- in fact, if you take out Brits and Germans, we've got almost nobody at all. Is there anything we can do to widen the scope?
If we simply follow the overview sources on the history of ethics, this is roughly the picture we get. We could mention figures like Wang Yangming and Mahatma Gandhi. I could try to do some research to see if we can come up with more but they probably wouldn't be covered in a typical overview of the history of ethics.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
15:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Neuroethics" is an interesting inclusion in the "see also" -- I assume we don't have any of the other many x-ethics fields down there because we've name-checked them earlier. Should we therefore build some mention of neuroethics into e.g. the bioethics section?
We could but I'm not sure that it's important enough. For example, Gordon's overview article "Bioethics" does not mention neuroethics.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
16:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Must admit I struggle to see an argument by which it's important enough for a "see also" (when no other field, discipline etc is), but not important enough for any mention at all in the text -- but this is a very minor point. UndercoverClassicistT·
C14:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
On that note, is the
Ethical movement really notable enough to take the top spot in the See also, or indeed any spot at all? It seems like a very small operation.
That's all for a pass through, though I appreciate I've given you a lot to work with -- hopefully, mostly questions and gentle steers rather than a massive set of demands. Greatly enjoyed the article. UndercoverClassicistT·
C21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I do -- I've made a few tiny copyedits and replies above, but nothing that would forestall a support. Excellent work on a vital article, and thank you for an interesting and collegial exchange on the review points. UndercoverClassicistT·
C14:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You're a braver editor than me taking on such a task, and well done for even daring to do it. (I haven't read the likes of Rawls, Mill, Bentham et al since my university days, but I'll struggle through to see what I can find). -
SchroCat (
talk)
20:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is primarily the work of PSA, who did a phenomenal job gathering information on this song. They approached me off-wiki last month asking to collaborate on helping to build the article, and we are both of the belief that it is ready for FAC. This song is from
SZA's smash-hit album SOS, and while it was never released as a single, it still became the first-ever top 40 hit for its featured artist, the one and only
Phoebe Bridgers. Cited by several critics and by SZA herself as an example of the album's experimentation with genres outside of R&B, the song revolves around themes of relationships faltering due to a lack of meaningful connection, with recurring themes surrounding artificial intelligence. I have greatly enjoyed collaborating with PSA on this one, and we both anticipate the community's feedback. (Disclosure: for my part, this is a WikiCup nomination.)
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
14:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments from Mike Christie
Oppose on prose. I was the GA reviewer, and I said when I passed it that "the prose is a little awkward in places but I think this meets the GA standards". FA prose standards are higher. Here are a few examples of wording that I think needs to be improved.
"Elsewhere, it appeared on national charts in Australia, Canada, and Portugal." "Elsewhere" is redundant; the list of places tells the reader it's elsewhere.
"many praised the two performers as a fitting match despite their discographies' different sounds, whereas a few found Bridgers an unnecessary addition". "Fitting match" is redundant; "discographies' different sounds" is an odd figurative use of "discography" -- it's their music that has a characteristic sound, not the list of their music; "unnecessary addition" is a bit vague.
I've replaced "fitting match" with "good fit", "discographies' different sounds" with "the differences between their respective musical styles", and rephrased the "unnecessary addition" bit.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"From April to May 2022, SZA told media outlets that she had recently finished the album": strictly speaking this means she did nothing else but say this during that time, which is not what you want to say.
"SZA created a list of possible collaborators for the album. The roster included artists like": "roster" is not the ideal word; it means a list of people who have a given duty.
"Having been categorized as an R&B artist throughout her career, which she believed was because she was a Black woman,[12] SZA sought to prove her musical versatility and combine the R&B sound that had been a staple of her past works[13][14] with a diverse set of other genres and soundscapes." A bit wordy. And we start by saying she thought she was only categorized as an R&B artist because she was Black, and then say R&B was the main genre she had been working in. What does "soundscapes" add here that we don't get from "genre"?
"The turnaround time for completing "Ghost in the Machine" was fast." A time is short or long, not fast (in some usages, such as athletic events, you can say "a fast time", but that's not this usage). I really should have caught this in the GA review.
"Time's Andrew R. Chow wrote that she asks for help even if she feels drained from the romance, which he added was one of the album's recurring themes": a bit hard to parse. Does she feel drained from the romance or not? If she does, why "if"? I think you want "though". And what is the recurring theme? Feeling drained from romance? Or just romance?
I've replaced this part with "Time's Andrew R. Chow wrote that there are multiple instances on the album where SZA expresses desire to remain in a relationship despite feeling drained from it, and cited 'Ghost in the Machine' as an example".
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Mike Christie, thank you for the constructive criticism. I believe that I have addressed the specific points you have mentioned (replies inline), and will be giving the article a few combs-through to identify other possible issues with the prose. Cheers,
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"appeared on the national charts in Canada, Australia, and Portugal" → can't rely on refs in other sections
I have to admit that footnote looked odd to me. I've replaced it with direct citations to the sources that were already present in §Charts.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
18:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As a counterpoint - I have always believed that if a given information is cited somewhere in the article, there is no need to cite it again elsewhere in the same article, which is coincidentally the logic behind citations in lead sections. Plus, listing a bunch of peaks in quick succession in one paragraph disrupts the flow and makes the whole thing off to me. This feels like a matter of preference anyway, and I have reinstated the status quo.
PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...)
05:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I wasn't saying the article needs to provide the exact peaks, but I don't agree that a note from one section to a different section suffices as a citation. The guidance seems to be mostly about an opening sentence acting as a summary for a paragraph, or the lead acting as a summary for the paragraphs of the article.
Heartfox (
talk)
18:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
overall I think there are slightly too many references to the album. context is great but I think some sentences could be cut. Like "She posted the album's track list on Twitter on December 5, 2022." is really unnecessary I think.
I've tried to trim some of the references to other songs (thinking it over, I'm not sure if "Kill Bill" needed to be namedropped, let alone twice, though I believe at least one of those instances was my error) and extraneous references to the album itself.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
18:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"As a member of Boygenius, she also won Best Rock Song and Best Rock Performance for "Not Strong Enough" and Best Alternative Music Album for The Record" → this level of detail is also unnecessary I think
"In a Billboard cover story published", "In an interview with Nessa of Hot 97", "In an interview for CBS News Los Angeles", "SZA told Alternative Press" → all this seems unnecessary. I don't care where stuff was said, I care about what was said.
"In the middle of the demo was an open instrumental section where Bisel thought Bridgers would fit" → Bisel thought Bridgers would fit in an open instrumental section during the middle of the demo
I'll get to this sometime soon (likely within the next few days, I'm a bit burnt out right now). Thank you for the review(s) of Windswept Adan, by the way! Consider this my way of paying you back. :)
joeyquism (
talk)
19:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dylan620: Hello again! I've noted some of my concerns below; feel free to refuse with justification:
...with imminent release being considered a possibility as early as 2019... - Is this clause particularly relevant? I feel that the same information is conveyed or to some extent implied by the preceding clause (After numerous delays). I'd suggest removing it, or rephrasing it to where it does not sit awkwardly in the middle of more pertinent information.
While some tracks had an "aggressive" sound, certain others were balladic, soft, or heartfelt. - Would it be worth it to note if "Ghost in the Machine" falls into any of these descriptions? I've noticed the gradual buildup to the mention of the subject, and while I do find it engaging, I feel as if this is sort of extraneous as it stands, as there have been no mentions of the track prior to this sentence. That being said, I recognize that it does provide more context as to how SOS sounds.
I've added another citation to support categorizing "Ghost in the Machine" as a ballad and removed "heartfelt" as not mentioned by the source (even though I'd personally describe the album that way).
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
For A. D. Amorosi of Variety... - I feel like this is a different way of wording "In his opinion, [...]". I'd personally avoid this kind of phrasing by indicating that the following text is something that he wrote, and is not something that readers should take as fact, which is how it reads to me right now (I acknowledge that I cannot speak for others here). Something like "Writing for Variety, A. D. Amorosi wrote that the production..." would suffice.
and is not something the readers should take as fact – this is intentional, as I wanted to convey that it was Amorosi's opinion that the production sounded like those instruments (neither of which are mentioned in the credits). Nevertheless, I think your suggested phrasing works better, although I did replace Writing for... with In a review of SOS for... so as not to use "writing" and "wrote" only a few words apart in the same sentence (with respect to your mention of
WP:ELEVAR below, which I found enlightening).
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The turnaround time for completing "Ghost in the Machine" was short. - This is sort of just my personal preference, but I'm not a fan of short sentences. If they're not at the beginning of a paragraph (in which case, I would encourage them, as they punch a lot harder), they disrupt the flow of the reading experience. I'd suggest conjoining this with the following sentence through a semicolon, or breaking the paragraph it belongs to in two with this sentence being the first.
