The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot ( talk) 28 March 2020 [1].
This article is about the French baroque sculptor Pierre Le Gros (1666-1719) who lived and worked in Rome for most of his adult life and became one of the best known sculptors of his day in Europe.
Le Gros has been the object of my studies for more than 30 years (on and off, obviously) and much of this article is based on my own, published and peer reviewed research. I have updated this to include more recent studies by other scholars and have quoted and referenced others in preference to myself where possible. But I have tried to avoid unreliable populist opinions from online sources. While taking them seriously and drilling down into their references (if given), I have found most to be wrong or ultimately based on my own published material.
In parallel, editing this article and cross-referencing it has lead me to numerous small updates of related articles and a couple of complete rewrites, so there was a lot of collateral work involved.
I have been digging deep into wikimedia, flickr and other non-commercial image sites to establish as complete a list of images of Le Gros' work as possible and found many of them - proving that there are other people out there who find his work interesting, not just me. I also uploaded some of my own images which, as it turned out, weren't always the best quality or were copyrighted, so I couldn't upload them. But I tried my best.
The writing style I adopted is factual but, I hope, not too dry and easily digestible. I have also tried to avoid jargon except for some relatively broadly known specialist words but at the same time linked them to other wikipedia articles to clarify what they mean. The translations of quotes from other languages, particularly French, are my own, and I'm happy to listen to suggestions to improve them if they're found wanting.
All in all, I hope you like what I produced... Gerbis ( talk) 07:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Image review
Recusing from coord duties, tks for bringing this article to FAC, but on a quick run-through I have serious concerns:
If only one these issues was present I mightn't recommend withdrawal but taken together I think it'd be preferable to work on the article away from FAC and bring it back for another go later. Note that the above is not an exhaustive list. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I will have to second the above Oppose, and for mostly the same reasons.
It is a very interesting article, for which many thanks, but stylistically I think it is some way off meeting the FA criteria. KJP1 ( talk) 09:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Needs loads more refs, and (especially those to your own book) page numbers. It would be good to couple many of these with other books that may be more readily available. As you can see above, WP:PEACOCK has always made any stylistic analysis of art, especially if enthusiastic, tricky on WP. I generally just use quotes, which are accepted. I'm sure it would be fine after a bit of work. Johnbod ( talk) 00:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@ FAC coordinators: What's the status of this nom? I see a couple of references above to it having been withdrawn. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 26 March 2020 [2].
This article is about the British science-fiction sitcom Red Dwarf. Airing its first episode in 1988, its noted as one of the longest-running British sitcoms in history whilst retaining its original cast, having aired its most recent episode in 2017 and preparing to air a feature-length television film next month. Besides that, it has managed to spawn a plethora of other media ranging from magazines to video games to an attempted American reboot.
I believe its reached the point where its quality can act as an example to fellow television shows/franchises on how to structure your Wikipedia article. All responses in regards to its nomination are welcome and I'll be very much alert on what you believe it needs additional work on. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken ( talk) 02:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The above was just on a casual glance... I can't support the promotion of an article in this state. I love Red Dwarf, and I hope some of the above can help the article be improved Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, as well as taking the above recommendations on board, you could consider trying the FAC mentoring scheme to assist in a future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 20:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot ( talk) 17 March 2020 [3].
This article is about the general view of a neglected tropical disease named leptospirosis. Everything has been done to make sure the article reaches the FA status. Making the article featured will help more people to understand this disease and help to spread awareness. Thank you. Cerevisae ( talk) 12:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
More to come, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
at the head of the FAC page? I do not wish to depress you with a long list of fairly basic points; nor should I need to at FAC. Articles are supposed to arrive here needing only minor polishing. No individual point that I have found in this article is fatal, but cumulatively they indicate a good, solid article which does not have prose yet ready for FAC. A rapid and thorough copy edit may yet save this nomination so far as I am concerned; otherwise I recommend withdrawal to work with someone who understands what is required of FACs - a list of volunteers is here - and/or a copy edit by GoCE. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)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.