The Alternative Press article states that "SZA wanted to weave in the voice of a 'highly conversational' person, or as she explains, someone with a conversational approach to their music like Mac DeMarco, Connan Mockasin or Kevin Parker of Tame Impala." Do you think this warrants inclusion in the article? This seems like valuable information for describing the conversational style of the lyrics. Let me know your thoughts on this. Do note that I did not do a spot or source check; I initially checked this link out to see if there was more to the quote "I feel like there's so much debate about what's good, what's bad, what's this, what's that?"
I think this could be worth including, though I'm not quite sure where. Maybe in §Music_and_production, where Bisel suggests to SZA that she invite Bridgers to feature? The Alternative Press article certainly implies this to be a reason that SZA felt like Bridgers would be a good fit.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think your instinct is correct here. I'm thinking perhaps some integration with the sentence In the middle of the demo was an open instrumental section where Bisel thought Bridgers would fit, so he suggested to SZA that she include Bridgers as a feature; SZA agreed.; perhaps before or after would be alright too.
Replaced the period with a comma and added having sought to include a "highly conversational" guest musician such as Bridgers.Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
23:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
SZA, tired of online drama, sings about... - I think this reads strangely, but I'm not sure of how I would amend it. Leave it be for now, but I just wanted to note that I didn't think this phrase flowed very well.
I got rid of the online drama clause because it felt redundant to part of the paragraph directly above it, and replaced sings about wanting... with yearns for....
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
...the song arrived at its peak of number 17... - Can be conveyed more simply as "the song peaked at number 17"; I'm citing
WP:ELEVAR here. Not trying to attack, but don't be afraid to use the same term twice within close proximity of each other at the expense of sounding a bit like you're droning; I struggle with this as well at times.
As I alluded above, I had not previously considered that "elegant variation" could be a problem, but I totally understand where you're coming from. I've edited the sentene to reuse the "debuted and peaked" wording.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
CJ Thorpe-Tracey for The Quietus... - "For" can be replaced with "of", or the clause can be phrased as something like "For The Quietus, CJ Thorpe-Tracey wrote that he felt..."
I have definitely not adhered to the "no style policing" expectation, but I do feel that some of the prose can be improved to further benefit the reading experience; additionally, most of the concerns that I had before were addressed by the other reviewers and corrected. Overall, I think it reads quite nicely; it just needs some touch-ups to really flow. I'll let you know if I have any further comments; as of now, I have no established position on where I stand for support or oppose. As always, feel free to let me know your thoughts with a reply. Hope you're having a great weekend, and I look forward to hearing back from you soon!
joeyquism (
talk)
21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your edits,
Dylan620! I have left one more comment above regarding the placement of the SZA quote from the Alternative Press article; once that is addressed, I'll read over the article a few more times and likely support. Thanks, and have a great rest of your day!
joeyquism (
talk)
23:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
So you don't mention anything about the song's chords, which is just two chords - Gb major 7 to Ebminor (sometimes Eb major). Can you find any references to its chords or tempo, as in beats per minute? It feels like a steady tempo throughout the whole song.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any sheet music uploads by the song's publisher. I did find
this at musicnotes.com, but it's an arrangement by a third party, which I assume doesn't pass muster for inclusion (though of course I hope I'm wrong here).
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Dylan pretty much said what I was going to say. Musicnotes.com composition is not guaranteed to be the same composition as the original studio version's, so the information was decisively left out. - Elias
This was addressed at
GAN: "credits are assumed to be cited to the album's liner notes, which
WP:ALBUMSTYLE tells me usually does not need an explicit citation". I have removed the citation accordingly. - Elias
It took some digging, but I've found
an image on Discogs where the text is clear enough to be of use for verification.
All in all, the writing is pretty good in my opinion.
I also used a random number generator to spotcheck references.
37 - I don't know if this reference accurately. It doesn't mention " she believes has been overtaken by self-centeredness and lack of empathy. ", nor does it mention that Sadhguru was "the founder of the Isha Foundation". Otherwise the reference seems formatted fine.
I mulled over whether to cite the Isha Foundation tidbit to a Vox article linked in the source, or to remove it outright; I opted for the latter because at the end of the day I'm not sure how relevant it is to the topic at hand. (
PSA, feel free to correct me here.) I've also removed the sentence you quoted (partly per your concerns, and partly because I think it might have been a little redundant to the sentence before it) and moved the paragraph break to start the next one at "The song also discusses artificial intelligence".
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a
WP:SKY/
WP:NOTCITE situation IMO. Namedropping Sadhguru without context because the description would otherwise have to be cited is like saying I should cite that SZA is an American singer-songwriter in the prose for GiTM. The articles about those people already cover those descriptors. - Elias
40 - "The lyrics were interpreted by publications as being about her then-boyfriend, Irish actor Paul Mescal" the references more hint it was a breakup. Was it?
46 - this reference doesn't cover the information at all, which is supposed to be about the album being released on 12/9/2022
This had been a supplementary reference for the "three years of delays" clause of that same sentence - I've pulled the ref (and a couple more) forward to that comma.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
56 - the source says "Versatility largely wins out. Only SZA could find room for Travis Scott on a slow jam ballad, Open Arms, as well as Phoebe Bridgers (Ghost in the Machine)," - I guess "wins out" covers the information, but it seems to be a bit biased in my opinion in its current wording.
This was supplementary to ref 57, but I've restructured the sourcing in that paragraph, and separated this ref as citing how the song contributes to the album's diversity.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not really? I don't see how "cohesive" is a biased word to use. - Elias
I was mostly remarking how " many praised the collaboration as successful" was biased, since I didn't think source 56 would call that praise. The Guardian said "Clocking in at 23 tracks, SOS might well register as a distress signal, with SZA searching for a through line connecting her album’s multiple producers, its grab bag of genres and disparate featured guests," "it treads a fine line between swashbuckling versatility and a lack of cohesion.", and "Better sequencing might have smoothed the bumps." The Guardian review very much read as mixed, not quite as successful. To include it with " many praised the collaboration as successful despite the two artists' different musical styles" feels contrary to the source, and makes me worried that the article might be biased in its point of view. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
21:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I've attempted to resolve this by pulling the ref forward to §Background and using it a source for the song's contribution to the album's diversity.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
14:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
60 - yea that covers it
68 - that covers it
76 - that works
So maybe it's only a few references I checked, but I'm not satisfied about the current state of referencing, and or bias. Would you mind checking these instances, and where possible, improve the referencing, or change the wording? ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
19:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I replied, mostly still the same few concerns, regarding the beats per minute, the credits (mostly want to verify just for FAC purposes), and about the one source being contradictory to what's written in the article. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
21:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm happy to support now. I can see that there aren't a lot of good reliable links out there about the song's composition, which is a shame, but it's understandable. You've addressed my concerns satisfactorily. Best of luck finishing up this FAC! ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's an essay.
WP:VERIFIABILITY is a policy and I think it's probably best to include the citation - what's the harm in having it, given people are likely to pick up on the unsupported nature when this is on the main page. -
SchroCat (
talk)
20:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Some of your capitalisation is a little awry – short prepositions like "out" should be lower case
I think I've addressed this – I did capitalize a preposition (ref title 12 at time of writing) that directly followed an en dash.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
20:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It may be best to archive those sources you've not done so far (this is a suggestion, not compulsory)
I've added an archived URL for the BBC Glastonbury source, but the others that don't already have archives are that way because those references are generated by templates.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
20:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A search shows no missing sources from books or journals
@
Dylan620 @
SchroCat, I am incredibly sorry this is late, but there are some things I have to say: in title case, when a preposition is part of a phrasal verb, the preposition is capitalized (see
MOS:TITLECAPS). For "SZA's Out for Blood", "out" here functions not as a preposition but an adjective, which is why I capitalized the word. Wrt the certifications, it is the standard for music articles to use the
Certification Table Entry template so that updating certs and certification dates is easier. An inconvenience if you want archive links and consistent capitalization, but the people who regularly update this stuff are probably going to be unhappy this was changed. I might raise the archiving issue at
the template talk eventually. For now, I have recapitalized the prepositions and reverted to the templates.
Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 please make some noise00:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Gog: I attempted to address the capitalizations for the certification refs by replacing the table-generating templates
with this, which seemed to work. According to
Elias above, it is customary to use the relevant templates ({{Certification Table Top}}, {{Certification Table Entry}}, and {{Certification Table Bottom}}) because they make it easier to update the certifications; the entry template uses sentence case for its refs, which unfortunately contradicts the title case used for the other refs in this article. Is it still okay to use the templates in this case?
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
19:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would advise making the alt texts more visually descriptive -- they are all for pictures of people, and yet tell us nothing about what those people look like. However, consensus is that the FA standards don't impose rigid criteria for alt text, as long as an attempt has been made.
No lead image, but also no obvious candidates -- the song doesn't seem to have been yet released as a single, so the standard practice of using the sleeve art under FUR can't be used here. UndercoverClassicistT·
C19:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Much appreciated,
UndercoverClassicist. We're on a similar wavelength with our views of alt text. I'm currently working on preparing
Timeline of the 2011 Pacific hurricane season for FLC, and have tried to make the track map and satellite photo alt texts as descriptive as possible. A picture is worth a thousand words, as the old saying goes. I'll try to think of something to spruce up the alt texts here.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
20:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
References: article titles should either all be in title case or all in sentence case. Regardless of how they appear in their originals.
Huh, I thought I caught this already? Went back and double-checked, and it looks like the only ref titles not already in title case are those generated by {{Certification Table Entry}}. Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure how to fix it. I tried substituting the template so I could convert the ref titles afterward, but the result was a huge mess, so I self-reverted.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
23:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, it looksas if cites 79, 80 and 81 are autogenerated to be non-MoS compliant.
"inhumane behavior of other people". Grammatically, shouldn't that be either 'the inhumane behavior of other people' or 'inhumane behavior by other people'?
"the perceived lack of meaningful human connections". This seems to hang in space. Do you mean '... on the internet', '... in modern life', or something else?
Went with "in her life" because it feels congruous with the source, which mentions her not feeling connected to others or herself.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
19:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"including "Ghost in the Machine"." Do you mean something like 'including one for "Ghost in the Machine"? Or perhaps 'including "Ghost in the Machine" for the Best Pop Duo/Group Performance award'?
In this part, (During the build-up to the album's release, SZA created a list of possible collaborators for the album), I would avoid repeating the word "album". I am unsure what the word "build-up" is referencing, as in promotion for the album or something else? Did SZA actively and publicly reach out to other artists for collaborations while promoting the album? Maybe I am just being dense at the moment, but I would like some clarification about this.
I've replaced build-up to the album's release with making of the album and removed the use of 'album' after 'collaborators'.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The image of
Rob Bisel includes the year that the photo was taken while the images of
Phoebe Bridgers and
SZA do not. I would be consistent with whether or not this information is included in the captions.
I am uncertain about "hushed" means in this context, (on hushed electronic production). I think something like "muted" would work better in this context.
I'm not quite sure if I agree with this. According to Wiktionary, the definition of '
hushed' is Very quiet; expressed using soft tones, while the contextually relevant definition of '
muted' is Quiet or soft. They're similar, but 'hushed' feels just that little more specific and fitting, especially since the production actually does make use of soft tones.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have just never seen "hushed" used in regards to music, particularly with production, but I could be wrong. When I think of the word "hushed", I more so associate it with voices (i.e. the "hushed whispers" example provided in the Wiktionary entry). It is not a major point, but personally, I just have never seen the word used like this before. However, since no one else has mentioned this, I could just be over-thinking it.
Aoba47 (
talk)
21:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I would avoid the use of "meanwhile" in this context, (Meanwhile, Alex Hopper of American Songwriter and Andrew R. Chow of Time). The word implies that this action is occurring at the same time as the events of the previous sentence so it does not really work in this case. I would use a different transition word.
That is a very good point and one that I wish I'd thought of myself. Reading it again, I'm uncertain if a transition word is actually necessary here, so I've chucked 'meanwhile' without replacing it with anything.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but I do not think "personally" is needed in this part, (SZA personally contacted Bridgers), as that could be understood without that word.
I hope that this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with the FAC, and I hope you are having a great start to your weekend.
Aoba47 (
talk)
19:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the replies and for the kind words. The "hushed" part is not a major issue and will not hold up my review. As I have said above, I just have not seen that word used in this kind of context, but that could very well just be me. I will look through the article again sometime tomorrow if that is okay with you. I do not imagine that I will find anything further, but I just want to double-check.
Aoba47 (
talk)
21:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for addressing everything. I do not see anything further for me to comment on. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I am glad that I was able to help with this FAC.
Aoba47 (
talk)
15:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't believe the co-nominator Dylan has had an FA before. As such, this would need a spot-check of sources for source-to-text integrity. I see that Hurricanethink did some spot-checks but given that his check returned some problems, I'd like to see some additional feedback.
SchroCat, you said in your source review you'd be willing to do it if requested. Does the offer still stand?
FrB.TG (
talk)
09:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, I've done just over a third of the citations. I've been really picky on a couple of these, but I think I need to be, as you seem in a couple of places to slightly over stretch what the source has said, even though you're in the same sort of ball park. There's also the possibility I missed a bit, particularly in those multiple citation points, so I'll let you point out where I've not seen what I've been asking for.
FN1-5: What, in the five sources, covers "themes like heartbreak" and the acclaim for "SZA's vocal performance and songwriting and for the musical style"?
Ref 1 (at time of writing) praises Ctrl's "raw, candid writing" and calls it "one of the high marks of the confessional R&B of the past decade"
Ref 2 (at time of writing) calls that album "one of the decade's best" and highlights her voice and songwriting (the latter of which is presumably referred to when the reviewer remarks on "her emotional aptitude for being vulnerable and playful at the same time")
Ref 3 (at time of writing) describes the praise Ctrl received for melding R&B with elements of other genres, including "indie, alternative, [and] trap"
Ref 4 (at time of writing) implies that Ctrl is "wonderfully experimental" (more specifically, it describes SOS as an "expansion" of this, and, not counting singles, Ctrl was her last major release before SOS)
Ref 5 (at time of writing) praises Ctrl's genre malleability and lyricism
I will concede that none of these sources verify "themes like heartbreak". My next edit will be to rectify this by incorporating some sources I found on the
Ctrl article. Will report back shortly.
Dylan620 (he/him •
talk •
edits)
01:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
So there are now ten sources to deal with three and a half lines of text? We're into
Wikipedia:Citation overkill territory here. I think you need to rationalise this by either removing those that are just doubling up on what others say, or using the relevant citations at the end of each sentence. Please try to remember that the text should follow what the sources tell us, we shouldn't be hunting down and adding sources to justify what we think is correct.Do these new sources state that the album "received widespread acclaim", or are they just examples of positive reviews? If the latter, they fall foul of
WP:SYNTH. -
SchroCat (
talk)
06:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
FN6: OK
FN7-9: What, in the five sources, covers that she "sought to prove her musical versatility by imbuing her established sound with elements from multiple genres". The sources all say there are multiple genres, but I think I'm missing the statement that it was a conscious decision to "prove her musical versatility"
FN10-11: What, in the five sources, covers that she "envisioned it being an amalgamation of various disparate musical styles"? The two sources say the album has several disparate musical styles, but not that she envisioned it.
FN12: Empire doesn't talk about diversity but versatility, which is a different thing
File:Ken Doherty.jpg: CC-BY-SA 3.0 & GNU Free Documentation License.
File:Mark Williams at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-05 01.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0
Some of these images have the persons facing right: this is usually recommended to be left-justified according to
MOS:IMAGELOC, although I have been told that this is not strictly a FA criteria requirement.
Images have proper alt-text.
It might be worthwhile to note that these are not images of them at this specific event in the captions — I initially thought so until I saw the dates myself. I believe that falls under prose though, so Support on image review.Generalissima (
talk) (it/she)
19:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Lee! I've listed some things that I noticed below; feel free to refuse with justification:
Before Gog comes through, you should change the reference titles to be all in title or sentence case - there's
an extension to assist in this if needed. Additionally, appropriate web/news links should be archived if they can (I'm sure you are familiar, but I would suggest using
IABot here).
I only just learned about this script the other day. I've run it, but it does cause some issues with mobile view, so I have to install it each time I need to run it, which isn't ideal. I do run IABot, however, due to some localising, some news sites cannot be archived through IABot (the Eurosport.co.uk links), so I've archived where I can. Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)11:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Overview looks great. Snooker terms that I would have otherwise not been familiar with are wikilinked appropriately, and are described in a way that is clear and isn't overwhelming. I would, however, suggest moving the footnote [a] to be after "modern era".
This was the fifth maximum compiled at the world championships; the first since O'Sullivan at the 1997 World Championship. - I'm not sure of the use of the semicolon here. I think "and the first" with a comma would read a little bit better.
...whilst Hunter perhaps drew on his two Masters finals wins to motivate him in the deciding frame. - Could you provide the text in the original literature that corroborates the "perhaps" in this sentence?
Mark Williams defeated seven-time champion and close friend Stephen Hendry 13–7. - I'm not sure of the relevance of including "close friend" here; it seems a bit extraneous.
The final was officiated by the Netherlands' Jan Verhaas, the youngest referee at a world final. - Has this been superseded by anyone else? I would word it a bit differently if so (something like "then the youngest referee to oversee a world final until [name] in [year]") but I understand if this is not appropriate.