FA mentorship is a mixed bag; I didn't have success with it myself. The nominator has gone to great effort to improve the article since the last nomination and it went through a recent copyedit at WP:GOCE, so if there are prose/MOS issues that were missed, perhaps they should be identified and offered as feedback to the copyeditor? Personally, I don't think this article is too far off from FAC criteria, but page numbers are important for WP:V. b uidh e 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - This reads like my old, scribbled lecture notes. The prose does not flow; the text is just one short sentence after another. It fails our first criterion "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". Graham Beards ( talk) 14:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@ FAC coordinators: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It's pretty self-explanatory—a timeline about the current president of the USofA. This article is fit to be a featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria, especially because it is well-written, well-researched with all claims apppropriately cited, meets WP:NPOV and WP:SS and is very stable (I don't know of any edit wars that have happened here in a long time). I am not the main contributor to this article, but I am very heavily involved in related articles (the timelines from 2018-present), and am very knowledgable in the area, so I am confident in my ability to address any concerns or questions that editors may have here. Mgasparin ( talk) 10:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot ( talk) 9 March 2020 [4].
Hello everyone! The above article is about a 2001 song by American rapper Foxy Brown for her third studio album Broken Silence. It is a dance-pop, pop, and R&B with lyrics about cunnilingus. American singer Kelis performs the hook while Brown raps the verses. The song was well-received by critics during its release and in retrospective reviews; critics have compared it to music by other artists, such as Lil' Kim. Academic scholars have analyzed its depiction of black female sexuality. Although "Candy" was often featured on early 2000's soundtracks, it had limited commercial success, and peaked at number 24 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Billboard chart.
This article was promoted to a GA a little over two years ago, and I further expanded and copy-edited the article last year. I would greatly appreciate any feedback for this FAC. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 ( talk) 19:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Image review
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 4 March 2020 [5].
This article tells the tale of how four friends used a ladder, a bucket and wallpaper paste to take on Brexit, and failed. Edwininlondon ( talk) 19:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Besides the reference issues, there are numerous prose issues:
All four men have a connection with environmental campaign group Greenpeace; Oliver Knowles and Ben Stewart are employees, and James Sadri and Will Rose had previously been involved with the group.- as of when?
They settled on these four: Michael Gove saying, in 2016, "The day after we vote to leave we hold all the cards and can choose the path we want"; Liam Fox saying in 2017 "The Free Trade Agreement that we will do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history"; David Davis saying in 2016 "There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside"; and John Redwood saying in 2016 "Getting out of the EU can be quick"should probably be split up. There are plenty of long run-on sentences like this.
South East of England- if this is a proper noun, it should be linked. If not, it should be lowercase.
For months, who was behind Led By Donkeys was unknown.
This is just a sample of the issues I found. Normally, I would give this a deeper prose overview, but combined with the over-usage of primary sources and questionable sources, I unfortunately have to oppose this article for promotion. Like the above commenters, I would suggest going through the GAN process first. epicgenius ( talk) 14:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you epicgenius, Cassianto, Spy-cicle, Buidhe for your comments. I will take them all on board, withdraw from FAC and go through GAN at some stage. Edwininlondon ( talk) 21:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot ( talk) 3 March 2020 [6].
Mangalore was a Featured Article in Wikipedia from 2008 to 2018. It was de-listed from FAC in 2018. In January 2020, a Featured Article review was done and the article didn't get promoted. Thereafter, it has been nominated and listed as a Good Article. FAC copyediting by GOCE is also done for this article.