Thank you for alerting us of this! In that case, I would say that the proposed revision would be better suited here, if you can find a source for Paul Collier's age in 2004.
joeyquism (
talk)
15:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I honestly found very little wrong with this article; most of it is already very well-written and comprehensive. As someone unfamiliar with snooker, I feel like I learned a lot from your clear elaborations. After these initial comments are addressed, I'll give it another read and see if I find anything wrong - if not, I will likely come back to take a supportive stance. Apologies if I came off as pedantic; however, I do hope that this review was at least a little bit helpful. Thank you for all your hard work, and I hope you have a great day!
joeyquism (
talk)
02:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
12:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Lee Vilenski, I note that you are away on holiday. I hope that you are enjoying yourself. I note that you have not commented here for five weeks. While RL obviosly comes first, can I point you towards the rule "Nominators are expected to ... make efforts to address objections promptly". I will give you another couple of days, but this nomination is in imminent danger of being archived for inactivity, which would be a shame.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
17:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article feels rather "thin" to me in comparison with other World Championship tournament articles that have Featured Article status. For instance, the summary section mentions nothing about the qualifiers and doesn't even mention who the debutants were in that year. The first-round summary mentions just 4 matches out of a possible 16 and the second-round summary also mentions just 4 matches out of a possible 8. And some of these mentions are just "this guy beat that guy." I would have liked the summary to go into a bit more depth and detail in order to convey more of a flavour of the tournament.
Lead
"This was the 27th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship had been held at the Crucible, marking the 26th anniversary of the first staging of the event at this venue." This feels both confusing and redundant. How about "This was the 27th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible, where it was first staged in 1977."
"became another first-time champion to fall to the Crucible curse" ... another? Of how many?
O'Sullivan's maximum break and his achievement in becoming the first player to make multiple Crucible 147s are surely lead-worthy?
In my view, the lead should mention who the debutants were that year and also give the century break total for the tournament.
Overview
This section mentions the popularity of snooker in China, Hong Kong, and Thailand, using references from 2015 and later. But this article is about the 2003 tournament, and so we seem to be talking about stuff that hasn't quite happened yet in the sport. Yes, the main stage featured two Asian players (Fu and Wattana), but Ding Junhui had not even turned pro yet, and so it seems premature to be talking about China in particular.
I would suggest moving the sentences about Joe Davis and the tournament moving to the Crucible to the start of the paragraph in which they feature.
"It was the ninth and last ranking event of the 2002–03 snooker season on the World Snooker Tour." Note that the brand "World Snooker Tour" was introduced as part of a 2020 rebrand of World Snooker. It didn't exist in 2003. People typically referred to the "main tour" at that time.
"The number of frames needed to win a match increased to 13 in the second round and quarter-finals, and 17 in the semi-finals; the final match was played as best-of-35-frames." It seems confusing to mix "best of" and "first to". "The second-round and quarter-final matches were the best of 25 frames, the semi-finals were best of 33, and the final was best of 35" would be more consistent.
"This was the fifth maximum compiled at the world championships and the first since O'Sullivan at the 1997 World Championship." This makes it sound like O'Sullivan himself is a maximum break. I'd suggest "This was the fifth maximum compiled at the World Championship and the first since O'Sullivan's maximum at the 1997 event."
"a 132 break in his first round match" -- hyphenate first-round match.
"Ebdon lead 4–3 ..." Should read "Ebdon led 4–3"
Quarter-finals
"The quarter-final was played" -- should be "The quarter-finals were played"
Semi-finals
"A condensed version of the match was showcased on BBC Two on 28 April 2020 in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship which was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic." How relevant is this? Or is it an example of recentism bias?
Final
"Jan Verhaas, the youngest referee at a world final." The article should probably note that while this was true at the time, Verhaas (then aged 36) is no longer the youngest to referee a world final. He was superseded in the 2004 final by Paul Collier (then aged 33), who in turn was superseded in the 2020 final by Marcel Eckardt (then aged 30).
"Williams took an early lead in the final, leading at 6–2 after the first session, and extended the lead to 10–2 in the second session." Overly verbose. "Williams led 6–2 after the first session and extended his lead to 10–2 in the second session."
"On the resumption in the third session, Doherty won six frames in-a-row" -- I'd suggest "In the third session, Doherty won six frames in a row" (do not hyphenate "in-a-row").
"The win allowed Williams to become world number one again, the first player to regain the position under the current ranking system and only the second overall after Ray Reardon." This may need clarification. The "current" rolling ranking system (in 2024) is different from the annual ranking system that was in effect up to 2010. And the sentence suggests that Reardon regained the number one position under another, different ranking system. All this is confusing, even to someone familiar with snooker history.
Are there particular reasons why this is significantly shorter than the article for, say, the 2002 edition of the tournament?
Why are there no details about the qualifying competition? I don't think we want full results as there were so many of them, but looks like there was some bizarre set-up with different pre-qualifying competitions for non-WPBSA members, WPBSA members (non-tour), and WPBSA challenge tour members, followed by six qualifying rounds.
"There were a total of 120 entrants from the tour" - not verified by the source, and I don't think it is accurate.
Prize fund has the Highest pre-TV break prize but not the money awarded for Last 48/64/80/96/128 round losers.
The article doesn't mention who won the Highest pre-TV break prize.
"The next two frames were tied" - I don't think this is the intended phrase.
"However, Fu won the match 10–6" - is this supported by Almanac p161? (I'm guessing not)
"a 42-minute final frame" - can some context be given, or the duration removed?
I dislike "all-Scottish clash", but support for this is in the source.
"defeated seven-time champion Stephen Hendry" - why only mention his titles at the fourth instance of his name?
I see HH above queried "A condensed version of the match was showcased on BBC Two on 28 April 2020 in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship which was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic" - I'd suggest removing it.
"He was only the third player to win these three events in a single season and is the most recent player to have achieved this" - suggest rewording as the source is from 2003 and he may not always be "the most recent player to have achieved this"
"With three of his matches going to a deciding frame, Doherty played 132 out of a possible 137 frames in the tournament, a record for the modern era, with only his quarter final win over Higgins having been decided by more than two frames" - not all supported by the source. Adding Downer's Almanac as a source should sort this.
Main draw - I checked a couple of the references against the dates and they didn't verify all of the info (e.g. dates on which matches were played.) Perhaps these are redundant as you have cited the Crucible Almanac, which I'm sure has all of the session dates.
I know opinions vary about the best way to present the scores from the final, but personally I dislike this one which has the scores twice.
Caption "Ken Doherty was six frames behind, but won 17–16." - maybe add the round, or the opponent?
Ref 3 - "worldsnooker.com. World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association" World Snooker and WPBSA are, and I think were in 2003, related but different organisations.
Some other citations are inconsistent, e.g. "Peter Ebdon "I'm Delighted". BBC." but "Williams Takes Centre Stage". news.bbc.co.uk"; the snooker.org citations
I've corrected the authors for the Snooker Scene articles and made some other tweaks to them - please check that these changes are OK.
Lead "The championships were sponsored by cigarette manufacturer Embassy." is not included in the body, so is uncited.
Format: "It was the ninth and last ranking event of the 2002–03 snooker season on the World Snooker Tour." not supported by sources. The BBC source is about a different season, and the snooker.org source has "WPBSA ranking tournament (#8 of 8)"
Tournament summary - you could add a cuegloss link to "sessions" at the first instance.
Jozo Tomasevich was a Yugoslav-American economist and historian whose works on Yugoslavia in WWII continue to be widely cited today despite his first book on the Chetniks being published nearly fifty years ago. According to the German historian Klaus Schmider, it is a tragedy that he died before completing the third volume of his planned series on Yugoslavia in WWII which was to be focussed on the Partisans. Even his second volume had to be published posthumously in 2001, with editing by his daughter. I have used his works right across my WP contributions on WWII on Yugoslavia, and his work forms the foundation on which many more recent historians have built. This is my second nom of a historian of WWII in Yugoslavia after
Radoje Pajović. Have at it.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Consider adding the ISBN for Tomasevich and Vucinich 1969. Is this the one: 9780520015364? Also, Google Books shows Vucinich here was an editor and not an author.
Are there any details on his collaboration with Wayne Vucinich?
Not beyond him contributing a chapter to the book. They taught at different universities in California and I understand they were close colleagues and co-received an award in 1989, and I'd love to know more given the Vucinich brothers were Serbs and Tomasevich a Croat, but they appear to have got along very well.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure military biography is the right WPMH task force here, you should consider removing it and retaining only the historiography task force tag.
Has anyone endeavored to publish the Tomasevic papers at HILA or Volume 3 of his series? I found one article on this from the Washington Post but it was paywalled.
Hi @
Peacemaker67, above comments all OK. A minor issue I forgot to spot last time: we need page numbers for a couple of the sources, namely Baletić 1997, Prosecutor versus Vojislav Šešelj 2008, Irwin 2000, Auty 1976, Dragnich 1976 and Campbell 1976. The other sources are only one pagers, so those don't have any problems, but these one have multiple pages, so you will need to add the page numbers for them.
Matarisvan (
talk)
08:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
G'day
Matarisvan. Strictly speaking, the short "review" citations do not need a page, as the page range given in the long citation is only 2-3 pages long, and anyone wishing to
verify them need only read a page or two, and in any case their comments should be read in the context of the whole review. I have added pages for the Baletić and Prosecutor vs Vojislav Šešelj short citations, as they are longer pieces of work. Cheers,
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
07:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
His final book was the second volume of the series – War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration – which was published posthumously in 2001 after editing by his daughter Neda.
after usually means -> in the time following an event or another period <-> in which case, it soumds like the book was edited after its publication - what am I missing?
In an obituary in the Slavic Review, Tomasevich was described as "a master of scholarly skills, a person of bountiful erudition, wit and human dignity".
<>I hate quibbling further, but now means at the present time, at this moment or very soon. So, how about dropping the word, or replacing it with something like this: -> Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and in (year) became part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia.
Pendright (
talk)
22:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In 1938, he was the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and moved to the US,[3] thereby "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University".
"availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University" -> If this is a direct quote, should there be attribution-if not, then should italics be used?
In 1937, Tomasevich married Neda Brelić, a high school teacher. They were happily married for 57 years and had three children – Anthony, Neda Ann, and Lasta. In 1976, Tomasevich contributed an essay to a book in which he conducted a sociological and historical analysis of his extended family reaching back to the early nineteenth century.
Somehow,Chronologically, these sentences seem out of order?
The first appeared in German in 1934 and was titled Die Staatsschulden Jugoslaviens (The National Debt of Yugoslavia).
during 1934
The following year, he had Financijska politika Jugoslavije, 1929–1934 (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia, 1929–1934) published in Serbo-Croatian, covering much of the same material but more accessible to Yugoslavs.[1]
Does 1929-1934 need to be repeated?
which covered
A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization – described Novac i kredit as an important work that filled a large gap in Yugoslav economic literature, and also gave a vivid picture of then-current economic theory.[9]
International marine resources and Yugoslav peasants
The first [book] was International Agreements on Preservation of Marine Resources, [that was] published by Stanford University Press in 1943.
Suggest the above changes
The second book, Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia [was] published in 1955, was [and] described by Vucinich as "a study of monumental scope [which] has been widely recognized as the most comprehensive and accomplished study in the field".
In 1957, Tomasevich received a San Francisco State University grant for Slavic and Eastern European studies.[12]
Suggest -> In 1957, Tomasevich received a grant from San Francisco State University for Slavic and Eastern European studies.[12]
The first volume focused on the Chetnik movement led by Draža Mihailović, which was subtitled The Chetniks and appeared in 1975.
In the context used, what does appeared mean?
Soon after it was published, the book was reviewed by Phyllis Auty, professor of modern history at Simon Fraser University.
Replace the comma with "who was a
The third volume in the planned trilogy, which was to cover the Partisans, was 75 per cent complete at the time of his death,[1] and remains unpublished.
"Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich published two books on economic matters; one focused on marine resources and the other on the peasant economy of Yugoslavia and both of them received positive reviews." - the last part seems like an add-on, and makes the sentence a bit too long. Perhaps - "Tomasevich published two well-received books on economic matters"?
The book was positively reviewed, and twenty-five years later was described as still the "most complete and best book about the Chetniks to be published either abroad or in former Yugoslavia" - the quote doesn't seem important for lead. First, it's unattributed - I see in the body of the text that it was from the Croatian historian Ivo Goldstein, but that doesn't mean his quote should be in the lead. Could you write the same meaning without the quote?
the so-called Independent State of Croatia. - "so-called" seems a bit biased and pointy for my liking. Could you word it differently?
it is often described in this way (eg by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and others), as ironically it was far from "independent", being essentially an occupied quasi-protectorate propped up by large numbers of Axis troops.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
04:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Jozo completed his secondary education in Sarajevo – then part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia – before moving to Switzerland to study at the University of Basel where he earned a doctorate in economics. " - when? This is a pretty important part of his life that you glossed over. Is there anything more about this part of his life?
Some more year/date references would be nice for "Early life" section. For example, "After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco." - When?
"Before the outbreak of World War II – and then known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California." - again, when? The war broke out in 1939, so there could be a variety of dates.
The article is fine, but it seems to focus too much on what other people think about his writings, and too little about his actual life. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
17:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There are still a lot of unknown parts, which I'm not a huge fan of, like when American citizenship happened, what he died from, any siblings' names, the mother's name, when he went to SF, even the birthday. I get that a lot of this information isn't available, but it's a shame when you Google his birthday, and it says "March 16", but that there's no reliable source for it. The article is decent, for sure, but it's a shame that so much is unknown. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Since the name is only partially anglicized, it might make sense to figure out what was the pronunciation. We don't happen to have one at
Jozo, while we do have one at
Josip, but in case of Tomasevich it would specifically make sense to note how the Americans pronounced his first name because it's not clear it would have been the same as the original. --
Joy (
talk)
20:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I may be nitpicking here, but the first paragraph of the Early life, education, career and family section and the first sentence of the second paragraph of the same section may give impression to casual readers that Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia existed at the same time.
In "His widow Neda died in Palo Alto..." I'm wondering if either "his widow" or "Neda" is redundant because she's already introduced in the same paragraph as his wife. Striking this, as I realise that he had a daughter of the same name.
Regarding Financijska politika Jugoslavije (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia) - is that the English translation of the title the book is known as generally? I'd expect Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia to be translation of "Fiskalna politika Jugoslavije"... or that the English translation of the title is "Financial Policy of Yugoslavia". That is, of course unless the offered English translation is common translation of the title.
Overall, I'd say the article appears comprehensive, i.e. I feel I have no question to ask that is not already answered by the prose.--
Tomobe03 (
talk)
16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's a mention of Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia in Splivalo, Josip (1958).
"Naučno djelo našeg profesora u Americi" [Scientific Work of Our Professor in America]. Naše more (in Croatian). 5 (1).
University of Dubrovnik: 52.
ISSN0469-6255. The short article might be illuminating because it says that the book consists of three parts. The first one provides a review of historical development of of Yugoslav peoples and their common characteristics in economics. The second part reviews agriculture during the WWI and the third one examines agriculture in the interwar period. The review of historical development gives (at least to me) an impression that there's the point where Tomasevich's interest started crossing from economics alone to history. The article also indicates that
Joseph S. Davis wrote a foreword for the book.--
Tomobe03 (
talk)
08:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Josip "Jozo" Tomašević was born in 1908 in the village of Košarni Do on the Pelješac peninsula in the Kingdom of Dalmatia , which was then part of Austria-Hungary . [1] probably a nit, but the source doesn't categorize Dalmatia as a "Kingdom", nor does it say anything about Austria-Hungary.
Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and is now part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia . [1] I'm guessing you've just got the wrong citation because the source doesnt say any of those things.
Before the outbreak of World War II – and then known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California. He was on the scholarly staff of the Food Research Institute within Stanford University . During the war, he worked with the Board of Economic Warfare [1] ... After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco. The source says
Before World War II he moved to California where he was a member of the scholarly staff of the Food Research Institute at Stanford University. During World War II he was affiliated successively with the Board of Economic Warfare and UNRRA in Washington, DC. After the war he was with the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco.
so I'm a little concerned about
WP:CLOP. I get that much of this is just a chronological history and full of proper names, but it still seems a bit too close to the original. Also, while the source does use the spelling "Tomasevich", I think it's a bit of
WP:SYNTH to say "then known by the anglicised ...".
and then the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration in Washington, D.C. from 1944 to 1946. After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco. [1] [7] Maybe I'm just not familiar with how harvard refs work, but I had to dive into the wikisource to figure out that OAC meant "Online Archives of California". And once I got there, it doesn't say anything about Washington, D.C.
His preference was for a position combining teaching and research, so in 1948 he joined the San Francisco State College (later San Francisco State University). Tomasevich taught there for twenty-five years until he retired in 1973 – except in 1954 when he taught at Columbia University . [1] The source says
Preferring a professional assignment combining teaching and research, he joined San Francisco State College—now San Francisco State University—in 1948 and stayed there until his retirement in 1973. In 1954 he taught at Columbia University for one year.
This seems like CLOP again. I wasn't sure about this so I asked for a second opinion from my wife (who writes and reviews scientific papers professionally). She agrees that while it's not word-for-word, its the same sentence and paragraph structure with just a few words changed here or there, which is, as
WP:CLOP puts it, "superficial modification of material from another source".
In 1937, Tomasevich married Neda Brelić, a high school teacher. They were happily married for 57 years and had three children – Anthony, Neda Ann, and Lasta. In 1976, Tomasevich contributed an essay to a book in which he conducted a sociological and historical analysis of his extended family reaching back to the early nineteenth century. He became an American citizen. [9] This appears to be mis-cited; it's in [1], not [9].
I'm going to stop at this point. Most of the sources used are off-line, which is fine. But in almost every case, when I spot-checked a source that was available to me, I found problems. This does not give me confidence that the rest of the sourcing is correct. Perhaps I'm just being too picky, so maybe somebody else should do some more spot-checking.
Here's some more:
Tomasevich died ... in Palo Alto, California.[10] The source just says he was a resident of Palo Alto, not that he died there.