I have listed the article as a Featured Article Candidate. Aviator423 ( talk) 16:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The latter two-thirds of the article is a sea of blue links, lacking both descriptive and narrative prose. It is a list. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is a nonstarter. I don't need to cite chapter and verse. I recommend withdrawing the article, examining its history, examining what it looked like in 2008 when it became an FA, and removing at least half the links, maybe two thirds. Only then will you be able to create room for prose, for its phrases, clauses, and adjuncts. Best regards,
Fowler&fowler
«Talk»
15:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, suggest withdrawal - I appreciate the effort that has gone into this article. However, unfortunately I do not feel it meets the current iteration of the featured article criteria. Specifically:
Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I apologize greatly for this and I know it's not fun to have your FAC opposed like this, but I had a bit of a hard time reading this article. I don't think the prose is to FA standards and think that a thorough copyedit is in order. Here are some more comments; none of these would be fatal to an FAC on their own but this is not exhaustive and dealing with them is not enough for me to strike my oppose. I also respectfully suggest withdrawal for this and refer you to the
Guild of Copyediting.
officially known as Mangaluru,I assume this was officially changed at some point like Mumbai, Chennai, and Bengaluru, but the article makes no mention of it.
Ptolemy's and Pliny the Elder'sJust say "These".
Mphasis BPO. What does "BPO" stand for?
The New Mangalore PortIs it officially called the "New Mangalore Port"? Otherwise it shouldn't be capitalized.
The city generates 175 tons per day of wasteI assume this means the metric tonnes, but several imperial units are also called "tons" and this doesn't describe which unit is meant.
I intend to take WikiCup points for this review. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
the state's only city to have all four modes of transport—air, road, rail and sea.should be rewritten, and is not (as far as I could see) explicitly mentioned in the body.
according to the provisional results of the 2011 national census of India.What about the final results?
Aviator423, I suggest you re-think your attitude to the review process. Articles come to FAC to be critiqued. You aren't required to agree with everything a reviewer says but you need to treat them with respect and not surliness. They are volunteers just like you but they don't get a gold star if the article is promoted. Also remember that FAC is not here to judge how much effort has gone into an article, by yourself or GOCE or anyone else, but whether the end result meets the FAC criteria. It would have been quite within the FAC guidelines for the coordinators to have archived this as soon as they'd noted the suggestions for withdrawal by Nikki or John. As some time has passed since then and changes have been made to the article, I'll invite them to take another look and indicate whether they stand by their original recommendations. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot ( talk) 28 March 2020 [1].
This article is about the French baroque sculptor Pierre Le Gros (1666-1719) who lived and worked in Rome for most of his adult life and became one of the best known sculptors of his day in Europe.
Le Gros has been the object of my studies for more than 30 years (on and off, obviously) and much of this article is based on my own, published and peer reviewed research. I have updated this to include more recent studies by other scholars and have quoted and referenced others in preference to myself where possible. But I have tried to avoid unreliable populist opinions from online sources. While taking them seriously and drilling down into their references (if given), I have found most to be wrong or ultimately based on my own published material.
In parallel, editing this article and cross-referencing it has lead me to numerous small updates of related articles and a couple of complete rewrites, so there was a lot of collateral work involved.
I have been digging deep into wikimedia, flickr and other non-commercial image sites to establish as complete a list of images of Le Gros' work as possible and found many of them - proving that there are other people out there who find his work interesting, not just me. I also uploaded some of my own images which, as it turned out, weren't always the best quality or were copyrighted, so I couldn't upload them. But I tried my best.
The writing style I adopted is factual but, I hope, not too dry and easily digestible. I have also tried to avoid jargon except for some relatively broadly known specialist words but at the same time linked them to other wikipedia articles to clarify what they mean. The translations of quotes from other languages, particularly French, are my own, and I'm happy to listen to suggestions to improve them if they're found wanting.
All in all, I hope you like what I produced... Gerbis ( talk) 07:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Image review
Recusing from coord duties, tks for bringing this article to FAC, but on a quick run-through I have serious concerns:
If only one these issues was present I mightn't recommend withdrawal but taken together I think it'd be preferable to work on the article away from FAC and bring it back for another go later. Note that the above is not an exhaustive list. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I will have to second the above Oppose, and for mostly the same reasons.