A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv , by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization ... [12] This is not in English so I'm unable to read it, but I'd wager that a review written by Lamer in 1940 says nothing about Lamer's future employment.
The first book was International Agreements on Preservation of Marine Resources , that was published by Stanford University Press in 1943 ... [1] The cited source says 1949. WorldCat
does indeed say 1943, but you're not citing WorldCat.
Soon after it was published, the book was reviewed by Phyllis Auty , who was a professor of modern history at Simon Fraser University ... [16] The source does identify Auty as being from Simon Fraser University, but doesn't say anything about being a "professor of modern history".
The third volume in the planned trilogy ... and it remains unpublished. [22] Nit: this should be qualified with {{asof}}.
No concerns about the prose. I made minor edits to the article: feel free to revert.
In the "Sources", Mazzoni, Mario M. (1989) and Vaquer, José María; Eguia, Luciana; Carreras, Jesica (2018) have titles in all caps, which per
MOS:ALLCAPS should be in sentence case.
"Subduction of the Nazca Plate beneath the South American Plate" is said in the lede, but I think the article body says that the subduction is under South America, with no mention of it being a plate. Should this be more explicit in the body, maybe wikilinked in the body?
In the lede: "The formation of the APVC has been linked to the existence of a giant magmatic body in the crust of the Andes." From what I gather from the body, this magmatic body is the
Altiplano-Puna Magma Body. Should this be wikilinked in the lede? And should the lede specify that the body is in the Central Andies (and not underneath the whole thing?)
Panizos, Vilama, Cerro Guacha and last Uturuncu, which shows evidence of ongoing activity - which one does "which" refer to? If it's Uturuncu, then "the last of which" is better
Cerro Panizos[b] proper is a 5,228 metres (17,152 ft),[8] 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft) high[9] lava dome in the southeastern semicircle - my lack of geology knowledge will show, but why are there three different heights here? Isn't this referring to the height of Cerro Panizos?
In para 1, all those references constantly interrupting sentences confuse me- I know that it's ok MoS-wise, I just prefer to keep them to the end. There are so many present here that I worry about others getting confused too
Ditto for some others, like the parentheses in para 3 of "Geology"
A branch of the Inca road system passed over the volcano, which features several archeological sites - what does which refer to? The road system as a whole? The volcano?
Numerous ignimbrites were emplaced between 25 and 1 million years ago - usually when I see a date range written out like this, the smaller period goes first and the larger period second
The last eruptions took place 271,000 and 85,000 years ago at Uturuncu and Cerro Chascon-Runtu Jarita complex, - and the Cerro Chascon-Runtu complex...?
Some of the sources have no translated title, like Guzmán et al and Mazzoni and others (I would add the titles myself if my Spanish was any good, but I trust you can since you cited them)
All good on everything, though I do have one comment on the refs. Is citing each individual part of a sentence differently a typical thing in geology articles? I ask this genuinely- in the biographies and other articles I've written, having multiple refs at the end of a sentence is just fine, and IMO makes it more readable.
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) (
not me) (
also not me) (
still no)
11:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think that's a question of article topic and more of who writes articles. I prefer this style b/c it's easier to verify (and correct) statements when you only have to check one source.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
05:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"it produced the large volcanic calderas Panizos, Vilama, Cerro Guacha and Uturuncu". The
Uturuncu article claims the latter as a stratovolcano rather than a caldera.
"Panizos is the source of two major ignimbrites, the older Cienago Ignimbrite and the more recent Panizos Ignimbrite." Shouldn't the comma be a colon?
"The volcano is a 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide" → 10-kilometre-wide (6.2 mi).
"surrounding a 10–15 kilometres (6.2–9.3 mi) wide lava dome semicircle" → 10–15-kilometre-wide (6.2–9.3 mi).
"Cerro Panizos proper is a 5,228 metres (17,152 ft), 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft) high lava dome in the southeastern semicircle." → "5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft)
"The other domes are the 5,480 metres (17,980 ft), 5,490 metres (18,010 ft) or 5,228 metres (17,152 ft) high Cerro Cuevas, 5,504 metres (18,058 ft) high Cerro Crucesnioc/Crucesnioj/El Volcán, 5,390 metres (17,680 ft) high Cerro Vicunahuasi west and 5,540 metres (18,180 ft) high Cerro La Ramada/Cerro Ramada north of Cerro Panizos." Same as above.
"The 5,158 metres (16,923 ft) high Limitayoc". Same as above.
Hydrology and human geography & history
"Panizos can be accessed through these valleys." Since no valleys are mentioned before this sentence it would probably be better if were reworded as "Panizos can be accessed through the valleys of these streams."
Climate, flora and fauna
"The region is a desert, with the only vegetation consisting of cushion plants, grasses and shrubs." It has already been stated at the beginning of this section that the region is a desert.
Geology
"reaching 6,000 metres (20,000 ft) height". I think you mean 6,000 metres (20,000 ft) in height.
"Smaller scale structures at Panizos may reflect north-south and eastsoutheast-westnorthwest trending lineaments". En dashes and "eastsoutheast" and "westnorthwest" should be "east-southeast" and "west-northwest".
Geochronology
"Volcanic activity began during the Jurassic". Volcanic activity of what? The Central Volcanic Zone?
"During the late Miocene, subduction under the Puna". It's not clear what "Puna" is referring to here. Is it the Altiplano-Puna high plateau or the Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex?
"Volcanic activity shifted east into the Puna". Same as above.
"In Bolivia, about 8-5 million years ago Kari-Kari was active, 8.4-6.4 million years ago Morococala, 8-5 million years ago Los Frailes". En dashes.
"Volcanism declined during the past 4 million years". Declined where?
Composition
"And orthopyroxene rare". I think you mean are rare.
"Gold and silver deposits are found on the volcano, and an occurrence of antimony-copper-uranium has been described at Paicone." Has mineral exploration been done at the volcano?
"a total volume >300 cubic kilometres (72 cu mi)". A total volume of more than 300 cubic kilometres (72 cu mi).
"The >650 cubic kilometres (160 cu mi) Panizos (or Panizos II) Ignimbrite". The more than 650-square-kilometre (250 sq mi) Panizos (or Panizos II) Ignimbrite.
"The Panizos ignimbrite consists of crystal-rich". Should ignimbrite be capitalized here since Panizos Ignimbrite appears to be the name of an ignimbrite deposit?
"The Panizos ignimbrite is one of several "super-eruptions" in the Central Andes". See above and may be "is" should be replaced with "represents" since ignimbrite deposits are not eruptions on their own.
"Both units of the Panizos ignimbrite". See above.
Going to note here for @
FAC coordinators:
that I'll be spottily present in the next few weeks, so they can't count on me for source reviews during this time frame. I'll try to keep up with this FAC.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
19:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ahumada 2010: this is not "via ResearchGate" (no link is given), and has incomplete bibliographical data (missing volume/page numbers). Journal is here:
[33], and our article is at Número 13 -> Articulos ->
[34]. (Same as
[35]). The ISSN leads to a non-working search, but I guess that is beyond our control here.
Then why don't you link this as URL if it is your actual source? You are basically saying "hey, you can find this on ResearchGate but you'll have to search for it yourself".
Burgoa 2007: remove "1ed". Why OCLC instead of ISBN? Missing publisher and location.
Make more pretty. "[Geology sheet 2366-I / 2166-III Mina Pirquitas] (pdf) (Report). Boletín;269 (in Spanish)." looks messy. Is the series really called "Boletín;269"?
I assume you are talking about
this PDF? If you are citing this, it should have page numbers to complete the bibliographical data. And it actually seems to be a journal article, not a "report"? (
this journal).
Some have |hdl-access= though, so Guzman 2020, Kern 2016, Perkins 2016 and some others have little green open locks. Other URLs (DOIs mostly) do not have anything explaining access.
I would suggest to remove the via or add the link. From the documentation for the citation templates, I do not think this is how |via= is supposed to be used.
Servicio Geológico Minero Argentino 1996: there seems to be duplicated information in the citation, "(pdf) (Report) (in Spanish)" looks a bit odd, and the link does not go to a PDF. Add publisher location (Buenos Aires)? I understand which file you mean by "Map_PLV" but strictly speaking none of the files has this name.
Aye, the URL points to an intermediary page. I think the parentheses are a matter of the template. Is there a better title for the MAP_PLV?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You could get rid of |format=pdf to make it less visually jarring. I can't seem to access the page at the moment, so I don't have a good suggestion what to do about the file name.