It is a very interesting article, for which many thanks, but stylistically I think it is some way off meeting the FA criteria. KJP1 ( talk) 09:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Needs loads more refs, and (especially those to your own book) page numbers. It would be good to couple many of these with other books that may be more readily available. As you can see above, WP:PEACOCK has always made any stylistic analysis of art, especially if enthusiastic, tricky on WP. I generally just use quotes, which are accepted. I'm sure it would be fine after a bit of work. Johnbod ( talk) 00:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@ FAC coordinators: What's the status of this nom? I see a couple of references above to it having been withdrawn. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 26 March 2020 [2].
This article is about the British science-fiction sitcom Red Dwarf. Airing its first episode in 1988, its noted as one of the longest-running British sitcoms in history whilst retaining its original cast, having aired its most recent episode in 2017 and preparing to air a feature-length television film next month. Besides that, it has managed to spawn a plethora of other media ranging from magazines to video games to an attempted American reboot.
I believe its reached the point where its quality can act as an example to fellow television shows/franchises on how to structure your Wikipedia article. All responses in regards to its nomination are welcome and I'll be very much alert on what you believe it needs additional work on. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken ( talk) 02:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The above was just on a casual glance... I can't support the promotion of an article in this state. I love Red Dwarf, and I hope some of the above can help the article be improved Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, as well as taking the above recommendations on board, you could consider trying the FAC mentoring scheme to assist in a future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 20:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot ( talk) 17 March 2020 [3].
This article is about the general view of a neglected tropical disease named leptospirosis. Everything has been done to make sure the article reaches the FA status. Making the article featured will help more people to understand this disease and help to spread awareness. Thank you. Cerevisae ( talk) 12:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
More to come, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
at the head of the FAC page? I do not wish to depress you with a long list of fairly basic points; nor should I need to at FAC. Articles are supposed to arrive here needing only minor polishing. No individual point that I have found in this article is fatal, but cumulatively they indicate a good, solid article which does not have prose yet ready for FAC. A rapid and thorough copy edit may yet save this nomination so far as I am concerned; otherwise I recommend withdrawal to work with someone who understands what is required of FACs - a list of volunteers is here - and/or a copy edit by GoCE. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)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.
FA mentorship is a mixed bag; I didn't have success with it myself. The nominator has gone to great effort to improve the article since the last nomination and it went through a recent copyedit at WP:GOCE, so if there are prose/MOS issues that were missed, perhaps they should be identified and offered as feedback to the copyeditor? Personally, I don't think this article is too far off from FAC criteria, but page numbers are important for WP:V. b uidh e 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - This reads like my old, scribbled lecture notes. The prose does not flow; the text is just one short sentence after another. It fails our first criterion "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". Graham Beards ( talk) 14:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@ FAC coordinators: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It's pretty self-explanatory—a timeline about the current president of the USofA. This article is fit to be a featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria, especially because it is well-written, well-researched with all claims apppropriately cited, meets WP:NPOV and WP:SS and is very stable (I don't know of any edit wars that have happened here in a long time). I am not the main contributor to this article, but I am very heavily involved in related articles (the timelines from 2018-present), and am very knowledgable in the area, so I am confident in my ability to address any concerns or questions that editors may have here. Mgasparin ( talk) 10:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot ( talk) 9 March 2020 [4].
Hello everyone! The above article is about a 2001 song by American rapper Foxy Brown for her third studio album Broken Silence. It is a dance-pop, pop, and R&B with lyrics about cunnilingus. American singer Kelis performs the hook while Brown raps the verses. The song was well-received by critics during its release and in retrospective reviews; critics have compared it to music by other artists, such as Lil' Kim. Academic scholars have analyzed its depiction of black female sexuality. Although "Candy" was often featured on early 2000's soundtracks, it had limited commercial success, and peaked at number 24 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Billboard chart.
This article was promoted to a GA a little over two years ago, and I further expanded and copy-edited the article last year. I would greatly appreciate any feedback for this FAC. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 ( talk) 19:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Image review
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 4 March 2020 [5].