Sources are either scientific journals / books / very few conferences or government map services, all fine in terms of reliability. For formatting issues see above. Happy to do spot checks on request. —
Kusma (
talk)
14:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I won't hold it against the article that OAbot has randomly added some green unlock symbols. Other things are consistent now, so the source review is a pass. —
Kusma (
talk)
19:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My overarching concern is with accessibility to the average reader getting into the article. At the minimum our articles should be basically comprehensible to someone without linking away, and I don't think this article manages that right now. For example, the article starts with <green>Cerro Panizos is a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano consisting of ignimbrites, two calderas (a depression formed by the collapse of a volcano) and a group of lava domes in the Potosi Department of Bolivia and the Jujuy Province of Argentina.</green> This is a really long, hard-to-parse sentence where you explain what calderas are, but not what ignimbrites are (which I would wager far fewer people would have any idea about.) Why not restructure to the shorter <green>Cerro Panizos is a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano spanning parts of Bolivia and Argentina.</green> or similar and then start giving a more detailed explanation of what it encompasses? (Also at first blush I'm not sure why the ignimbrites are the most important thing to mention, anyhow, as part of a volcanic feature.)
Once you're in the body, taking a few more words to explain stuff like ignimbrite (even just "ignimbrite, or volcanic rock") would do wonders.
The Geography/Geomorphology section is a pain to read with the referencing as it stands. Readers shouldn't have to wade through as many as six references or explanatory notes on top of the dense list of units of measurement to try and read things. Sticking all these in a
REFBUNDLE would be a much cleaner and clearer option.
That sounds to me like it'd decrease readability, if people reading about the volcano suddenly fall into a discussion of how long a given time period was.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
07:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think you need the level of detail provided versus giving a general timeframe to orient readers. C.f. Instead of a superscript note that has the precise time period for the Jurassic you can just say the Jurassic Period (c. 201–145 million years ago) or something similar My overall point with the above is that this is a highly technical article with a lot of jargon, but the referencing scheme and long sentences are absolutely making it more of a pain in the ass to grok the important details. Having 3–8 superscripted notes or references in a single sentence is absolutely an example of bad citation presentation, and on the whole the Geomorphology section especially is just downright unpleasant to read to my eyes, and hasn't materially improved since my initial comment.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I get your overall point, but I don't agree that spelling out the numbers - even in rounded form - would make the page more readable. I've instead shuffled the citations around in that section so that they are limited to end of sentence, and split one lengthy sentence. Is it better now? If so, I can apply the same treatment to other sections too. In my experience, some people don't approve of lists of names being in bullet point format in FAC.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
17:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's better, but the readability and accessibility concerns are two separate things; I'm arguing that having to look elsewhere to grok the basic timeframe of what's being discussed is not user-friendly, separately from the presentation being harder to read.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, I tend to subsume this particular "accessibility" concern under "readability" since it concerns how people read the article. Still, I think even so the price to pay is too high. This probably needs a third opinion.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Is the precise height of each dome really important, or can they be summarized as "<listing of domes> ranging from X to Y tall"?
"Volcanic activity in the region began during the Jurassic in the Cordillera de la Costa and has migrated eastward since then" Would be nice to clarify for people when the Jurassic Period was. Ditto for other time periods where the text isn't specifying a general time frame. At the very least, since the Miocene is getting constantly referenced, the time period should be clarified.
Susannah Hoffs is probably best known as a member of popular music group
the Bangles; she co-wrote their hit "
Eternal Flame". Her cinematic career has been less successful than her musical endeavours, which have included several solo albums and collaborations. In 2023 her novel This Bird Has Flown was well-received by critics. All suggestions for improvements to the article are appreciated. Regards,
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
16:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Considering, as per the "Early life" section, her middle name is "Lee", why isn't this mentioned in the lead ("Susanna Hoffs (born January 17, 1959) is an American singer, guitarist," ==> "Susanna Lee Hoffs (born January 17, 1959) is an American singer, guitarist,")
Following tensions and resentment of Hoffs's perceived leadership, the band split in 1989, reformed in 1999 and released albums in 2003 and 2011. add a comma after "1999".
and formed the faux British 1960s band Ming Tea, with Mike Myers and Matthew Sweet comma unneeded
The trio made a number of club and TV... change "a number of" to something like numerous/several/many
I've changed this to "The trio played live at nightclubs in Los Angeles."; sources focus on club rather than TV appearances, but none that I've seen quantify it.
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
16:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
MOS:ROLEBIO, we should only use her most notable roles, which I think is American singer-songwriter and actress and the other sundry roles can be listed in the infobox (which they already are).
and number one "Walk Like an Egyptian" -- and number one single
included the US top-ten hit -- we should avoid using terms like "hit"
and released albums in 2003 and 2011. -- perhaps the albums can be named here, as it appears that have wiki articles.
She is the couple's only daughter; they also have two sons John and Jesse -- I think a colon is needed after sons
and noted that while her mother was religious and kept kosher, -- and said that while her mother...
Her maternal grandfather Ralph Simon was a rabbi in Chicago and her maternal uncle Matthew Simon was rabbi emeritus -- Her maternal grandfather, Ralph Simon, was a rabbi in Chicago and her maternal uncle, Matthew Simon, was rabbi emeritus
she and then-boyfriend David Roback (a former schoolmate from Palisades High School) -- I think you can remove the parenthethical and use commas instead
She said that the first real performance was with the Bangles -- I would link this first instance of the Bangles, and remove the link from "The Bangs" section
the text has been amended by another editor; I've added the link in the Bangles section but let me know what you think.
Meanwhile, Annette Zilinskas joined as the bass player -- link
bass
In 1983, the group signed to Columbia Records -- the group was signed to Columbia Records
The Bangles released their first full album All Over the Place in 1984 on Columbia Records -- The Bangles released their first full album, All Over the Place, in 1984 on Columbia Records
Their breakthrough hit was the 1986 single "Manic Monday" -- I would probably use an alternative wording in place of "hit"
This single was released as a track on the album -- The single was released
and went double-platinum -- and was certified double-platinum
and was their first American gold record single -- unlink "gold record" per
MOS:DUPLINK
Dickerson wrote that "Manic Monday" and "Walk Like an Egyptian" "open the door to a new audience of female fans" -- suggest maybe paraphrasing "open the door to a new audience of female fans" instead.
Reworded, see what you think. I thought "appealing to women and girls" read better than "appealing to females" but there is probably a much better formulation.
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
11:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In the video for "Walk Like an Egyptian" -- music video is more appropriate I think
Writing in the same paper a few months later, Richard Williams also compared Hoffs to Nicks, writing that Hoffs's "dark eyes -- maybe an alternate wording for the second instance of "writing" to avoid being repetitive
The Bangles had another US number two hit with a cover of Simon & Garfunkel's "A Hazy Shade of Winter" -- maybe had another US number two single instead of hit"
indicating "Generally favorable reviews". -- I think this can be in lower case
the album was rated as a "dud" by Christgau. -- Should be capitalized since it looks like the quotation that precedes it ends in period. Alternatively, we can use "It" was rated, since "the album" is mentioned in the previous sentence.
Before leaving Columbia Records, Hoffs recorded tracks with producer Matt Wallace for a follow-up album in 1993–94 – including some songs written by Mark Linkous of Sparklehorse – but the album was not released.[85] -- this standalone sentence could probably be merged into the paragraph it follows.
Billboard reviewed the single, -- Billboard should be in italics
Hoffs contributed vocals to "One Voice", the end credits song for the film A Dog Named Gucci (2016), a track also featuring Norah Jones, Aimee Mann, Lydia Loveless, Neko Case, Brian May and Kathryn Calder. "One Voice" was released on Record Store Day, April 16, 2016, with profits from the sale of the single going to benefit animal charities.[98] -- this can also be merged into the paragraph before it, since it is two sentence long.
Hoffs cowrote songs for the Go-Go's -- co-wrote songs for the Go-Go's (only because you used "co-written" with a hyphen in a previous instance)
about the book included Mark Weingarten in the Los Angeles Times, -- including Mark Weingarten
File:Hoffs-2006.jpg has a weird EXIF - was it cropped from another file? Image placement and ALT seem OK to me. Is AllMusic a reliable source?
The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles can probably be linked. "Film: Susanna Hoffs Stars In 'Allnighter' by Her Mother" and "Mazzy Star: Shining Brightly" does it lack an online version? What is #23, #56, #77 and #95? I think in #31 "Forward" should be in italics. Is "Chris Hunt" a prominent interviewer? What makes ultimateclassicrock.com, Earwolf, RockCellar, Magnet Magazine, Vintage Guitar, Red Roses and Petrol and Stereogum a reliable source? #94 should probably not have Publicity.vanguardrecords.com as the name. #144 is there no better source than an Imgur image? What is #155? #164 is a search link, not really a good source for anything.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
10:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hoffs-2006.jpg -Appears to be a different version of
File:Susanna_Hoffs_2006.jpg, which was uploaded in 2017 by the same user; the 2017 data has further structured data available. I'm not sure whether I need to do anything here.
AllMusic - I've replaced the instances where this site was used for biographical details. It's now only used for attributed reviews and uncontroversial info such as releases. (
WP:ALLMUSIC refers)
The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles - link added.
"Film: Susanna Hoffs Stars In 'Allnighter' by Her Mother" - I only have access via the Wikipedia Library, which I don't think is a helpful link for the majority of readers.