This article tells the tale of how four friends used a ladder, a bucket and wallpaper paste to take on Brexit, and failed. Edwininlondon ( talk) 19:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Besides the reference issues, there are numerous prose issues:
All four men have a connection with environmental campaign group Greenpeace; Oliver Knowles and Ben Stewart are employees, and James Sadri and Will Rose had previously been involved with the group.- as of when?
They settled on these four: Michael Gove saying, in 2016, "The day after we vote to leave we hold all the cards and can choose the path we want"; Liam Fox saying in 2017 "The Free Trade Agreement that we will do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history"; David Davis saying in 2016 "There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside"; and John Redwood saying in 2016 "Getting out of the EU can be quick"should probably be split up. There are plenty of long run-on sentences like this.
South East of England- if this is a proper noun, it should be linked. If not, it should be lowercase.
For months, who was behind Led By Donkeys was unknown.
This is just a sample of the issues I found. Normally, I would give this a deeper prose overview, but combined with the over-usage of primary sources and questionable sources, I unfortunately have to oppose this article for promotion. Like the above commenters, I would suggest going through the GAN process first. epicgenius ( talk) 14:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you epicgenius, Cassianto, Spy-cicle, Buidhe for your comments. I will take them all on board, withdraw from FAC and go through GAN at some stage. Edwininlondon ( talk) 21:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot ( talk) 3 March 2020 [6].
Mangalore was a Featured Article in Wikipedia from 2008 to 2018. It was de-listed from FAC in 2018. In January 2020, a Featured Article review was done and the article didn't get promoted. Thereafter, it has been nominated and listed as a Good Article. FAC copyediting by GOCE is also done for this article.
I have listed the article as a Featured Article Candidate. Aviator423 ( talk) 16:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The latter two-thirds of the article is a sea of blue links, lacking both descriptive and narrative prose. It is a list. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is a nonstarter. I don't need to cite chapter and verse. I recommend withdrawing the article, examining its history, examining what it looked like in 2008 when it became an FA, and removing at least half the links, maybe two thirds. Only then will you be able to create room for prose, for its phrases, clauses, and adjuncts. Best regards,
Fowler&fowler
«Talk»
15:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, suggest withdrawal - I appreciate the effort that has gone into this article. However, unfortunately I do not feel it meets the current iteration of the featured article criteria. Specifically:
Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I apologize greatly for this and I know it's not fun to have your FAC opposed like this, but I had a bit of a hard time reading this article. I don't think the prose is to FA standards and think that a thorough copyedit is in order. Here are some more comments; none of these would be fatal to an FAC on their own but this is not exhaustive and dealing with them is not enough for me to strike my oppose. I also respectfully suggest withdrawal for this and refer you to the
Guild of Copyediting.
officially known as Mangaluru,I assume this was officially changed at some point like Mumbai, Chennai, and Bengaluru, but the article makes no mention of it.
Ptolemy's and Pliny the Elder'sJust say "These".
Mphasis BPO. What does "BPO" stand for?
The New Mangalore PortIs it officially called the "New Mangalore Port"? Otherwise it shouldn't be capitalized.
The city generates 175 tons per day of wasteI assume this means the metric tonnes, but several imperial units are also called "tons" and this doesn't describe which unit is meant.
I intend to take WikiCup points for this review. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
the state's only city to have all four modes of transport—air, road, rail and sea.should be rewritten, and is not (as far as I could see) explicitly mentioned in the body.
according to the provisional results of the 2011 national census of India.What about the final results?
Aviator423, I suggest you re-think your attitude to the review process. Articles come to FAC to be critiqued. You aren't required to agree with everything a reviewer says but you need to treat them with respect and not surliness. They are volunteers just like you but they don't get a gold star if the article is promoted. Also remember that FAC is not here to judge how much effort has gone into an article, by yourself or GOCE or anyone else, but whether the end result meets the FAC criteria. It would have been quite within the FAC guidelines for the coordinators to have archived this as soon as they'd noted the suggestions for withdrawal by Nikki or John. As some time has passed since then and changes have been made to the article, I'll invite them to take another look and indicate whether they stand by their original recommendations. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)