"Mazzy Star: Shining Brightly" - added link to a clipping of the relevant page.
23 - I added "Official website for Stony Island movie" as the website. It's used to confirm what are I believe are uncontroversial details.
55, 56 - added The Times and it's publication location.
Amended the citation for Forward from publisher to website
Although
Chris Hunt's article is rather lacking in citations, I believe he is a suitable source. I couldn't find the original of Rage Magazine.
ultimateclassicrock.com - A
2023 disussion at RSN failed to attact interest.
Gary Graff has written for The New York Times, Billboard, The Boston Globe, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the San Francisco Chronicle so seems a suitable authority.
Earwolf - I'm not sure this is a suitable source. As I couldn't find info about her unreleased collaboration with Mark Linkous in other suitable sources, I removed it. The contribution to the Talking Heads album seems to have been as one of several backing vocalists on a single track, so I also removed that as not very significant.
Magnet - established as a print magazine in 1993. I don't have info about it's editorial team beyond the editor's name; there's a 2014
article in The Philadelphia Inquirer about it, though.
Vintage Guitar - has been published as a print magazine under that name since 1989. It has editorial oversight (see
[37])
''Red Roses and Petrol - is the official website for the movie, used to confirm what are I believe uncontroversial details.
Stereogum - has been running since 2002 and has editorial oversight (see
[38])
144 ARIA charts - removed; I don't think this was particularly valuable info for readers.
Hi, I just saw this. I'll review it. I'm a Hoffs mini-fan, including enjoying her novel and her covers recordings with Matthew Sweet, as well as being a very casual fan of the Bangles' work in general. I'm happy to see this nomination here. I'll try to start the review within the next day.
Moisejp (
talk)
14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Adding comments as I go along:
In the paragraph about When You're a Boy, I was surprised to see "one upbeat assessment" (Globe and Mail review) then two negative reviews, then another positive review, then more negative reviews.
Moisejp (
talk)
07:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Update: I finished my first read-through (making some small edits along the way) and am expecting to support. I'll do another read-through hopefully in the next couple of days.
Moisejp (
talk)
07:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The lead says, "Following tensions and resentment of Hoffs's perceived leadership, the band split in 1989" (suggesting that was the only or main reason) but in the main text several reasons are given for their break-up.
Moisejp (
talk)
23:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Unrelated to my comment above but the following feels slightly out of place to me, and I might consider removing it if it was me. But if you disagree and prefer to keep it, no worries: Larkin wrote: "The Bangles folded in 1989 partly because Susanna Hoffs was being touted as the 'star' in a previously egalitarian band. It is ironic, therefore, that her solo career failed to come close to the success enjoyed by her old band."
Moisejp (
talk)
23:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Minor suggestion to add that in addition to performing of the Lilith Fair album, I believe she also performed on the 1997 tour.
Moisejp (
talk)
23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I enjoyed this article and think it is well written. I was especially surprised to find out she sang on "Wild Wild Life" (the regular single studio version we all know and love?). If you address my five comments above I'm pretty sure I'll be ready to support promotion. Thanks!
Moisejp (
talk)
23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the review and edits. I was also dubious about her singing on "Wild Wild Life", but she is listed as doing that at the AFI Catalog - I didn't use that as the source because its not easily citable because of collapsed pages.
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
12:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This article fails on
summary. It feels both very short and very long at the same time. It's nice there's a section on her equipment, but I wondered what some aspects of her artistry were. I see stated influences here and there, and that's another issue I have. This article could also really benefit having her discography spun off in it's own article. 웃OO03:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your review,
100cellsman. Have you got some examples you could share of articles that better cover these aspects of their subject?. I guess you also think that the filmography should be split off, is that correct? Regards,
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
08:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Butting in (hi all), I would prefer always that substantial discographies / filmographies are spun out, but its certainly not something that would warrant an oppose at FAC.
Ceoil (
talk)
11:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My oppose is still standing for the lack of summary, mostly lack of subheaders that make the article appear very long at a glance and there isn't a place for her artistry or influences. I gave the nominator some promoted FAs to look at for reference. 웃OO15:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Placeholder....I think Mosie's review has lead to a good improvement in the prose, but there are some issues yet. Leaning support but would like some time to run through.
Ceoil (
talk)
11:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't think acting in her mother's films is worthy of the first sentence in the lead's second paragraph...ie would cut Hoffs appeared in the films Stony Island (1978) and The Haircut (1982), both written by her mother, Tamar Simon Hoffs. She starred in the comedy movie The Allnighter (1987), directed by her mother. This seems to diminish her musical achievements.
Ceoil (
talk)
11:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree with the above that the filmography sect should be spun out; its long and takes up a lot of space, but unsubstantial.
Similarly, the lead seems lobsided as to why she is actually notable; and gives too much space to later albums, acting, and cover versions...none of which would be reasons for a keep on notability in an adf if she had not been in the Bangles. I would trim this severly, and focus more on her career before the band broke on MTV...they were HUGE in the UK music press as
jangle pop darlings and that to me is more notable.
Ceoil (
talk)
16:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justifications.
The only part of
100cellsman's oppose I agree with is that the "Solo career" and "The Bangles" sections could use level-3 subsection headers, otherwise we have (in my opinion) too many paragraphs of uninterrupted prose. Dulls the eye, you know?
By contrast, the short "Early career" section doesn't need any subheaders (
MOS:OVERSECTION).
It is also odd that "The Bangs" is not part of the Bangles section. I would suggest the following layout: putting the "The Unconscious" subsection (without header) into "Early life", and having ==The Bangles==, ===The Bangs: first releases and name change===, ===Critical and commercial success===, ===Disbandment and aftermath===.
Support. In terms of the above oppose, I've seen disc, biblio and filmographies both included and excluded from biographies, and there's no set rule for it, except what works best in that specific article, and in this article, I don't see the need for it. I would suggest the sub-division of the longer sections, which I think would be an improvement, but, again, this isn't the basis for an oppose in my book. -
SchroCat (
talk)
11:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments by Edwininlondon
My comments on prose:
"US top-ten charting" + "the Top-40 hit" + "a US top 10 hit" + "the Billboard Top 40 single" seems to lack consistency
at the King David Hotel --> may I suggest to add "in
Jerusalem"?
Hoffs learned ballet ... school, learning --> perhaps avoid repetition of learn by replacing learned ballet with something like "took ballet classes"
co-written by Hoffs's mother --> co-written by her mother
but in a 2012 interview Hoffs said --> but in a 2012 interview she said
Meanwhile, Hoffs played a --> that's 3 times meanwhile in short succession. Perhaps reword
reached number one in the US in December 1986 --> what is missing here, and for Manic Monday as weel, is a global view. They did well in other countries as well
writing that Hoffs's "dark eyes, dangerous pout and fancifully sexy costumes match her sultry voice" were reminiscent of the Fleetwood Mac singer --> not sure this is gramatically correct: maybe if you drop "match her sultry voice"
Amended. The source has "...match her sultry voice in the kind of formula that once made Fleetwood Mac's Stevie Nicks so potent" so I think including all the elements is relevant.
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
10:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(which also charted in the UK at number 44) --> why parentheses?
it reached number 56 in the UK album charts and number 83 in the US album charts --> now the UK comes first. This is inconsistent with earlier approach.
Nice and well-written article. I'm tending towards supporting but I have a few questions and suggestions to make.
The second paragraph in the Personal life section isn't about her Personal life at all. This could be split into another section but it would leave the section very short. Is this really all we know of her non-professional life as an adult? More to come...
John (
talk)
18:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks,
John. I added a little about Hoffs's relationships. I couldn't find anything else relevant. I take your point about that second para, but I don't have a good idea about how to handle it. I thought about retitling the section to something like "Personal life and influence" but that didn't feel right. Regards,
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
12:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
About the short Legacy section, ideas for beefing it up a bit, could you look for sources that may describe Bangles songs she co-wrote, like "Walk Like An Egyptian" or "Eternal Flame", as important songs of the 1980s, or the Bangles as an important or influential band of its era? If it was me I would look in
Newspapers.com and/or
NewspaperArchive, which you should be able to access here [
[40]] and you can filter by year to look at more recent sources. Hopefully there won't be an overwhelming number of hits. I will be too busy in the next week to help you, but if this nomination is still open early next week, I may have time to jump in and assist looking.
Moisejp (
talk)
18:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Will have a look, thanks
Moisejp. Newspapers.com is down for WikiLibrary access, which is very frustrating, coming at the same time as the British Library outages that have prevented me accessing some other newspaper databases. For balance I might have to include
The Sublime Irrelevance of The Bangles as a source too, though... Regards,
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
18:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A while back I had problems accessing Newspapers.com, but when I purged my cookies it worked again, which someone had suggested here [
[41]]. Yeah, Newspapers.com does seem to be working for me even now. Try emptying your cache of cookies and logging in again. Let me know if it works.
Moisejp (
talk)
19:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply