Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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. 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, Ealdgyth and Gog the Mild—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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.

Please do not use graphics or 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. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be 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.

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}}.

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. 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.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. 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.
Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

  • 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.


1985 World Snooker Championship final[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the most famous snooker match of all time. Picture it, it's 1985, Steve Davis has won three world championships and has pretty much won everything else. He's in the final of the 1985 World Snooker Championship, and plays Northern Ireland's Dennis Taylor. Should be a good match? Davis wins the first of four sessions without losing a single frame, and then leads 8-0. It's the first to 18. He misses a green ball, and Taylor goes on a rampage, gets the score back to 13-11 after the third session, but then trails 17-15. Game over? No. Taylor wins the next two and it's a deciding frame. There are 46 legal pots on the table, but it comes down to the very last one. It's all on the final black ball. Both men have a go, and Davis is left with an easy-ish pot. The whole country groans. He misses, and Taylor pots to win his only world championship. 18.5 million people look at their watches, it's 1a.m and you've got work in the morning.

The main article, the 1985 World Snooker Championship passed through to FA last year. This is the only individual snooker match that we have an article on, although I'd say there's probably three or four more that are notable. This one is in a league of it's own, due to holding the record audience past midnight in the UK, and of any show on BBC Two. The match is often credited with the snooker boom of the 1980s and early 1990s. I hope you enjoy the read, and let me know if there is anything I've missed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Charles Green (Australian soldier)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Green was the youngest Australian Army battalion commander during WWII, leading the 2/11th Battalion in the Aitape-Wewak campaign of 1945 after previous service in the Middle East and Greece. He is also the only commanding officer of a battalion of the post-WWII Royal Australian Regiment to have been killed on active service (in Korea). The foundations of this article were laid by retired Milhist coord AnotherClown some years ago, but I was prompted by the recent 70th anniversary of Green's death to bring it up to GA then Milhist ACR. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Some of the images are missing alt text
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Coad_and_Green.jpg needs publication info and a US tag
Must have missed that one, actually PD-AustraliaGov. Swapped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Green_prior_to_the_capture_of_Pakchon_Oct_1950.PNG: does the source provide any more detail on provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
G'day Nikkimaria, thanks for taking a look. See above. Presumably an official photographer accompanying the US officer in the photo, but I don't have a copy of Bartlett, Norman, ed. (1960). With the Australians in Korea (3rd ed.) to hand to check the page number and caption. Just pinging some likely holders of a copy, @Hawkeye7, Nick-D, AustralianRupert, and Ian Rose:. Otherwise I'll have to pop down to the uni library and take another look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't have a copy. Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
G'day, PM, unfortunately, I am away from home for a bit so I don't have access to my books at the moment -- I will see if I can get my wife to check, though, or I might be able to get in touch with AC who uploaded it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Bartlett cites it specifically as a "U.S. Army photograph" on the image plates between pages 14 and 15 in the source book. I have added this to the description page now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much, AustralianRupert, and whoever provided that info! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "from the battalion main body". Marginally clunky. 'from the main body of the battalion'?
  • "Green took over command of the 2/11th Battalion in New Guinea which he commanded for several months". Possibly tweak the phrasing?
  • "so the battalion did not see action until mid-April. Green and the rest of the 2/2nd Battalion saw action". "... see action ... saw action ..." Optional: a synonym for one?
  • "a hazardous journey through the Aegean Islands, through Turkey". "through ... through".
  • "Green himself reached the island of Euboea in the Aegean on 7 May, where he met several other members of the battalion, then to the island of Skyro". "then to the island of Skyro" isn't a grammatical fit. Maybe 'who then travelled together to the island of Skyro' or similar?
  • a "sensitive account". The MoS says of quotations "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (emphasis in original).
  • "they were willing to follow him anywhere". Optional: I don't doubt it, but it comes across a bit cliched, even trite.
  • "at the age of only 25 he was the youngest Australian battalion commander during the war". Why is this part of a sentence about his promotion, rather than his taking command of the battalion.
  • "killed three Japanese that stumbled into their perimeter". "that" → 'who'.
  • "it was only 552 strong". Maybe give the full and/or original strength? As you do for riflemen.
  • "were constantly interdicted by the Japanese early on". I realise that you are just summarising the citation, but constant interdiction and interdiction early on seem to be different things.
  • "Green was chosen and left Australia for Japan on 8 September,[1] and took over command of 3 RAR on 12 September." I don't think that you can have "and" twice here.
  • "only two weeks further training in Japan". Training for Green or training for 3RAR?
  • "and over that and the following day". "over" → 'during'.
  • "After mopping up, 3 RAR had suffered seven wounded". That's not grammatical.
  • "its first fatal casualties of the war". Optional: "fatal casualties" → 'fatalities'.
  • "on a thickly-wooded ridgeline around the town". It's not impossible, but it is unusual for a ridgeline to be around a town.
  • "following artillery preparation" is verging on jargon, and a little euphemistic. Maybe just 'an artillery bombardment'?
  • "and despite heavy fire" → 'and despite heavy enemy fire'.
  • "following preparatory fire". → 'following preparatory artillery fire. (I assume that was the case?)
  • "nine killed and 30 wounded". "nine" → '9'.
  • "cast a pall of gloom over his battalion". Needs in line attribution, see above.
  • had been "exemplary". And again.
  • Note a: why the "probably"? Australian War Memorial unequivocally states that he was.

Class! (I had only previously come across mention of Green and 3RAR in the autobiography of David Wilson, CO of 1ASHR which was also in 27th Brigade. It was a pleasure to read a full account of his career.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a 1978 science fiction novel that is likely Vonda McIntyre's best-known work. I have spent some time on it, and it recently was given a thorough GA review by Mike Christie, so I think it's in decent shape. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    Predated my involvement, but should have caught it; removed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is the cover artist known? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, Stephen Alexander, mentioned in the text; do I need to mention him elsewhere? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Should be included in the media information on the image description page for the cover image. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Now added. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Suggest elaborating on note B - I'm assuming that for some reason non-paperbacks are ineligible but would suggest explaining this
    It's not that non-paperbacks were ineligible, but that a book released in both formats in different years got two shots at the award, so to speak. I have tried to clarify. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN4: I'm assuming based on what this is citing that Le Guin was the author here?
    Yes, but it's just a quotation, similar to the blurbs on the back of books (indeed, this one also appears on the back of the book); not an article; do you want me to list Le Guin as the author?
    No, but what kind of source is this? Is it a republication of the blurb? A review? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Republication of the blurb. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Suggest either making that clear in the citation, or just citing the blurb directly. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Not to be difficult, but how would I do that differently? It's on a page of the magazine, or the back cover of the book; what else do you add? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN6 is oddly formatted, and what makes this a high-quality reliable source? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    To be honest, I'm not sure it is; the author is a dedicated speculative fiction bibliographer, but has no credentials beyond that. I had added it to bolster the isfdb source on a specific detail that nobody else covers, but it's not strictly necessary, so removed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Encyclopedia of Science Fiction entries for the most part do have credited authors that should be included in citations
    I am aware of this, but unless I'm missing something, that's not the case for the two entries cited here. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Seems to be - initials listed at the end of the entry body, right above See also. Nikkimaria (talk)
    Apologies for missing this, now added. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes io9 a high-quality reliable source?
    It's run by Gawker media, which isn't a weighty enough source for its own views to be given much space, but has enough oversight that I believe we can assume it's reporting McIntyre's interview accurately. It's only used for her statement about the internal chronology, which is attributed to her. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Gawker is listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP. Is there an editorial policy or other document outlining the oversight provided? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Gawker, the blog, is listed at RSP as unreliable. Gawker, the parent media company, is not. However, turns out that's irrelevant; io9 and other sites were bought by G/O Media in 2019; G/O media has an editorial policy, here. io9 has its own editors, listed here. @Nikkimaria: is that sufficient? If not, I'll remove it, and the one sentence it's used for. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Since the source cited predates that acquisition, I'd like to see the Gawker equivalent, if there was one. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: Not sure there was one. I dug a fair bit on the internet archive, but no go. There's several references to an editorial policy in legal disputes beginning in 2015, but none from 2013. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't mix {{citation}} with {{cite}}-family templates
    Removed one instance of "citation" Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • How are you deciding which works end up in Sources and which don't?
    Necessity, usually. I have been told sfn citations are somewhat harder to follow, because you need two clicks to go to the source, and can't go back up easily; but <ref></ref> are harder to use multiple page-ranges with...I assume by your question that you'd prefer something more consistent, so I have now moved all books and journal articles to "sources"; newspapers and web sources remain in "references". Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN66 is missing page number. Ditto FN67, check for others
    There were a few others, apologies; fixed all now, I believe. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN73: SWFA is publisher not work
    Fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN76 is a dead link
    Broken since I used it; added archive url. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN85 date doesn't match source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Typo, fixed. @Nikkimaria: Thank you; I've responded; couple of questions for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

League of Legends[edit]

Nominator(s): — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

With millions of daily players, League of Legends is one of the world's biggest games. As I think is often the case, I began editing primarily to fix two articles; one of those was League, and it’s come a long way since then. The game can be complicated, but my hope is that it is digestible for readers and editors who have never played it. The developer, Riot Games, has been busy, releasing two spin-offs since 2019 (with a third, a single-player RPG, scheduled for this year). I want the article to be the best that it can be for anyone wondering: what the f$%k is League of Legends?. Although popular, the game also has a famously negative player base, and Riot has attempted to tackle that (with mixed results). This is my first FA nomination, so I have a few people to thank for their advice, encouragement, and helping me to become a (semi-)competent editor. Several of them are not FA reviewers, but I want to thank them here anyway.

Lee Vilenski, for never being frustrated with questions; Eddie891, for his relentless kindness; ferret, for being a bit of a mentor; PMC, for keeping me up when I really should have been asleep; Le Panini for his general can-do attitude; Izno, for fixing that blasted table; SandyGeorgia, for telling me not to be afraid of FAC; Blablubbs, for keeping me hydrated; and finally PresN, for reference assistance.

Also thank you to everyone who participated in the Peer Review. In order: Alexandra, Aza24, David Fuchs, and Spicy. Thanks for reading it (especially if you'd never played). I'm looking forward to the feedback.
ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note - source review and spot checks[edit]

Greetings ImaginesTigers and welcome. That sounds interesting. If time permits I shall review it myself. I would like to flag up that as a first-time FAC nominator this article will require a spot check of its citations as well as the usual source review. This is usual, and in nominations after your first successful one this is likely to be less rigorous, or taken on faith. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem, Gog! I've seen that on a few other first-time noms while researching, so thankfully not a total shock; still a little scary, though. Let's see if I've been up to the task! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks from eddie[edit]

  • Waiting for spotchecks can be a pain, so I'll knock those out. Not intending to review for source formatting or reliability. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Appreciate it, Eddie! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 1 -- good
  • 2 -- good
  • 3 -- good
  • 4 a, -- good
    • 4b -- is "non player enemies" the same as the sources "minions"? Could you also point out where "buying progressively more powerful items " is in the source?
Yeah, minions (and monsters) are the only non-player enemies in the game. This is defined more properly in the Summoner's Rift section.
Second part -- fixed. No idea where that came from (it’s not even true).
  • 6 a, b, -- could you point out "champions gain additional abilities" and "Champions build strength by killing enemy players' champions" are in the source?
a. That might have been an earlier version of the article? It’s fixed now, per PMC's feedback!
b. This was a typo. It should say "non-player enemies", meaning minions. Sorry Eddie!
  • 7 -- good
  • 8 -- good
  • 9-- doesn't mention summoner's rift at all, why is it used here?
  • 10 -- the only mention of Summoner's Rift is As you zoom around a verdant battleground called Summoner’s Rift as if strapped to an overhead camera, you’re supposed to read a lot of instruction text at the same time., how does this support it?
RE: 9 & 10: You're right. Come to think of it, this was weird by me, but what I thought I was doing was providing two sources which talk about competitive League of Legends (and how it’s played), and relying on it being obvious that this was Summoner's Rift. I've replaced it with three, explicit sources and re-worded it.
  • Paywalled from 11 & 12
Can get you access to these if you want it!
  • 13 -- good
  • 14 -- Not seeing where players start the game , additionally-- arent FNs 13 &14 the same?
Fixed this, and yeah. They had different retrieval dates. My bad!
  • 15 -- not seeing One is in the lower-left corner of the map, and the other in the upper-right, are generated in waves, behind the third (source says "a third at the end protecting the base and one of the three inhibitors". Not a sourcing comment, but you may want to mention that the super-minions are allied
Map bit -- fixed.
Waves -- fixed.
RE: Inhibitors; I think this is supported. Full quote: Each team has 11 turrets. Every lane features two turrets in the lane, with a third at the end protecting the base and one of the three inhibitors. The last two turrets guard the Nexus and can only be attacked once an inhibitor is destroyed. Every lane has two turrets in the lane, and a third by the inhibitor (it is behind it, otherwise it couldn't protect it).
Also, fixed that -- PMC mentioned the same.
  • 16 -- good
  • 17 -- not seeing reappear at regular intervals
Here: It first spawns 8 minutes into the game and then respawns again six minutes later, if it's killed before 13 minutes and 45 seconds and in the same spot five minutes after the first one is killed, with that pattern continuing throughout the game, etc.
  • 18 -- struggling to find require multiple players to defeat
Here: Baron is an incredibly difficult monster to defeat, and it often takes several teammates to do it.
  • 19 -- good
  • 20 -- good
  • not sourcing, but you may want to define the acronym ARAM
Done! With source.
  • 21 -- not seeing " two other permanent game modes" also, some of the other stuff is more explicitly stated in FN 22, might want to add that to there
  • 22 -- good
  • 23 & 24, not seeing "June 26, 2019"
  • 25 -- good
  • 26 -- not seeing "Unlike both ARAM and Summoner's Rift," and " Windows and macOS clients" -- I'd also prefer a source that actually confirms it did happen, this article just says that it will
Okay. Spent ages on this one -- I can't do it. Me, ferret, and Lee were all looking for ages. None of them support that it came out on that date with cross-play in one reference (though it did; I played it on launch day), but some sources do mention that it came out on that day. I've slapped those two together; I hope that's alright. If not, let me know.
  • 27 & 28, not seeing "regularly featured"
This one got fixed per suggestions from Gog
  • 29 -- does "“declining engagement and burnout” (source) equal "had resulted in players quitting" (article)?
As above!
  • 30 -- good
  • 31 --
    • not really sure what bit of the article backs up " but a stand-alone product would have the advantage of a significantly lower barrier to entry" -- it feels like its implied but not explicitly stated.
This is the bit: But the mod was an extra download created and maintained by fans that lacked a level of polish and was often hard to find and set up. “We thought maybe we could build this sort of DOTA-style game,” Merrill said. “The more we thought about that the more we were like, ‘Actually, that’s an incredibly compelling opportunity.’” It is kinda implied, and not outright stated. I think the "but" makes it clear that that's what they were trying to improve on, though.
    • " with an ulterior goal of recruiting interns for quality assurance" -- source doesn't seem to explicitly state interns and mentions that, while QA was the main aim, they were also looking for people to help with design.
So, bit of the article: “They hosted a DOTA tournament at USC. I think the goal was to actually meet students who were interested in games, that were interested in doing game design or [quality assurance] work — mostly QA work to be honest — for their new company,” Jew said. I used "interns" because it’s mentioned, in the next paragraph, that they recruited him as an intern. That said, I've just dropped "[...] interns for quality assurance" and replaced it with "ulterior goal of recruitment"! Is that alright?
    • "and they brought him on board due to his familiarity with the genre and what would become its rivals" -- not seeing this explicitly stated in the source, which just says "a long chat about Warcraft, DOTA, and his playing habits. As soon as it wrapped up, the two offered Jew an $11-an-hour internship.", implying a connection but not, I think, explicitly stating one
Fixed this, I think.
    • "and Steve Mescon, who led its support team" -- not seeing this in the source
Really sorry about this one. It got dislodged, and the reference went southward. Fixed now!
    • " priority towards differentiating their characters from those of Warcraft III" source says "focused on creating entirely new characters" -- is that the same thing?
  • 32 -- not checked
  • 33 -- URL doesn't work for me
Is it the web archive one? It’s working for me, but takes ages to load.
  • 34 -- good
  • 35 -- "on April 10, 2009" source only specifies to "april 2009"
  • 36 & 37-- 36 suggests that the champions were first availible in Feb, doesn't mention april and 37 only mentions "launched in alpha in 2009 ", nothing about beta, I think
Bolding for me. Leave this one with me; I can fix the sources for this one, but will need some more time.
    • Not sourcing, but I think you don't need the listing of the 17 original champions
This has been removed!
  • not sourcing, but "double the number to 40" either "double the number " or "to 40" is redundant here
  • 38 -- good
  • 39 -- good
  • Based on a revision that by the time you see this is probably outdated. Here's my first spotcheck, some prose comments sprinkled in. Most of the things I found in other sources, so you may just need to move things around to match up. A lot of this is probably resolvable through my lack of video game understanding and chronic don't-want-to-read-the-whole-source-must-use-cntrl-f-itis. Hopefully, I've been reading sources correctly, apologies if not. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for all you've done so far, Eddie. Sorry about how long this is taking (and how big it is).

Comments from Le Panini[edit]

I was present at the peer review, but only extensively looked into the Reception section. I'm gonna look and give suggestions for the entire article this time around. Waiting for comments can be a pain, so I'll do this early on to keep you busy for... maybe a day. Le Panini [🥪] 00:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A day? You monster—I'm a volunteer! (Just kidding; lookin' forward to it, Panini) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Not in that since. And P.S., getting my username changed to simply "Panini". Le Panini [🥪] 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
"Drop the "the". Just Panini. It’s cleaner."
  • "Since its release on October 27, 2009..." Adding the full release date here is redundant, as its already stated in the infobox. This could be changed to "Since its release on October 27, 2009, the game has been..."
MoS/VG says release date should be included in the lead; I think that one of the reasons it’s good to have it there is, if you Google "When was League of Legends released?", it pulls from the lead for a concise answer, but I don't believe Google can pull from info-boxes.
I've looked into it, and searching up when Darius Gaiden came out, it pulls from the infobox. Namcokid47 removed this from PMTOK due to it being unnecessary, so I assume its regular practice.
If it’s regular practice, MOS/VG needs to be updated :p I'll abridge it to "October 2009" for now. That's what Batman: Arkham City and (more recently) BioShock 2: Minerva's Den both do. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Experience points is mentioned multiple times in the article. This can be abbreviated using (XP) at its first occurrence.
Thanks! Fixed.
  • The third paragraph is about esports, and the fourth is about reception. I think moving the esports paragraph to the end would make more sense.
Agreed. Thanks!
  • "A massively multiplayer online role-playing game based on League is in development." League of Legends is abbreviated to League here, but this is done no where else in the article. To me, this is off-putting.
You're right; fixed!
  • The simplified map's caption goes into a lot of detail. Some of the info here (such as "The fountains, where players appear at a game's beginning," is explained in the text, and doesn't really need to be specified. This can help shorten the caption a bit.
  • Ultra Rapid Fire is simplified with (URF), but is only used one other time. The other use can be changed to "In the mode,"
Good catch. Done.
  • "Players in a lane "farm"—killing minions to accumulate gold and XP—and try to prevent their opponent from doing the same." Remove the "and" here
  • "...the publishers were confused by the game's free-to-play business model and lack of a single-player model." "Model" is repeated twice here.
  • I think having the list of the original seventeen champions falls under the lines of WP:GAMECRUFT. It would be better if this specified there were seventeen, but not listing them out.
Yeaaaaah. WP:VG told me that the initial roster was pretty vital, but I'm inclined to agree tbh. Readers can look at the citations!
  • "making it one of the highest-grossing games of 2018 behind Fortnite and Dungeon Fighter Online." According to the Wikipedia list linked, it's also behind Arena of Valor.
The source I used doesn't mention AoV. Weirdly, My source is also used on the other page for LoL and Fortnite, but AoV comes from somewhere unless. I've had a look and I can't find much to say that the citation they use for AoV (Sensor Tower) is reliable or reputable. What do you think?
Simplest answer, find a source for it. Another solution, you can easily remove the "behind Fortnite and Dungeon Fighter Online." part if you can't find any sources, and just change the source to "As of August 2018, the game had an active user base of over 111 million players and an annual revenue of US$1.4 billion, making it one of the highest-grossing games of 2018."
I did this earlier, yeah. Seemed easier.
  • "..and contained no political themes." What does this mean? I don't think it's worth mentioning.
It’s basically an elaboration of what came before—there were no political/social themes in the story before. But I agree--the good vs evil bit does the job.
  • I see a lot of em dashes in this article. Is there something these do that a comma can't? Some could be worked out of the article for better reading purposes.
Can you point to any places where they're disruptive? I find that they distinguish parentheses much more neatly than commas do, and I think this might just be a case of style. If others say that the dashes are hurting readability, I'll purge 'em ^_^
But looking back, you used em dashes to respond back to me, so I'm assuming its just how you write. Unless if others have issues with it, I won't get nitpicky.
I love an em dash. I use them constantly in essays, too, but I don't think I ever mis-use them or damage clarity with them. We'll see what others say and circle back to this one.
Thanks for all the feedback so far, Panini. Means a lot. I really like getting feedback for some reason... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Left some responses and other things I found. Le Panini [🥪] 17:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from PMC[edit]

Hi Tigers! Glad to see you moving into FA. This is my first time commenting at FAC, so it's possible I'm being too picky for what's expected. I also don't necessarily expect you to make changes every time I point something out, I'm just noting what stands out to me as a reader. ♠PMC(talk) 07:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh thanks PMC! I'm sure your suggestions are great. Let's dive in!
  • The player base's negative and abuse in-game behavior, criticized at release, persists.
  • Typo, and also maybe could be expanded on slightly. How could it be criticized at release - did the game already have a player base then?
Fixed the typo, and you can see details in the last paragraph of Reception (before the Reassessment subheading). Basically, League inherited much of the player-base of Dota, which was already pretty bad. The game did have players from release, yeah! There was an open beta period; it’s mentioned in development.
  • from an isometric perspective, or "top-down".
  • Slightly awkward. Would it work as "from an isometric, or "top-down", perspective"?
Great suggestion. Changed!
  • Over the course of games, champions gain additional abilities by earning experience points and thereby levelling up. ... Each match is discrete; levels and items do not transfer from one to another.
  • The first sentence using "games" plural makes it feel contradictory with the second. Can that be clarified?
This should really be "a match". My guess is that the second instance of matches was once much, much closer to the first, so I've changed it to avoid a double word. But now that they're further apart, both can co-exist as match. There is peace on earth.
  • Speaking as someone who's only superficially familiar with LoL, the gameplay paragraph feels like it could be somewhat beefier to increase clarity on some basic mechanics. How do players level - is it automatic when you hit the XP threshold, or do you have to retreat to home territory? Is there any agency when levelling (ie picking one ability over another, or allocating stat points)? Is there a store at the base, or else how is gold spent?
Ah, this really sucks. I completely agree with you. The problem is that I can't find any reliable sources to say so. Almost all of them are geared towards explaining to people who have never played the game before, but not as players—it’s to make the viewing experience easier. I searched everywhere for just what you're describing; clarity on levelling up. Reviewers don't mention it and contemporary descriptions don't mention it. Levelling up grants two things: stats (an increase to the champion's health, for example), and an ability point, which you put into one of the champ's abilities. But if you look through the sources I've managed to find, and Ctrl+F level, they offer no specifics. I'd really appreciate feedback here.
  • The sentence about "Champions build strength..." could be reworded to build on the previous sentence, which discusses earning XP but not how (I assume by killing enemies & breaking their buildings, but it's not explicit in the text).
I've changed it around a little. More precise information in the Summoner's Rift section. If it still doesn't feel right to you, I can move it out of SR and into bit we're discussing :)
  • I'm only being surgical about that paragraph because it feels foundational to me - if you're reading the Wikipedia article about LoL, you probably want to understand the basic gameplay loop, and I don't feel like I entirely do from what's written so far.
Does the next section clarify those problems? The opening paragraph has been really difficult to write (as you've picked out) because of how inter-connected the systems all are. You end up talking in a lot of jargon without speaking very broadly. Let me know!
Summoner's Rift
  • The Summoner's Rift section is gorgeous. I have very little to pick at, except to clarify maybe that when the enemy's Inhibitor is destroyed, one's own minions become super-minions. (I initially read it like destroying your own Inhibitor was a goal).
Fixed! and thank you ^_^
  • Actually, one more: the last paragraph in that section talks about lane roles, one champion per this lane, two per that, etc. Are the lane roles set by the game mechanics, or by strategic convention?
Convention! Good catch. I can source this to TechRadar: "The positions you can play are Top, Middle, Bot Lane and Jungle. Of course, you could go anywhere you like, but your teammates might become upset with you." If that doesn't say "convention", I don't know what does.
Other modes
  • Does ARAM stand for anything? Is this intended simply as a tutorial mode, or does it affect one's rank?
This is why it’s good to get some unfamiliar eyes on it! ARAM is a for-fun mode, with no competitive aspect to it (there's no ranked ARAM) because it’s random. I've added a source and sentence to explain a little more. Does that make it clear that it’s not a tutorial mode? It’s just a lower-stress mode, where you can go in and play a random champion for 20-25 mins on a much smaller map.
  • Is Teamfight really a game mode, or is it a separate game? The game's own article reads like it's a separate game entirely.
OH NO I'VE DREADED THIS DAY. Teamfight Tactics, to me, is its own game. That isn't reflected in sources. TFT's development team say it its own game; Riot's developer blogs say it’s "a game mode within LoL". Recommended source are very muddled, but most call it a game mode. It isn't like Legends of Runeterra, because TFT uses League's character models, art, music, client (for PC and macOS). I initially had a clarification in there and I was asked to remove it. I'll get around to TFT's page sometime soon, and I'll make the distinction on there :)
  • Ultra Rapid Fire mode was intended as a 2014 April Fools' Day prank... does that mean it was actually playable that day, or just joked about on social media and then made live later?
Clarified! It was real, but meant to be only available for 2 weeks and then never again.
  • After a long period of retirement, Riot disclosed that the mode had resulted in players quitting League of Legends. This sentence is confusing. It's not clear that the first clause refers to the game mode. And the second clause - did Riot say why people had quit over it? Is the mode now perma-retired?
Clarified. Is this better? :)
  • They elaborated... this sentence doesn't follow logically from the previous, which talks about people getting so mad they quit the game, then this one whips right over to Riot "elaborating" about being creative in designing game modes.
Same as above -- seem better? :)
  • Which leads me to wonder, are there other notable temporary modes? The opening implies there are several, but the paragraph only mentions two.
These are the only two really big ones. But there have been a lot—most only last for 2 weeks and never coming back. I can provide a brief list, but I do think it will corrupt the reliability of the references a bit :p

I will probably get into some more for the rest of the article later, but that's it for now. ♠PMC(talk) 07:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much, PMC. Thanks for doing this. Really great suggestions—I've left a few questions for you above. Getting feedback from people who haven't played is so great. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ovinus[edit]

And I thought you'd take a break after four Million Awards...! I'll be reviewing the article soon, hopefully before Tuesday. For the record, I have never played nor seen the game (beyond a few short clips whose complexity confused me to no end). Ovinus (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Ovinus! Like I just said to PMC, feedback from non-players is so crucial for this sort of game. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this, and I'm looking forward to it. As for a break? The grind can never stop. There are articles that need fixin' :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hahahaha, I admire your vitality! Ovinus (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As of 2019, the game regularly peaked Should it be "peaks"? (I couldn't find more recent data on a quick Google search like I'm guessing you tried.) Alternatively I'd say In 2019 the game regularly peaked.
  • platforms, such as YouTube and Twitch I'd remove the comma here
  • The game's success has spawned several spin-offs, such as a mobile version and a digital collectible card game. A massively multiplayer online role-playing game based on the game is in development. I think this could be concisified. Maybe The game's success has spawned several spin-offs, including a mobile version, a digital collectible card game, and an in-development massively multiplayer online role-playing game. Though I could also see the five consecutive adjectives being annoying. It could be and a massively multiplayer online role-playing game still in development. Anyway, not a big deal.
  • In Summoner's Rift, items We should be clear that Summoner's Rift is a game mode rather than a place.
  • There are nine tiers Is "tiers" or "ranks" preferred? I'd like consistency with the preceding sentence
  • neutral "monsters" I think we should be clear what "neutral" means. From Minecraft, I'm guessing it means peaceful unless provoked?
  • These monsters require multiple players to defeat and grant special abilities to the team that slays them. I'm no grammarian but I think it needs to be to the teams that slay them. How about Each of these monsters requires multiple players to defeat and grants special abilities to its slayers' team.
  • Players in a lane "farm" This is a bit of a garden-path sentence for me when I interpret farm as a noun. How about Players in a lane kill minions to accumulate gold and XP ("farming") and try to prevent their opponent from doing the same.
  • conventions have arisen over the game's lifetime As far as I can tell this isn't supported by the given source?
  • vigilant in order to avoid enemy abilities how about vigilant in avoiding enemy abilities (in general I don't really like "in order to")
  • the mode is more popular among "casual" players of the game can remove "of the game", unless we're talking about hockey players :P
  • parent game clarify? Do you mean Summoner's Rift?
  • with cross-platform play with the Windows and macOS clients How about we replace the second "with" with "using"?
  • Ultra Rapid Fire Italicize?
  • was intended as a temporary game mode It was intended? Or it was? Do mean a "perennial"/"annual" game mode or something?
  • with many quitting League of Legends I'd recommend tacking on "entirely" to clarify
  • The developer said I think "also said" would be better because the idea is mostly unrelated to the previous, unless they're talking about the cost of people leaving

That's it for now. It's excellent writing so far! For the first time I have a mild clue what a few of my peers are spending their whole lives on.... Ovinus (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for picking this up, Gog! — ImaginesTigers (talk)
  • "developed and published by Riot Games for Microsoft Windows and macOS". I follow "developed and published by Riot Games for Microsoft Windows", but shouldn't the last bit be something like 'using the macOS operating system'?
I'm not sure. The game is now developed, in tandem, for both Windows and macOS, but it wasn't at release. A simple fix might be to remove the platforms? They're in the info-box. Open to ideas!
Above comment from Tigers. Random observer comment: This sentence is correct, if perhaps unwieldy? The game was developed for "Microsoft Windows and macOS". Both are operating systems. The Microsoft Windows version does not use macOS in any way, and to my knowledge the game was principally developed on Windows, then ported to macOS. -- ferret (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah. I think that the "for" is ambiguous. How about something like 'developed and published by Riot Games and running on Microsoft Windows and macOS operating systems'?
  • "and monetized through" → 'and is monetized through'?
  • "their own separate". One of "their own" or "separate" seems to me to be redundant.
I cut "separate"; I agree completely.
  • "with unique abilities and differing styles of play". A discussion point rather than an actionable comment, but isn't a "style of play" something a player has, rather than a character?
So this is coming from the initial reception to the game, and "style of play" is me re-wording play style. The reviewers mention the wide variety play styles champions offer. There are some similarities: some champions want to 'catch' players from range with crowd control and burst them down, while others have an advantage in prolonged fights in closer-quarters. With very few exceptions, play styles are very much dictated by the champion that you play, not by how the player chooses to play them. There are some champions who can specialise at different things via items, but they're usually not very good (and unviable at higher levels of play). Let me know what ya think!
  • "to level up". This has a normal meaning which is not what you mean. Perhaps something like 'to gain levels"?
  • "champions collect experience points to level up and purchase items in order to defeat the opposing team". This reads as if experience points are collected in order to "level up", while items are purchased in order to defeat the opposing team. I assume that is not how it works?
Yeah, I'm with you; I believe this was a PR suggestion. Originally it was something to the effect of: During a match, champions become more powerful by levelling up and purchasing items in order to defeat the opposing team. Should I change it back? I agree it reads weird!
  • "The player base's ..." You use "base" twice in the previous sentence to mean something different. I was honestly confused when I first read this, assuming that the abuse by the "base" was a game feature.
This was silly! I've made some changes; have a look now. If it isn't clear, let me know :)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "Players also buying progressively". "buying" → buy.
  • "or destroying their structures". That is the structures of "non-player enemies". yes?
Fixed. So the reason that this section is here is as an over-view to indicate that levels and items don't transfer over from one matches to the next. I can't explain that without items and levels being touched on here. At the same time, I think this section seems really puzzling because it is meant to be read with the next section, not independently. If you think this would be better merged, I can do that.
  • "items are available in the "shop", available only when". "... available ... available ..."; can the repetition be avoided?
  • "levels and items do not transfer from one to another". Optional: for clarity maybe 'levels and items do not transfer from one match to another'?
  • "Nexus", "Inhibitors". Why the upper case initials?
Good point. I've dropped all of the capitals, but the sources do use the capitalisation (presumably because they're capitalised in-game). Doesn't make much sense for us, though! — ImaginesTigers (talk)
  • "located at behind". Delete "at". (Or "behind".)
  • "when the enemy team's Inhibitor is destroyed". When one is destroyed? Or when all three are?
  • "to the team who slays them". "who" → "which".
I like "that" here. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
  • "as a way to close out games." As a non-aficionado this does not make sense to me. I suggest either expanding it a little or deleting.
Yeah; the important thing is that they're big and scary and give powerful bonuses. The strategy is very game guide-y. Removed the last clause! — ImaginesTigers (talk)
  • Caption: "The fountains are the dark areas within each bases, and are beside the Nexus". "bases" → 'base'.
  • "The top and middle lane have one champion each per side". "lane" → 'lanes'.
  • "assists their teammates in lanes". 'in the lanes'.
  • "Although the game does not enforce where players go" 'not enforce where players may go'.
  • "Given the small size of the map, the map's design teaches". "the map, the map's" - could the repetition be avoided?
  • "significantly reduced cooldown timers". Optional: "timers" → 'times'.
  • "After a long period of retirement, Riot disclosed that the mode's wildly unbalanced design" You what? We still talking about "Ultra Rapid Fire mode"? Do you mean something like 'Some time after the mode was retired, Riot disclosed'? If so, is there a reason why the period of time cannot be specified?
  • "Short-term game modes enabled Riot to be more creative with their designs, and described the associated costs of maintaining and balancing URF as too high." What is an URF? In a paragraph referring specifically to Ultra Rapid Fire mode why start a sentence with a general comment on short-term game modes and end it with a specific point about Ultra Rapid Fire mode? If there is a general point to be made about short-term game modes put it at the end of the paragraph in a separate sentence.
Give this one another look for me, if you can. I think I've fixed it, though! — ImaginesTigers (talk)
  • "players vote on a champion". Optional: → ' players vote to select a champion'.

I am going to pause here. There seems to be a high incidence of basic grammar issues. The article would have benefited from a copy edit prior to being nominated. (I note that it has not gone through GoCE.) I am unsure whether the incidence of grammar errors rises to the level of the article not being ready for nomination - while many FACs are going to contain grammar errors, it is not the role of reviewers to be pointing them out every couple of sentences. It may be helpful to this nomination's smooth progression if someone were to copy edit from "Development" down before I recommence reviewing.

For the avoidance of doubt, grammar aside, I have so far found this an interesting, informative, reasonably well written and FAC-ready article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This is my bad. I think nominating directly after the PR has meant that little errors get in. I'll ping you when I've copy-edited; I'm quite thorough, so you really shouldn't run into any other issues! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that would explain it. Bet you that I do! But, as I wrote, the odd issue is not a problem. No rush btw. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Gog. I've done some jiggling a bit, but (kinda as expected), gameplay was the focus of most of the changes so far. It’s a complicated game, so that section has been highly iterative, and mistakes just crept in. I've read through everything else, and if there are anything there (you're right, there will be—I'm too close to it!), I do think they'll be super minor. I'm sorry for you having to read the above. I've only left comments on a few of them, but they are all fixed (although I did leave "timers"; that's what they're called in-game). :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Not a problem - all FAC comments are subject to come back from the nominator. Or, in my case when I mark something as "optional", simply being ignored.
  • "significantly lowering the barrier to entry. The two believed that the gameplay originating in DotA could become a new genre; a stand-alone would have the advantage of a significantly lower barrier to entry". "significantly lowering the barrier to entry ... a significantly lower barrier to entry".
"Shouldn't be any problems from here on" YIKES! That's what I get for not making big changes in sandbox.
  • "They hired Jeff Jew, who later would serve as one of the game's producers, because of his familiarity with the genre, and what would become League of Legends' rivals." Is there a typo in there? I can't work out what the last clause means.
You read this one in-between edits, yeah. I'm sorry again :( Growing pains. Fixed.
  • "They were confused by" It is unclear who "They" are. Could you specify?
Publishers/investors. Fixed!
  • "Although the game's full name was revealed as League of Legends: Clash of Fates, the subtitle was prior to launch." You have lost me here. Does "revealed" mean 'announced' or 'uncovered'? The subtitle was what prior to launch?
  • "Large, systemic changes occur at the end of each competitive season to sustain player excitement."What is a "competitive season" and how long does it last?
From January-December each year, but (and I have tried) I can't source it without dipping into the "gaming enthusiast press". Thoughts?
  • "the music team had four full-time composers operated within". Ah ha! Either "had" → 'of' or "operated" → 'operating'.
I've never before had someone absolutely destroy me in such good humour; I gotta say, I'm a fan.
  • "Dot Esports reported in 2018 that their relationship had been strained over Riot's refusal to make a mobile version of the game, citing a decline in players and profits" Who did the citing - Dot or Riot? And what has the declines to do with the mobile version, or lack thereof?
Fixed this one! I was trying to be waaaay too brief, when I should have paced it out.
  • "Riot responded that they were happy with the game's player numbers, but admitted that it had fallen from its peak." Are Riot responding here to Dot's 2018 account of what happened in 2015?
They were responding to the article, yeah. Riot and Tencent's relationship became more difficult in 2016/2017, because mobile gaming was really taking off.
  • "According to magazine Inc for their profile". "for" → 'in'.
  • "players collectively accrued three billion hours played every month". This is possibly permissible in US English, but in other varieties players didn't "accrue" 3 bn hours, they played them, or spent that many hours playing the game. 'players collectively played three billion hours every month'?
I only did this because I was trying to escape the double "play" :( Fixed, it though! I agree that it’s a weird subject-formation
  • "controlling champions and make them fight". 'ing'.
  • What is a "disconnected setting"?
The source writes that the champions, before they had writers, just felt like they came out of nowhere—just disparate things thrown together, without any thought to what makes sense for the world. Realistically, is it even needed? I've removed it :-)
  • "but very little is seen as a part of normal gameplay". Suggestion: 'but very little of this is seen as a part of normal gameplay'.
Done! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
You were right, Gog. There are still problems :) I'm sorry again. Appreciate you doing this. My future FACs will sway away from games and towards books and literary theory—my comfort zone. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "League of Legends received generally favorable reviews". Is this when it was first released?
  • "praising the amount "experimentation" offered by champions". Has an 'of' gone walkabout?
  • "The inventive character design and lively colours was cited". "was" → 'were'.
  • "by noting that was not" → 'by noting that there was not'.
  • "the physical version was an inadvisable purchase". You state earlier that it is free-to-play.
  • "Matchmaking suffered from" "Matchmaking" being?
  • "mentioned problematic bugs". Erm, as opposed to the non-problematic ones?
  • "Some addressed toxicity". Some of what or who?
  • "was described as "fascinating", with "memorable" characters and abilities". The MoS says of quotations "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (emphasis in original).
  • "events organised by At the 36th Sports Emmy Awards in 2018". Say what?
  • "Riot held a show that included a computer-generated dragon", A real dragon? Or a mechanical one? Or a hologram? Or ...

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Pepi I Meryre[edit]

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Pepi I Meryre third pharaoh of the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt in the 24th century BC, who faced many challenges yet became one of the most important Old Kingdom pharaoh. This is this article's second FA nomination: it has received a thorough copy-edit by Twofingered Typist since its first FAC. In addition, all changes advocated by wikipedians during the first nomination have been implemented, including a layout change. I am pinging users who supported or participated in the first FAC: Aza24, A. Parrot and Dudley Miles.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass
buidhe THe book was published in 1907, I updated the wikicommons info with a web-access and publication year. In addition, the author, Eugene Grébaut, died in 1915.
  • Other licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 16:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

James A. Doonan[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 04:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a Jesuit from the Southern US who taught at several Jesuit colleges and led Georgetown University, where he saw the completion of its flagship building. Ergo Sum 04:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Hog Farm

  • I'll try to take a look over the next couple days. Might claim for wikicup. Hog Farm Bacon 04:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "James Doonan was said to frequently recount a story of the time he was present at a High Mass in Baltimore, when word of the approaching Union Army caused the congregants to leave and take up arms. As a staunch supporter of the Confederacy, he was aggrieved at being forced by the Union Army to bear arms on their behalf and act as a sentinel for several hours" - Cited to p. 374 in the source, but some of the material is on page 373 as well, so both should be in the page range.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 02:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment only, no action needed - I find the preceding story a little odd, because Baltimore was under Union occupation for almost the entire war, but it's supported by an RS and could have happened during a brief span in 1861. It caught my attention, at least.
    • I'm no expert in the Civil War. I'll leave that to the experts to sort out. Ergo Sum 02:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "This was interrupted in 1868 by a year of teaching," - Where?
    • Clarified. Ergo Sum 03:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Bishop John J. Keane, Catholic University's first rector,[17] attempted to resolve this dispute by unsuccessfully offering to purchase Georgetown University,[18] tendering this proposal to Doonan" - Chronology is a little unclear for this - implied to be 1887, but never directly stated. If this offer didn't occur in 1887, can you provide the year it did occur in?
    • I'm not able to deduce a precise year from the source. Ergo Sum 03:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it known what he did in Detroit?
    • Clarified that he also taught philosophy in Detroit. I can't determine at which institution, but if I were to speculate, it would be at Detroit College. The source is silent on this, though, so I'm leaving it out. Ergo Sum 03:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Doonan then returned to Philadelphia, where he suffered a stroke, causing partial paralysis" - Is this in 1896 or 1897?
    • The source does not specify what year he went to Lourdes or returned to Philadelphia. Ergo Sum 03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 1906, he returned to Georgetown" - Is this a reference to the university, or to Georgetown (Washington, D.C.)?
    • Clarified. Ergo Sum 03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is cause of death known?
    • No. Ergo Sum 03:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The Find A Grave external link gives his name as Jacobus Doonan, and this old source mentions a Jacobus Doonan that was also born on November 8, 1841 and entered studies in July 1857. So was Jacobus Doonan a reasonably valid alternate name? The FAG reference is ignorable, but the other is an old 1860 Jesuit catalog, so that may be something worth mentioning. The picture on FAG supposed to be of his tombstone shows it reading the name "Jacobus A. Doonan". Probably worth a passing mention or a footnote if you can find a decent source for it.
    • Jacobus is just the Latinzed form of James. For Jesuit documents that were written in Latin (including the gravestone), they just Latinized James. This was done with most first names in old Latin documents (ecclesiastical or otherwise). Ergo Sum 03:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think Doonan is really what Category:People of Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Civil War is designed for. His ACW connection is rather fleeting.
    • Touché. Ergo Sum 03:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me, I think. Nonexpert here, so I'm addressing the prose more than anything else. An interesting read. Hog Farm Bacon 03:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Hog Farm. Ergo Sum 03:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Alt text shouldn't be identical to caption - if there's nothing else to say just refer to caption
    • Improved the alt text. Ergo Sum 03:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:James_Doonan_portrait.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    • I have not been able to find it published anywhere, so I have update the license accordingly. Ergo Sum 03:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Cannon_Healy_Hall.jpg: as per the Flickr tag, is more specific tagging available? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Not that I can discern. Ergo Sum 03:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have added one more photo to the article. Would you mind reviewing that one? Ergo Sum 03:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

New image is fine. However, for the unpublished portrait: I see the archivelink source claims "all rights reserved". Do you know the basis for that claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
In the past, it's seemed that the Georgetown University archives sets all image copyrights as "rights reserved" by default until someone gets around to reviewing it. Since the copyright tag was changed from rights reserved to not reviewed, I would imagine that's what happened here. (As an aside, I haven't come across an image in the GU archives that does have an actual copyright evaluation).

1985 Tour de France[edit]

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 72nd running of the Tour de France, the most prestigious cycle race in the world. It was promoted to Good Article last May. All comments are much appreciated! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

  • Suggest the addition of alt texts on images
  • Suggest archiving sources.


  • Short descriptions must be started with capital letters.
  • Link yellow jersey? They're an uncommon term.


  • Suggest using Template:Main instead of the current hatnote.
  • Not familiar with the Tour de France, but why is a person referred to as a "team"? Sounds weird.
can you indicate where this happens? I read the section twice, and could not find what you refer to... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 15:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Pre-race favourites

  • "had won the 1984 Tour de France" --> "had won the previous Tour de France".
  • "Panasonic–Raleigh" is linked in the second mention; should be linked in the first mention.

Route and stages

  • "Summit of the Col du Tourmalet, the highest point of elevation during this year's Tour"-- suggest changing "this year's" to "the 1985", as "this" may sound like "the current year" aka 2021.
  • Italicizing "en route" is not needed,
  • In the table's header, suggest switching positions of ref 38 and 30. Feel free to do this or not, I'm sure it's just my OCD triggered.

Race overview

  • Suggest making the display text of the second main article as "Stage 12 to Stage 22", as the prefix "1985 Tour de France" has been stated in the first main article.

I'll have more on this later. Currently writing something for Signpost, so am shifting simultaneously. GeraldWL 15:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Sportsfan77777[edit]

I'll get to this in the future... Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Bernard_Hinault_(1982).jpg: don't see the given licensing at the cited source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Love for Sale (Bilal album)[edit]

Nominator(s): isento (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an unreleased album by the singer-songwriter Bilal, recorded in the early 2000s at Electric Lady Studios during the height of the studio's Soulquarians era. A darker, experimental departure from the neo soul music of his first album, Love for Sale was resisted by the singer's record label and controversially shelved after an unfinished mix leaked online in 2006, changing the course of his career while becoming a cult classic among black-music fans. This article was recently (and thoroughly) reviewed by Kyle Peake for good-article nomination, making it ready for review here, in my opinion. isento (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Kyle Peake[edit]

This article looks to be in amazing shape, having only improved if anything since my review that helped improve it to a strong degree! It would be not only incredible, but also deserved of Isento for this article to become a FA. --K. Peake 06:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Ealdgyth[edit]

Do you have any follow-up comments @Ealdgyth:? isento (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I have struck some above, but the problem with interviews isn't being primary but the reliabilty of the actual interviewer and the site publishing the interview. See User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet#New FAC stuff for some helpful advice. I am sensitive to the fact that this isn't an subject area that is going to have big academic tomes written on it, but we do still need to be mindful of the FA criteria as well as the general WP:RS policies. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from DMT biscuit[edit]

  • Written and produced mainly by the singer... → Written and produced mainly by Bilal... DMT biscuit (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A cult classic among black music fans → Described by some as a cult classic... The two instances of it being called a cult classic in the article don't in my opinion warrant this being portrayed as a definitive statement, especially considering that the first only describes it as a "near cult classic". DMT biscuit (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Love for Sale has since been considered → Love for Sale has since been considered, by fans,... DMT biscuit (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "forerunner of similarly progressive R&B music that developed by the end of the 2000s decade." I don't see this statement supported in the article. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Interscope still retains control of its master recordings" I don't see this statement supported in the article. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the image of Glasper should be switched to the right. Having a variety of right and left leads to better accessibility. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • He tells Vibe magazine... Shouldn't this be past tense? DMT biscuit (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know how valuable the quote box in D&L is. It's a charming sentiment but i don't see it's critical worth. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • mysteriously appeared on the Internet...→ inexplicably appeared on the Internet... DMT biscuit (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the quote box in P&T aligned to the right for better accessibility. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would personally recommend removing the critics table and instead integrating it into the article. Having it display just the one gives undue weight towards Hull's opinion. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

In conclusion, a very good article that needs a little tinkering and further detail. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The Heart of Thomas[edit]

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Moto Hagio's seminal manga series The Heart of Thomas, noted as one of the earliest manga in the shōnen-ai (male-male romance) genre. Much of this article is sourced from User:Lady freyja's excellent article written for the French Wikipedia (fr:Le Cœur de Thomas), which itself is a featured article. I improved this article after avoiding The Heart of Thomas for many years; though I write primarily about manga and LGBT topics on Wikipedia and recognized the series' influence in the medium, I falsely assumed it was merely another dated schoolboy romance narrative. Only upon reading it for the first time last year did I realize how incorrect my assumption was, and was able to appreciate what a truly compelling narrative The Heart of Thomas is. The Heart of Thomas is currently a good article (review here), and is queued to appear on DYK on January 13 (nomination here). This is my second featured article nomination, following Stucky (fandom). Morgan695 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 01
52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice article. I hope it becomes FA considering the project doesn't have that many. I'll try to find any issue before giving the support:

Leaving my Support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Heart_of_Thomas_Moto_Hagio.jpg: source link is dead, missing info on copyright holder, and FUR needs improvement
    • Updated source, added copyright holder, improved rationale.
  • File:Demian_Erstausgabe.jpg is incorrectly tagged and missing information on the original source
    • I corrected the source information, can you clarify how it is tagged incorrectly?
      • Under US law creating a simple reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright, so the uploader would not be able to release the work under a free license in the US. (Depending on where they are the tag may be valid for that country). This needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Tag added.
  • File:Birch_Little_Lord_Fauntleroy_add_Titre.png: if this is to be hosted on Commons, it needs to include copyright information for the source country as well as US
  • File:Emil_Wolff-Eros-Mutter_Erde_fec.jpg needs a US tag for the sculpture.
    • I have added a US tag.

Would also suggest cleaning up citation formatting before someone does a source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @Nikkimaria: I have attempted to address the issues raised. Image usage tagging is not my area of expertise, so specific guidance on what is needed to make these images admissible would be appreciated. Can you also clarify what you mean by cleaning up the citation formatting? Morgan695 (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There are currently a lot of inconsistencies in how sources are being formatted - some books have locations while others don't, some short citations don't link correctly to the full source, some journals include publishers and others don't, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Response above on images; I'll get started on formatting the references. Morgan695 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Figureskatingfan Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

By request; I reviewed this article for DYK, and suggested that Morgan695 bring it here. I'm glad you're going to be working on standardizing the refs. I have a general comment: as per WP:PARAGRAPH, many of your paragraphs are too short. I think you could combine many of them, with better transitions. I think you could combine the first two paragraphs in the subsection "Production", since both are about Hagio's friendship with Takemiya, and how it affected Hagio's choice of genres. I'd also combine the two paragraphs in the subsection "Editions", making it into one longer paragraph, like this: Upon its conclusion, Shogakukan collected The Heart of Thomas into three tankōbon published in January, April and June 1975; they are respectively numbers 41, 42 and 43 of the Flower Comics collection. The series has been regularly re-printed by Shogakukan. In the West, The Heart of Thomas was not published until the 2010s. On September 14, 2011, Fantagraphics Books announced that it had acquired the license to The Heart of Thomas for release in North America. The single-volume hardcover omnibus, translated into English by Rachel Thorn, was released on January 18, 2013. I think these are things you could do throughout the article, to make the prose tighter and more encyclopedic. Other than that, which is easily fixable, this is a beautiful article, with lots of potential. It could be the rare Wikipedia article that could make an impact, and serve as an example of other articles like it. Ganbatte! (Hope that's correct.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by-comments from LM150

  • I recommend using a full stop after this sentence: The series was originally developed by Hagio as a personal project that she did not expect would ever be published;
  • "It inspired multiple subsequent works" - don't need "subsequent" here
  • "with a total of 33 weekly chapters" - don't need "a total of" here
  • "The film was subsequently adapted into a novel" - don't need "subsequently"
  • "but as a sacrifice in order to free Juli’s repressed emotions" - don't need "in order to"
  • "Hagio initially relocated the setting of the story to an all-girls boarding school; she ultimately decided the environment was too restrictive" - might sound simpler as: Hagio relocated the setting of the story to an all-girls boarding school, but decided the environment was too restrictive.. Thanks LM150 13:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Dimple Kapadia[edit]

Nominator(s): ShahidTalk2me 23:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an Indian actress who was recently seen in the Hollywood blockbuster Tenet. Many people who saw her for the first time in this film didn't know this lady has quite a career behind her. It's hard to find high-quality articles about Indian actors from her era owing to the limited coverage found online compared to publications in the west. This is this article's second go at FAC; last time it actually had a fair share of support, but it ended up becoming a mess. But it proved to be good for the article; I've spent time to improve it, digging in the archives to find the best sources available, including books and scholarly journals, adding more information, and polishing the prose, as recently done with the help of an independent copyeditor from GoCE. I think it is much better now. Needless to say, I'll be happy to address constructive comments. Best regards, ShahidTalk2me 23:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

  • Lede sentence should cover the main aspect of the article. I think her place of birth is important here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • at age 14 - aged. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • by Raj Kapoor, - and who is that? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In the same year, - this reads like she maried at 14! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • she married the Indian actor - "the" is superfluous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Saagar pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The lede seems a bit all over the place - just seems to be a shortened history section. I'd much rather see that she won X many awards, and then a summary of her media image, etc Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • She took on more serious parts of troubled women in films ranging from mainstream to neorealist parallel cinema, and received acclaim for her performances in films including Kaash (1987), Drishti (1990), Lekin... (1991), and Rudaali (1993).[2] - I don't think this is contentious enough to warrant a citation in lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the lede needs more on her standing in the industry, rather than a list of things she was in. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You need some *WP:ALT. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Bombay (present-day Mumbai) - you don't need to explain what it is now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Where is the DOB sourced? The two sources don't mention 1957 at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Gujarati businessman Chunibhai Kapadia and his wife Bitti, who was known as "Betty" (1939–2019 - why is her details important? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agha Khan - our article is at a different title. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What is a Ismaili? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As an infant, Dimple was given the name Ameena (literally, "honest" or "trustworthy" in Arabic) by Aga Khan III, although she was never referred to by it. - what does this even mean? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • She is the eldest of four children; her siblings—all of whom have died—are sisters Simple (also an actor) and Reem, and a brother, Suhail. - were. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • marriage was her "biggest high" during this period - what does this mean? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Kapadia retired from acting after marriage and gave birth to two daughters - you haven't actually mentioned acting up until this point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • despite reaming separated - sp. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Dimple Kapadia filmography being a see also seems weird. Why don't we have a section on this in this article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It starred Kapoor's son Rishi Kapoor as Raj Nath, the son of a wealthy Hindu businessman, and Kapadia was given the title role of Bobby Braganza, the teenage daughter of a Christian fisherman from Goa. The story follows the love affair between Raj and Bobby in the face of his parents' disapproval of their relationship due to class prejudice - I don't see how this has anything to do with her. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • by which time Kapadia was married. - at this stage, it's been noted she was married to death. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In 2008, the web portal ranked her performance in Bobby as the fourth-best female debut of all-time in Hindi cinema: "An elfin little girl with big, lovely eyes, nobody quite portrayed innocence as memorably as Dimple in her first outing. She was candid, striking, and a true natural ... here was a girl who would redefine glamour and grace, and make it look very, very easy indeed." - web portals don't talk. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The film was chosen as India's official entry - pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A review by Asiaweek appreciated the film for its "polished narration and masterly technique" and labelled Kapadia "a delight" - newspapers don't speak either. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • noted, "Dimple, caught between a friend and lover, performed solidly and memorably, grounding the two male leads and making the film work." - similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Other films released before Saagar include Manzil Manzil (1984), Aitbaar (1985) and Arjun (1985). this should be mentioned before Saagar then. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Feroz Khan pipes to redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • full-on kiss - "full-on" is irrelevent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Why are there refs in the lead?
  • It was requested by a past reviewer because these are strong claims. ShahidTalk2me 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The word 'picture' sounds informal. Why not replace it with 'film'?
  • Done, although I'm not sure it's informal. ShahidTalk2me 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 'At age 15, she agreed to marry the actor Rajesh Khanna.' This sentence is a bit unclear. Was it an arranged marriage or love?
  • It wasn't an arranged marriage, that's why I wrote "agreed" and concluded with "after a short courtship" so readers know it was fully voluntary. ShahidTalk2me 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 'Movies' should be replaced with 'film' since the former is pretty informal.
  • Changed across the board except for cases where it's called for, like road movie. ShahidTalk2me 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments, Yashthepunisher. Regards, ShahidTalk2me 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

A quite spectacular dinosaur, described only recently. I tried hard to make it as accessible as possible, and look forward to comments! Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


  • I did the GA, so for now I only have some suggestions for additional sources. And then I wonder if, since you mention the semicircular canal head posture theories, if it should be stated some studies have doubted this idea? I'll come back later if it needs further reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Added some ambiguity, let me know if you think we need more. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There's this probably useful conference abstract: TOOTH FORMATION TIMES AND REPLACEMENT RATES IN BAJADASAURUS PRONUSPINAX[11] FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, added a paragraph now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Here's a Spanish press release about it by conicet[12], which may have some additional info. This one in English also seems to have interviews with the authors:[13] FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Nothing new inside it seems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding size estimates, I assume that the "Dinosaur Facts and Figures" book[14] is new enough to have an entry on this genus, but I don't remember whether we concluded it was reliable enough or not? FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not consider this as a high-quality reliable source, because it is obviously a book for children. I wonder what does @Nikkimaria: think about this; can this book be used as a source in Wikipedia? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
A major problem with these books is that they create a precise estimate, to the meter if not decimeter, for EVERYTHING. This includes isolated teeth, unguals, and the like. I seem to remember that their willingness to tooth-scale sauropods was one of our main reasons for deciding that these books weren't reliable sources (although they've unfortunately taken over much of the dinosaur size page, it seems). --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 13:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Using a children's book as a high-quality source is always going to be questioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I gather this is a clear "no". Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This article[15] states it "hit the headlines" for it spines, which could maybe be a way to cite that it became well-known immediately after its description? Personally I think it's interesting to note how the press reacted to the discovery, and that almost every headline mentioned its "mohawk". FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Very good point, added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • One thing I asked at the end of the GA which I'm not sure I ever figured out is whether info from the supplemental pdf has been included too? FunkMonk (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Esculenta comments[edit]

This is a placeholder; I'll come back for a full review later. Some quick MoS-related comments:

Thanks for taking a look! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • the citation formatting could use a bit of tidying. Some examples:
  • lacking page numbers: Ref#2, #9
  • inconsistency with formatting of author initials; compare “Hallett, M.; Wedel, M.” to “Harris, JD; Dodson, P”
  • are book titles in title case or sentence case?
  • doi missing for Ref #8
  • specify language for Ref #15. Esculenta (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I did a general clean-up now. Hope I got everything. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Images appear to be freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Could we be told how old the genus is in the opening paragraph of the lead.
  • "from the Early Cretaceous epoch"; " from the Early or Middle Jurassic to the end of the Early Cretaceous". Both from the opening paragraph. Appears 1. repetitive, 2. inconsistant.
  • Hmm … just removed that part, since I felt that it gets a bit off-topic.
  • "bifurcated". Possibly follow with '(two-pronged)'?
  • Thanks, I generally don't know which terms are easy to understand for native speakers and which are not. Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link gracile.
  • "The only specimen was excavated ..." As this is the start of the main article, I feel that a proper reintroduction may read better. Perhaps something like 'The only specimen of the dinosaur genus Bajadasaurus was excavated ..."?
  • "The site of discovery". Should that be 'The site of the discovery;>
  • According to Google Scholar, "site of discovery" has 1.760 hits but "site of the discovery" only 1.100. But maybe that is science jargon? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Either could be correct, depending on the rest of the context. Nevertheless, I am surprised at that ratio. Regardless, IMO, skipping the definite article is poor grammar.
  • "near the western banks". Is that in US English? "banks" plural reads oddly to me.
  • Link anteriorly.
  • Link process at first mention.
  • "As all sauropods". Should that be 'As with all sauropods'?
  • "roughly reaching sizes of present-day Asian Elephants". 1. Maybe 'roughly reaching the size of present-day Asian Elephants'? 2. Lower case e.
  • "Long bifurcated neural spines" Again, a bracketed explanation of bifurcated may help many readers.
  • Caption: "whose similarly elongate neural spines". Should that be 'elongated'?
  • My English isn't good enough here – changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The skull includes most of the skull roof and braincase" reads oddly, especially as the start of a section. Perhaps 'The fossilised skull', or something else to clarify that you are not writing about Bajadasaurus skulls in general.
  • "Its overall built was gracile." "built" → 'build'.
  • "was wider than high". Optional: → 'was wider than it was high'.
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Its rear surface was not wider than its neck, different from Amargasaurus and Dicraeosaurus." → 'Its rear surface was not wider than its neck, which was different from Amargasaurus and Dicraeosaurus.'
  • "likely had 44 teeth in total." I am struggling to add the numbers to 44. Either in the article or in Gallina et al. Could you help me out?
Heck, of course! I can't count it seems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "as typical for dicraeosaurids" → 'as is typical for dicraeosaurids'?
Ok, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link surangular
    did that! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "characteristic for the group". Perhaps 'characteristic of the group'?
    changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "due to its unstable position"> Perhaps a word or two of explanation as to what this means?
    reworded. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "vertically oriented neural spine of second neck vertebra" → 'a vertically oriented neural spine of the second neck vertebra'.
  • "Moderate damages would result in the break-off of the horny tips". 'damage' singular, I think.
  • "while the sight of most other sauropods" Maybe "sight" → 'vision'?
  • "furthermore" → 'further'.
  • "At its top, it is separated by the overlying Agrio Formation". Should that be 'At its top, it is separated from the overlying Agrio Formation'?
  • "mya". MOS:ACRO1STUSE says "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page ..."
  • done.
  • Several references lack identifiers. Eg ISSNs or JSTORs.

That was a thoroughly good article and an enjoyable read. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy to hear that – thanks for reading, and the review! All of these are addressed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
One minor point above, but I don't see why that should hold up my support of this fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks Gog! That minor point is fixed now as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


  • "Bajadasaurus sported bifurcated, extremely elongated neural spines extending from the neck vertebrae" I didn't realize you meant it had giant spikes coming out of its neck until I saw the reconstruction scrolling down   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed to "extending from the neck" to give the hint, does that make it better? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The foremost side", or "anterior". I thought "front" would be more accessible than "anterior". Is there another alternative? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why do you show the cladogram from the 2019 study instead of the 2020 one?
That's a good question. (I think that I was thinking that, but forgot to ask.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not feeling strongly about this. But newer is not necessarily better, and in this case, the 2020 paper includes some controversial taxa that influence the topology of the cladogram as a whole, but not everybody agrees that they belong within the group in the first place. I thought it might be nice to have the cladogram of the original description. But ok, will replace it later. And many thanks for the reviews, will get to those comments soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know about Dunkleosteus77, but I was asking an open question, not trying to hint that you had made the wrong choice. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps both cladograms could be shown side by side, like in Elasmosaurus? --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 00:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, added the second cladogram now. Unfortunately that will not last long, a new one may appear each year. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Slate Weasel[edit]

I'm not sure if I'll have time for a comprehensive review, and I'm still getting the hang of FAC reviews, so I don't know how long this section will be. I do know that I added about a paragraph to this article once, but that was awhile ago, and it has been re-written and expanded since, so I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved with the article. Here are a few things that jump out at me:

  • The Paleoenvironment section is only one paragraph long. This is awfully short for an FA; I'm wondering if this could be upped to two? Surely there's info out there on the non-dinosaurian biota of the formation?
I did search for it, and searched again today, but nothing about the non-dinosaur fauna appeared. This formation appears to be understudied, and only the dinosaurs got some limited attention so far, and only fossils from the type locality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, if sources are lacking, I suppose that, unfortunately, there's not much we can do. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "the Early Cretaceous epoch" - While technically correct, this is rather unusual for dinosaur articles, perhaps change to "the Early Cretaceous period"
I just added "epoch" to indicate to the reader that the Early Cretaceous is a time interval. "Period" would be technically incorrect since the period would be the Cretaceous as a whole. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hm, perhaps we'll have to change the standard then! --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The genus is classified as a member of the Dicraeosauridae," shouldn't this be "The genus is classified as a member of Dicraeosauridae," (without the "the")?
Hmm, Google Scholar tells me that both forms are in use for family names (I checked with Tyrannosauridae). Native speakers tend to prefer the "the" though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "and its environment resembled a braided river system." Was it not actually a braided river system?
Good point, fixed! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll see if I can add more about the article body over the next few days. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 00:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward to that! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

On the history section:

  • Perhaps spell out what CONICET means?
  • I wonder if the information about the formation could be located next to the information about the locality, and that about the museum next to the part in the lab. It feels a bit awkward right now.
Good suggestion, done! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Dinosaur and genus are not linked on first mention. Then again, I don't think that anything would be lost by removing them here.
Now linked. I had added those following a reviewer suggestion above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get in something on description tomorrow. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "most of the skull roof and braincase, the pterygoid bones of the palate, as well as" I think an "and" is missing here
I don't see it, can you help me? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
It should be located before "the pterygoid bones", although that does sound a bit clunky. The problem is, at the moment, "as well as" is being substituted for "and" in a list, something that I'm not sure is possible, and making it seem like the skull roof & braincase could be the pterygoids. Perhaps "The preserved skull includes most of the skull roof and braincase, the pterygoid bones of the palate, parts of the upper jaws, and the lower jaws, and and is therefore the most complete skull of a dicraeosaurid known to date." might work? --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Angular should be linked (perhaps also glossed, same with surangular)
Linked. They are explained already I hope (saying "bone", and "of the hind part of the lower jaw")
Might be good to specify that the angular is the lower bone, though, and the surangular the upper. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps mention keratin in the text?
  • "the probably sixth of Brachytrachelopan," The probable sixth?
Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about this yesterday. Here are some notes on classification:

  • "which is named after the whip-like tail" Perhaps pluralize tail?
  • Link US and Tanzania
  • It might be good to mention Dyslocosaurus, possibly also Dystrophaeus
  • "Bajadasaurus therefore occupies a slightly more basal position within Dicraeosauridae than indicated by Gallina and colleagues." This makes it sound like this study's definitive, but I doubt that this will be the last word on the subject, considering that Gallina et. al.'s topology had been recovered by many previous analyses. Perhaps add "in their study" after "Dicraeosauridae" to clarify?

And palaeobiology:

  • Optional: "soft part anatomy" -> "soft tissue anatomy"
  • "horn sheath" Shouldn't this be "horny sheath" like elsewhere, as these structures weren't horns?
  • "Gallina and colleagues suggested that the spines of Amargasaurus and Bajadasaurus might have been 50% longer than indicated by their bony core." - Was there any particular reasoning for this figure? Since the previous examples were 100% and 25%, this just seems random at the moment.
  • "Due to its forward bent" -> "Due to its forward bend"?
  • "how frequently teeth are shed and replaced" Perhaps specify that this is specifically about Bajadasaurus. Also, "are" should probably be changed to "were", given the context.
  • Optional: "in the dentary; these values are similar" -> "in the dentary. These values are similar"

Hopefully this is helpful! Palaenvironment will come either later today or tomorrow. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 15:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

1876 Scotland v Wales football match[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

First FAC nom on the first day of a new year! This article is about a football match played between Wales and Scotland in 1876. The match was the first fixture ever played by Wales and the first time Scotland had played against a team other than England. The result proved to be rather one-sided in favour of the more experienced Scots, but the match set the groundwork for, among other things, the start of the British Home Championship. This was taken to GA a few years ago, but I've spent sometime expanding and fine tuning and think it's in pretty good shape for a run at FAC now. As ever, I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM[edit]

Well, I'm going to take a stab at this one, call me old-fashioned but I like the look of it and this soccer thing piques my interest glands. More soon. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Not keen in the repeat of 1876 in the opening sentence. I know these are notoriously difficult to start but if it's possible, we probably should avoid the repetition.
    I did wonder about this but couldn't think of a better way. What's your thoughts on removing the year from the date, as 1876 is already mentioned earlier in the sentence? I did consider that but wondered if it would be clear enough? Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "international fixture ... international fixture " can this be avoided as well?
    Reworded. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "their opponents inexperience" shouldn't that be "their opponent's inexperience"?
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link "headed" in the lead to Header (association football).
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • James Lang has his article at Jimmy Lang, not James Lang (footballer).
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps infobox should say "around 17,000" for attendance per the article.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe worth noting The Oval is a cricket ground too.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Was it rugby or more specifically rugby union?
    Judging by the wording of the source, I think union. Added. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wrexham is an A.F.C.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "advertisement" you previously used advert, but I prefer the longer version so I'd go back and adjust advert to advertisement.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "that a Welsh team be formed from Welsh men" is the first "Welsh" necessary?
    Removed. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "told "The Field" that " should be italics and no quotes.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "for the tie and " I've been told the use of "tie" in its various footballing contexts can be confusing, particularly for our US readers....
    Reworded. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "captain of Swansea" which Swansea?
    Added. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Spacing around the ellipses appears too long for me, just one non-breaking space normally before, or after if no text before the ellipsis.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wrexham is overlinked.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As is Wrexham A.F.C. But the quick use of Wrexham (the town) and Wrexham (the AFC) might be mildly confusing, so suggest some cunning reword.
    Reworded. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Very little discussion of Scotland in the "The challenge" section.
    By this point, Scotland were entering their seventh international fixture, so they were pretty well established at this point. Other than accepting an invitation to play, they didn't have much major preparation to do really. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " from English club, Oswestry were" not Oswestry Town? and I would have a comma after the club name.
    The sources only state Oswestry, and the Town article doesn't give an indication of when the extra name was added. Period players of this time use Oswestry, such as William Davies (footballer, born 1855) which reasons that the club went on to add Town at a later date. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "of Oxford University was" bit easter egg this one, I wasn't expecting it to link to the football team, more the university itself.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link Formation (association football).
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "programme.[36][21]" preferably numerical order.
    I saw this about three times and still forgot to go back and change it! Done now. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link kick off.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "3:40pm" should use a non-breaking space before pm (or p.m.)
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • William Evans is overlinked.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "goal bound shot" goal-bound.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "side when,[34] around" feels like a really odd place for a citation...
    Moved. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link cross.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link dribbling.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "involved England and" England overlinked.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would put "tournaments" into the pipe so it's not just linking the year easter eggy.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 12: G.A. -> G. A.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review. I've addressed most of the points above and added comments to a couple, in particularly the first sentence issue. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed, but I would suggest slightly scaling up the size of the match report. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I've enlarged the image somewhat, let me know if it's enough. Kosack (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Whitehawk Camp[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a Neolithic causewayed enclosure in Sussex. This is the second in what I hope will be a series of these articles; the last one was Knap Hill. Causewayed enclosures are a very early relic of the British Neolithic, dating from about the first half of the fourth millennium BC; nobody knows exactly what they were used for, though there are plenty of theories. The article has benefitted from a very thorough and helpful review by Dudley Miles, and also from a local editor, Hassocks5489, who took some local photos including the one used in the infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Whitehawk_camp_sketch_1821_Skinner_British_Museum_Add_MS_33658_f._68.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    Good question; I assumed it was nineteenth century because my source didn't say. Have dug a bit and I think it must have been 1830 1930, since our article on Skinner lists his journal as having been partly published in 1930 and gives a range of BM MS pages that includes this one. I think that makes it PD-UK and I would need a fair use tag. It's currently on Commons, so if you agree I will tag it for deletion there and upload it here as PD-UK with a FUR. You didn't mention File:Whitehawk camp sketch from east 1821 Skinner BM Add MS 33658 f. 68.png; I assume the same will apply there? That's not on Commons yet so if you agree I will change the licence and add a FUR. Is there an age limit for this rule, by the way? Any ms. in the BM prior to Gutenberg has not been "published" unless an image is republished in a printed work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    Which PD-UK tag would you want to use on the first? On the second, there's a pre-1926 publication listed, which would make it PD in the US; if you're wanting to move it to Commons you'd just need to sort out UK status. On your last question, which rule are you asking about an age limit for? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    • For the first, I mistyped 1830 for 1930, so it's {{PD-UK}}, I think. I'll upload it locally, get it deleted on Commons, and add a FUR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
      That tag would have this be PD under URAA, would it not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      In c:File:UK non-Crown copyright flowchart.pdf I think we're following the left-hand path all the way down, which means it became public domain in the UK in 2000 since publication was in 1930. That's after the URAA date. Following c:Commons:Hirtle chart, I think we're in "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations", in the pre-1978 section, in either the second or third case (I strongly doubt it was ever published in the US but can't prove it). That means 95 years after 1930, so 2025. Am I misinterpreting these? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      As there is an author listed, why would we be following the left-hand "author unknown" path?
      I'm starting to think I have some sort of learning disability for image rules; I keep misreading things. OK, so it's Yes/Yes/No/Yes/Yes, and copyright expired in 1980, so then it's public domain in the US according to that table. But the Hirtle chart, which I would use to figure out the commons licence template to use, seems to disagree -- or am I misreading that too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      If it was PD in the UK in 1980, in the absence of US publication or copyright renewal I would expect it to fall into the first category of "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations", in the pre-1978 section - PD before the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
      I've changed the licence to {{PD-1996}} for both: [16], [17]. I think that completes everything you pointed out in both the image review and source review; thanks again for your patience. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    • For the second, that attribution is my copy-paste mistake; it was not published in that 1912 source. I took it from a 2001 source but as with the first, it would have been in the 1930 edition of Skinner's diaries, so PD-UK, delete from Commons, and a FUR. I'll do both these today unless you tell me otherwise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I meant, for example, suppose a hand-copied ms. from the 12th century is first printed in a book this century, does that still fall under copyright, even though there is no artwork, just writing, because it's hand-written? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
      Have a look at the "Never published, never registered" section here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      Since Skinner died in 1839, if these rules had been effect in 1909 his work would have become public domain at that time. I assume that these rules came into effect after 1930 so Skinner's work is under copyright still? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      Sorry, I don't follow - is there a previous rule you're looking at? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      In the section you pointed me at it says "Unpublished works|Life of the author + 70 years|Works from authors who died before 1950" which I took to be the applicable case. This rule, if it had been in effect in 1909, would have made Skinner's work public domain, wouldn't it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Whitehawk_camp_aerial_view_1930_Williamson.jpg: what is said in the source about the provenance of this image?
    The only statement is beneath the caption, where it says "(Reproduced by permission of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office.)". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Whitehawk_camp_excavation_plan_1929_and_1932-1933.png needs a US PD tag. Ditto File:Whitehawk_camp_excavations_1929_and_1935.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    Having now read more image policy, I now realize that if something is UK-PD it still needs a fair use tag. I would like to keep these as they are clearly very useful, but I don't think I can come up with a FUR that would work and also keep them at a scale that makes them readable. They won't be PD in the US until 2034, since the author died in 1938, unless I am misinterpreting the rules (always possible). Do you agree? If so I'll tag them for deletion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    The given tags would put UK expiration after the URAA date. Unless there is another reason for them to be PD, or simultaneous US publication, you are probably correct that they are non-free in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    • These are so useful to the reader that I reduced them to under 100K pixels and put in FURs; they're not very readable at that scale but I think they're still helpful to have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you employ "et al" for three-author works
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Use pp. and dashes for multiple-page citations, and be consistent in whether there's a comma after the date
    Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN39: work parameter is not needed
    Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN40: don't need to repeat "Culture24" so many times
    I removed the "work" parameter; the attribution at the web page is to "Culture24 Reporter", which is effectively no attribution -- I could remove that too if you think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Missing full source information for Allcroft 1908, Williamson 1929
    Added Allcroft; the two Williamson cites were an error; they should have pointed to Williamson 1930. Both are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN47: don't include work as part of the title
    I'm not sure what you meant here but I think this edit is the fix you're asking for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN52: source link gives a more specific work title; date format should be consistent
    I fixed the date. The title tag in the target page is "Bosing - Oxford Reference", which repeats the publisher, so I'd removed it as unnecessary. I've restored it -- I assume that's what you're looking for? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    No - Oxford Reference compiles entries from a number of different reference sources, and this one in particular is from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    OK; have changed the work to that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN95: the Centre is a publisher here, not a work
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No citations to Drewett. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thanks, as always; sorry this was a bit of a mess. I think I've cleared up almost all the points but there are a couple of questions above for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Have read through your edits to the citations to try to learn from them, and read some of the documentation, e.g. here; I hadn't realized that "website" and "work" were synonyms for cite web and cite news; that will save me from some errors in the future. Thanks for the help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • Almost all my concerns have been dealt with, but I have a few further comments.
  • "The site has been scheduled as an ancient monument." This is not quite right. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 defines an ancient monument as a scheduled monument or "any other monument which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is of public interest by reason of the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest attaching to it". It would be more accurate to say that the site has been designated as a scheduled monument.
    I used your phrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think I previously raised the question of whether Neolithic is capitalized. You are still inconsistent on this.
    Sorry; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In the 1929 section you say that material in the ditches had been washed in, but for 1932-33 remains had been deliberately buried. Is this different areas or different interpretation? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    I've reworded the 1929 section to make it clear that Sygrave is talking about a specific layer, found in all three excavations, which produced the most finds. The "deliberate burial" mentioned in the 1932-3 dig section refers only to that particular skeleton. Is that clear enough with the current wording? I don't really want to repeat Sygrave's assessment in all three pre-war dig sections -- I put it in the first one because Sygrave is specifically contrasted to Curwen's comments there, and with the new wording I hope the reader will understand it applies to the following sections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Placeholder. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Perhaps link earthwork?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link palisade
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If only for my information, what is a "pulling-up ground"?
    At the end of a race, the horses gradually slow down and stop; they pull up, in other words. The pulling up ground is where they pull up. If you look at this Google Maps image in satellite view, you'll see a long dark green rectangle running more or less north/south, cut by Manor Hill Road. That's the pulling up ground. If you follow it north, that's the racecourse itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I did look at a map, and it had me scratching my head. I can now unscratch. As it were. Thanks. Mike.
  • Link rescue dig
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "It was found to date to the Bronze Age". It would be helpful if the approximate boundaries of this period were given.
    See comment below about the Bronze Age. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "to create tools such as points" "points" links only to points used as projectile weapons. Is that what you intended?
    Yes; the source only says points but that's the usual meaning in archaeology. The source says "These splinters would usually then be removed and worked into finer tools such as points." I think it would be OK to make this "projectile points" in the article if that would be clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
As it seems that the reference to "points" is actually entirely to 'projectile points', then yes, I think adding 'projectile' in the article would be helpful.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "the reconstructed face of the woman found in the 1930s excavations". Maybe 'the reconstructed face of the woman whose remains were found in the 1930s excavations'?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link allotment gardens.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Scheduled Ancient Monument". Should the initial letters be lower case.
    I checked usage in the Times and it is generally lower case, so I've changed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "arrow head"; I think that you can have either 'arrow-head' or 'arrowhead'.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "including pigs and cattle". Either 'including pig and cattle' or 'including those of pigs and cattle'.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "British Bronze Age" is mentioned 2 times and "Bronze Age" 5. What differentiates them?
    The Bronze Age starts with the use of bronze and ends when iron starts being exploited, but this doesn't happen at the same time everywhere, so the dates of the Bronze Age depend on where you're talking about. (See {{Bronze Age}} for some example dates.) That's why there's a difference between the British Bronze Age and the general term Bronze Age. For Bronze Age Britain our article says c. 2500 BC to c. 800 BC; I'd have to check a couple of sources to be sure that's the latest usage but it's about right. However, see the first section there about the disagreements about the boundary. I originally didn't mention the Bronze Age at all, and just gave dates, but Dudley felt it was important to draw the distinction since I did mention the Neolithic, and I think he was right about that -- the southeastern ditch may not have a Neolithic origin, and not saying Bronze Age but giving dates would imply those later dates were in the Neolithic. What do you think the best approach is -- just use "Bronze Age", and put some of this detail in a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that. There are probably several ways of approaching it that would work. Off hand I would favour using "British Bronze Age" throughout and footnoting the period this specifies at first use. I would be inclined not to include the information on the dating of the period varying geographically, although if you felt that it may aid a reader's understanding I certainly wouldn't object.
I decided to go the other direction; I've changed all the mentions to just say "Bronze Age", and added a footnote to the first mention giving the dates of the Bronze Age in Britain. I feel that's the most concise way to do it. The sources generally just say "Bronze Age" since they assume readers know about the variation in dates, so this way I can follow the source style without needing to mention the variation of the dating in other areas. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Several Sources are missing available identifiers. Eg, Alcroft (1916) (ISSN 0143-8204).
    I added OCLC and ISSN numbers in some cases, but not where there is already an ISBN or DOI; do you feel they're necessary in those cases? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
No. If there is an identifier available I like to see it, but one per source seems sufficient.

Nice! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by PM[edit]

Interesting topic. Will start my review shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I am acutely aware I know nothing about such things, so my review is largely about comprehensibility and prose, and I may ask some odd questions
  • I'm left wondering what "At least two ditches touch the outermost circuit from the outside" means. Perhaps break it down a bit and mention that they run at tangents from the outer circuit?
  • link football pitch, very much a UK thing
  • would it be accurate to say "a Bronze Age ditch was discovered, and the construction was paused to allow an excavation, run by Miles Russell."?
  • Radiocarbon dating is duplicate linked
  • The Description section would benefit from the insertion of the year (and month if available) it was "discovered" early on in the section
  • it would helpful to the reader to know how long each ditch is, or at least the diameter of the outside ditch, also indicate in what order you are numbering the ditches (inside to outside?)
  • R.P. Ross Williamson in the lead and Ross Williamson in the body? Also after introduction, just use Williamson thereafter
  • Once introduced in the body, just go with Curwen thereafter
  • what is Jon Sygrave's expertise?
  • link Miles Russell at first mention in the body, and say what his expertise is, then use just "Russell" thereafter
  • are Whitehawk style and Ebbsfleet ware notable?
  • link Mesolithic (is there a better target for British Mesolithic?)
  • link Stitching awl is that is what is meant
  • I wonder if the sentence beginning "The camp is one of only..." would be better located in the Description section? In fact the last two paras of the Interpretation of other finds from the Neolithic site probably belong there, as they really aren't about interpretation
  • when did it become a scheduled monument? Or should it be "scheduled ancient monument"?
  • link football pitch
  • suggest "the inner and second ditch"→"first and second ditches" (as you will have numbered them earlier)
  • several duplicate links, Brighton Racecourse, Windmill Hill, Avebury, Trundle (hill fort)
  • link Section (archaeology)
  • link Peterborough ware
  • link Archaeology South-East
  • could you add a brief sentence fragment about what the gathering Time project was?
  • radiocabon
  • you could add author-links for the authors like Russell who have articles

That is all I could find to quibble about. Great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

Everything at FAC seems to be outside my niche these days, so might as well try my hand at this. I know next to nothing about this topic, so I'm mostly reviewing for prose. Feel free to revert my copy-edits. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Does "football" need a link in the lead, given the, er, divergent uses of the term?
    Can't hurt; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Does the date on which it received monument status warrant mention in the lead? Without that, the date is only given far down in the body, after the first two allusions to this status.
    Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The earlier sites were mostly found on chalk uplands" This could be read to mean they date to an earlier time, and I don't think that's the intention?
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not an archaeology editor, and am unfamiliar with the conventions, but the last three sentences of "site and interpretation" seem to change the topic quite abruptly.
    You're not wrong. These sentences predate my involvement with the article, and I've struggled to figure out the best place to put them. I think they're only marginally notable, though the sentence about the reconstructed face does seem worth keeping. Would it solve things to eliminate the "first scheduled monument in Sussex" sentence and the one about the film installation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Honesty I think all of it is worth could make a very short section at the end, something like "protection and presentation", and collect these sentences and others about legal protection there? I don't feel too strongly about it, but would prefer a section to where they currently are, and would prefer keeping them to removing them. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Eventually the site became legally protected" could we say when?
    The sources are not exactly clear about this. Piecing things together, it appears that the 1923 designation as a scheduled monument should have provided legal protection, but this does not appear to have been enforced; Sygrave says in his review something to the effect that the designation didn't prevent development continuing, and Williamson's 1930 paper refers to the site's designation under the Ancient Monuments Act as "a measure which draws attention to the desirability of a protection which it is itself unable to give". By the second excavation it seems the bureaucracy started to work and permission was needed. This is not explicit in the sources, so I don't think there's much that can be added, but how about if I make it "the designation did not yet provide the site with legal protection against development" in the 1929 section? That sidesteps the question of whether the act should have provided protection, because there's no question that practically it did not at that time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, that would help with the flow, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " a now-superseded classification that attempted to identify individual cultures within the Neolithic which has since been overturned" slightly redundant, it seems to me..
    Deleted "now-superseded". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Can you link "awl"? there's a few options which is why I haven't done it myself.
    I linked to stitching awl which is the most likely. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Can "pulling-up ground" be linked or explained?
    See the explanation I gave Gog, above; unfortunately that's not in the sources. However, since you're the second person to ask, I searched again, and have found a source I can use to define "pulling up" in a footnote, which I hope is enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    I guess it's one of those things everyone is supposed to know...Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I know our conventions around this are sometimes odd, but 'drawn by the Rev. Skinner in 1821" seems to me an unnecessary honorific, as elsewhere where he's mentioned; and even at the first use, I'd prefer something like "John Skinner, vicar of [place]"...
    The sources all use "Rev.", I think; I haven't checked them all. But I think it's fine to remove it and have done so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps link "Roman occupation"?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The Gathering Time project could use a brief explanation, I think.
    The first sentence of that paragraph was intended to be that explanation -- is there something that you think it would help to add? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    I think I'm left wondering where the project is coming from; is it a non-profit, a university, a corporation, an undergraduate actitivities group? You have explained what they do, but not who they are...Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason "RCHME" is abbreviated?
    Just that it's that way in the sources; I had to dig a bit to find what it stood for, in fact. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A possibly obvious question that may not have an answer; why was the entire site not investigated when the first big digs occurred?
    Resources, I'm sure, though there's no statement to that effect. The excavation was done by the local archaeology club, which might actually have been fairly well-funded, but a big dig costs a lot of money and labour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Similarly, why was the site not given legal protection earlier?
    See my comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me; my comments are essentially all prose nitpicks, but this was a very easy read. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; I think I've responded to everything above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, and a few responses for you to consider above. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

A brilliant topic! I've really enjoyed reading through Midnightblueowl's articles on similar topics. (Note to directors: I am taking part in the WikiCup.)

  • I'd recommend against the comma in the first sentence.
  • First sentence: "Whitehawk Camp is the remains of a causewayed enclosure". Lead image caption: "Remains of Whitehawk Camp". Remains of remains?
  • This is a bit of a bugbear (as it is for most philosophers) but you use "imply" a lot when, strictly speaking, you mean something like "suggest". I won't insist on anything, though.
  • "of the plain bowl or decorated bowl types; these are the earliest form of Neolithic pottery" Forms plural, surely?
  • "The high volume of pottery found of this type" I wonder whether "The high volume of pottery of this type found" might be clearer.
  • Do the final two paragraphs in the "interpretation" section really belong there?

Stopping there for now -- dinner in the oven... Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Repetition of "site" in the first para of the 1929 section
  • File:Whitehawk camp excavation plan 1929 and 1932-1933.png This image page is a bit all over the place. If it's PD, it does not need the non-free use rationale, and there needs to be a clear explanation of what makes it PD. If it's non-free, it needs a non-free copyright tag, and it should not have the PD tag. However, if it's non-free, I am going to have object. If this is there as a map of the site, it fails NFCC#1, as we could create (and indeed have) a free plan of the site. (It also possibly fails NFCC#2, but let's not get in to that.) If it's there to show Curwen's map, it does not fail NFCC#1, but it does, I think, fail NFCC#8. (If the image is PD in the UK but not in the United States, then it counts as non-free for our purposes, I believe.)
  • Ditto File:Whitehawk camp excavations 1929 and 1935.jpg.
  • (I've not looked at the other images.)
  • Lots of proper nouns in the later sections (e.g., para 2 of the 1991–2010 section). Any worth redlinks?

Again, please double-check my edits. I'm a bit worried about the image situation. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Shake It Off[edit]

Nominator(s): (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC); TheSandDoctor

This article is about a song that does not need an introduction (probably). This song was so huge back in the day that it was the most annoying thing to appear on earth. Looking back, though the song may appear silly, it was a cultural reset for catapulting Ms. Taylor Swift to superstardom.

While this remains one of my least favorite songs on the album 1989, I ventured to expand the article on a song that attracted much praise and criticism alike. To ensure an encyclopedic tone, I wiped out any source considered gossip blogs/fanzines, and squeezed my resources from the Wikipedia Online Library to find peer-reviewed material. Nominating this to FAC may be the boldest thing I have done on this site, so I am honored to co-nominate with TheSandDoctor, who has helped with prose issues. Any comment would be much appreciated, (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D[edit]

I liked this song when it came out, but am close to deleting it off my iPod as it hasn't aged well. I like it more than 'Bad Blood' though, which is the lowest point of what's an otherwise very good album. My musical tastes aside, I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "which Swift marketed as her first pop album that eschews the country pop sound of her previous repertoire" - bit clunky
  • Reworded, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Contemporary critics received "Shake It Off" with moderate reviews" - this is unclear - changing to active voice would help
  • Reworded, (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "They found the song's dance-pop production catchy, but lamented that the lyrics were not up to par with Swift's traditional vivid songwriting" - was there really a consensus on this as this suggests? (I also doubt that Swift was widely considered a strong songwriter as this suggests - it seems she's taken on this mantle only with her latest couple of albums). The later section of the article notes a range of views.
  • She had been considered by critics as first and foremost a songwriter thanks to her country background (she was the youngest songwriter on Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Songwriters of All Time). As The Guardian reviewed, "She’s a gifted writer, but Shake It Off doesn’t show off her talent." This however may not be representative of all reviews, so I'll try to rephrase it. (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there any commentary which discusses this song in the context of the various (many?) songs Swift has written responding to her critics? It seems to be a strong theme in her career, including the (IMO) wretched Reputation album.
  • There is some info on the song's theme and that of "Mean", Swift's 2010 single. Reputation seems to be more related to "Blank Space" (according to this interview), (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "having sparked speculations of new music via her social media accounts" - clunky
  • Reworded, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "A day following its impact on US radio stations" - unclear
  • Reworded, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Despite Swift's announcement of abandoning country" - clunky
  • Reworded, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " Media publications pointed out potential references to other cultural events" - weren't these pretty explicit references? Please also change this to active voice.
  • Could you clarify what you mean by active voice? (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Active voice - in this case, something like "The video made a number of references to other areas of popular culture" if sources support it. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Swift didn't really explain the inspirations behind the video, so I think it is factually incorrect to deem the references explicit, (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What Swift said or didn't say is irrelevant if reliable sources made the connection - a problem with these kinds of articles is that editors are afraid to go beyond the (often vapid/PR) utterances of pop stars. I'm fairly clueless about pop culture, but was able to spot references in the video. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Reworded, (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "earned accolades at professional awards. " - clunky
  • Reworded, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "At the 2016 BMI Awards, the song was one of the award-winning songs that helped Swift earn the distinction of Songwriter of the Year." - this is unclear. Is the criteria for this BMI award that the songs have to have received other awards or similar as this suggests?
  • No.. the BMI awards songs for songwriters and publishers without specific categories. Reworded, (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Retrospectively, critics have considered "Shake It Off" an effective opener for Swift's 1989 era, which transformed her image from country to mainstream pop" - this isn't supported by the source, which is the views of three NME writers who don't say it reflects broader views
  • Attributed to NME, (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "While the article was of comedic purpose" - overly formal/academic
  • Removed, (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • An interesting element of the #Tay4Hottest100 issue which was discussed in the Australian media was that a cover of the song by the (all male) band Milky Chance recorded for Triple J was eligible, while Swift's original version wasn't - this might be worth noting.
  • Interesting. I am finding coverage on that, (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It's also likely worth noting though that the #Tay4Hottest100 campaign was basically bad faith - as Triple J had never played the song (as it sits outside its scope of highlighting 'alternative' music, especially by Australian artists), it was always clearly ineligible.
  • I find it funny that although it was ineligible in the first place, JJJ stayed silent until the last day of the poll (but in the announcement they listed a dozen of reasons, which did not say about this).. (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " the #Tay4Hottest100 campaign had overwhelmed the Hottest 100 for 2014—over 7,341 Hottest 100 posts over the past 30 days related to Swift, compared to 230 related to Chet Faker" - this is unclear - what was overwhelmed? As the Hottest 100 attracts very large numbers of votes, 7341 would have been a drop in the ocean for the IT system, etc.
  • Given the report by SMH I think 7k is a fairly large number for the event... or maybe they were sensationalizing it (which I assume not), (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Are there any updates on the lawsuit by Sean "Sep" Hall and Nate Butler since October 2019?
  • Apparently the suit has stalled. I'm curious about what's going to happen next as well, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "to which Swift expressed her approval on social media" - change to active voice
  • Reworded, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Do we need the 'Cover versions and usage in media' section? It seems like few of these versions were ever commercially released (the Milky Chance version noted above was released by Triple J, ironically)
  • Per WP:SONGTRIVIA some mentions may be notable if they are discussed by media publications. I would like to re-examine this section if the consensus is to remove non-commercial releases, though, (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Very successful and iconic songs like this always attract tons of covers, so listing each performance seems like overkill. I think that the appropriate bar to set here is where the cover is itself a significant element of that artist's work rather than something they performed once while on the radio or TV. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "In the video, the students hold support sings encouraging each other to act kind" - it is not clear what this means, and the grammar seems off. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking time reviewing the article. I have replied to your concerns per above (except concerns regarding the information included in "Covers and other usage" section, which I am awaiting further discussion on whether to excessively cut it down) (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A couple of further comments:

  • I've made some edits to simplify wording - please check that these are accurate.
  • "After having sparked speculation about new music on social media, Swift appeared on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon on August 13, 2014, where she announced a live stream via Yahoo! on August 18, 2014." - this is hard to follow - was she on The Tonight Show, or a Yahoo stream (5 days later?). Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Slightly reworded. Thank you for your comments, (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Support I'd still prefer to see the Cover versions section get the chop, but I think that the FA criteria are met. Nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and review, Nick-D! --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Taylor_Swift_-_Shake_It_Off.ogg has an incomplete FUR
  • No - there shouldn't be any "na" fields. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Funny_Face_(1957)_trailer_featuring_Audrey_Hepburn.jpg: have you verified there was no copyright notice in the original? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe for U.S. movie trailers published between 1925 and 1977 there is no copyright notice, (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What is your source for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It says here that Trailers for movies released before 1964 are in the Public Domain because they were never separately copyrighted. The law at the time granted the owner 28 years to file a copyright registration, though a little more digging might be needed. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil[edit]

As apposed to Nick-D, this music is not my cup of tea at all, in fact never heard of it until this nom and spent 30 seconds listening on YouTube before turning off, but then again its not meant for my demographic/age profile, grumble, grumble. Nonetheless, the page is mostly good enough on prose, and would like to see it suceed. Here are some suggestions:

  • which Swift marketed as her first pop album that eschews her previous albums' country pop sound - who uses the word "eschews" in 2021
  • @Ceoil: Changed to "abandons" (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • for digital download worldwide - worldwide digital download (this is a wording preference only)
  • traditional vivid songwriting - source for "vivid"... and do you mean "earlier" rather than "traditional"
  • @Ceoil: Reworded the whole thing, (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 2010s-decade-end one too many dashes here
    @Ceoil: Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • She included "Shake It Off" on the set lists for two of her world tours, the 1989 World Tour (2015) and Reputation Stadium Tour (2018). "Shake It Off" has - vary the wording with "the song" in the second instance of "Shake It Off"
    @Ceoil: Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is "Favorite Song" capitalised. I know its an annual award, but a not enough of one to be a proper noun
  • I believe awards categories are normally capitalized, (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In "Background", the red in Red incorporates various is left unexplained
  • Could you clarify? (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Red incorporates various pop and rock styles Red what now? You just need to link or better explain Ceoil (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ceoil: It is the album, (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove renowned from "with renowned Swedish pop producers Max Martin and Shellback"
    @Ceoil: Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Billboard's Jason Lipshutz considered it a sign of a "bold foray into the unknown", with which Swift could experiment - "in which Swift..."
  • "Shake It Off" won awards at professional awards.
    @Ceoil: Reworded. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Similarly The single and music video received accolades at award shows catering to popularity and commercial performance - would cut this altogether as the following sentances make the statement moot. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Would severely trim the very long "see-also" section so it doesnt seem like a random rag-bag. First by trimming anything already linked above, then by cutting links to long and very broad lists; ie those that are not directly germane. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Credits and personnel" should be Credits only.
  • Sources look mostly good, from first look, only dont recogonise
  • @Ceoil: It is the website for SloTop50, Slovenia's singles chart, (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The sub-heading "Cited literature" comes across as pretentious; no offense as edit on pop culture also often, but from a scan its far from literature ;) Better rename as "sources", or "further reading", or some such
  • @Ceoil: Changed to "Bibliography" (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • More later. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments so far. As Nick-D mentioned above, the "Cover versions and usage in media" section needs to be trimmed. I would like to have your comments regarding this as well, (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't care much about Nick-D, but grand. Please however let me know when you have addressed or refuted the points above, so I can resume. Ceoil (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have responded to your points above, (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • For the record, the replies are far from complete. Ping when they are. Ceoil (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I see all addressed. The page is beautifully written; nice work. Support Ceoil (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the review and kind words, (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Heartfox[edit]

Maybe it's just my eyes but I found it hard to differentiate between the * and the ^ in the certification template. Do you know why it can't use another symbol like # ? I may or may not read the article/leave comments if I have time. Heartfox (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The template for certifications is automatically generated ({{Certification Table Entry}}). I think * and ^ may be hard to distinguish for certain people... so maybe a discussion at the Template talk page should help, (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by DMT biscuit[edit]

  • "Shake It Off" is an uptempo dance-pop song... → It is an uptempo dance-pop song... Having two repetitions of Shake it off underneath each other is clashing and ugly. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    I am not sure I follow? These two quoted bits are two sections apart and it is necessary to repeat the information—which the second instance rewords slightly—as the lead is supposed to reflect the content in the page and have its citations etc in the second mention. The article alternates between "the song", "it", its proper name, and "the single" with some frequency. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The lyrics are about... → The lyrics describe... DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I am dubious if "describe" is a good word choice. (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't know how I feel about naming NME and COS in the lead. Possible undue weight. This is per your discretion. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Considering that this song was featured on decade-end lists by only two publications, I think it's fair to include their names here. 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • which incorporates... shouldn't this be past tense? DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The sentence is talking about the album's music, so present tense makes sense to me. (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • repertoire → discography... Repertoire is a bit pretentious. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Reworded. (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there any commentary on the bridge's content. If no, I'm sceptical of its inclusion. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The magazine Drowned in Sound described "Shake It Off" as "undoubtedly ... the most significant cultural event" since Radiohead's 2011 album The King of Limbs." Hindsight is 2020 and perhaps I'm too biased to speak but King of the Limbs wasn't a particularly significant cultural event. This bit strikes me as a bit fan-esque. It is, of course, the assertion of a writer not the article, so that can be reason for it to stay. Just something to consider.DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Probably Radiohead was significant to the magazine (which is supposedly indie-centric) (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah Ok. As i said that was the writer's opinion; the article doesn't exist to validate it. DMT biscuit (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In the United Kingdom, "Shake It Off" peaked at number two...In the United Kingdom, it peaked at number two...Per the first comment. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Reworded. (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Very good work; just needs a little bit of tinkering. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Update: Support: The few issues i found have been addressed or given justified explanations for their inclusion. DMT biscuit (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review :) (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Danger: Diabolik[edit]

Nominator(s): PatTheMoron (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a 1968 movie by Italian horror master Mario Bava - based on an enormously popular Italian comic series, it underwent a troubled production history due to changing producers, directors and actors multiple times before hitting the big screen, where it did okay but not spectacular business, especially compared to its "sister" movie, Barbarella, which was made by many of the same people. Like many of the films that would come to influence the likes of Austin Powers and other spy spoofs, it was largely forgotten until the 1990s saw its home media and MTS3K revival, before being left to rot in out-of-print purgatory during the 2010s in the wake of the MCU and the Dark Knight Trilogy, before slowly and surely coming back to Blu-ray this year, given that most of Bava's other films (including many of his less significant works) have received the HD treatment and that it has influenced the likes of Edgar Wright. I believe that the article is FA-worthy because it now covers many of the bases that Andrzejbanas initially had difficulty finding info and sources for, and more fully accounts for Bava's work on the film, as well as its legacy, critical standing and influence. PatTheMoron (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - Just making sure if you let Andrzejbanas know you nominated this article he worked on. I've asked for permission to nominate others work before. GamerPro64 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi GamerPro! PatTheMoron has discussed it with me by the by. I'm totally comfortable with this. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Source review by Ealdgyth[edit]

Removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I've removed this one. DVDBeaver is self-published home video review site, and should not be used. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I've removed this one. Similar to DVDBeaver. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Diabolik_(caverna).JPG: given that what's pictured is a set design and this is a screenshot from a film, I don't think the current tagging is appropriate or sufficient
  • File:Diabolik_e_Eva_Kant.JPG: similarly, not sure this would qualify as a simple photograph vs art. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Those images were from the Italian page and on Commons. I thought it would be a waste to not use them to illustrate some of the article's points, although I can see the argument being made that the tagging might not as helpful as I intended. Any ideas, Andrzejbanas? PatTheMoron (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  • A photo in Mario Bava: All the Colors of the Dark actually does show Bava preparing the matte painting for that scene, but I'm concerned that putting that particular image in the article may be copyright-unfriendly, which is why I've leant towards the already-used screenshot. PatTheMoron (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Just because something is in commons, doesn't mean we should try and squeeze all the use we can out of them. Often images are of low quality and can't really illustrate a point very well. Having them isn't make or break for the article honestly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Edvard August Vainio[edit]

Nominator(s): Esculenta (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a prominent Finnish lichenologist, arguably one of the most important historical figures in this somewhat esoteric field. I've been working on it for about half a year, when I started it from a redlink. In that time, I've obtained and read all of the important sources about this man, save for two short Finnish-language articles I could not obtain, which have been listed in "Further reading". The article has been through a GA review, and several temporally spaced rounds of copyediting by myself and offline colleagues. I've used another recently promoted, somewhat related FA biography as a template to help guide me during the construction of this article. Having read the WP:MoS, I think it adheres quite closely to the recommended styling (although I'm happy to be further educated on things I've missed or misinterpreted). Thanks for reading. Esculenta (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Finnish geography etc.[edit]

Hi, I don't feel confident enough to be a reviewer as I know nothing about this field, but I read this with interest after spotting it in the FAC list! I'm Finnish and speak Finnish as my first language, and therefore thought that I could offer my help with anything related to Finnish history, geography, spelling etc. in the article. There were a couple of things that I spotted:

  • "Edvard was one of several children of parents Carl Johan Lang and Adolfina Polén, both of whom were bailiffs." – His father was, but his mother wasn't. I doublechecked what the source said, as it sounded strange that a woman could have a held such a position in the 19th century.
  • I misinterpreted the source – now fixed. Esculenta (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "In the early 1860s, Carl Johan was transferred to the municipality of Hollola near Lake Vesijärvi in southern Finland, and the family settled into a farm near Laitila." Hollola and Laitila are quite far from each other, therefore it seems that there is a typo here or some sort of a misunderstanding. 'Laitila' is a fairly common name, so it's possible that a part of Hollola was called that? In any case, I would double-check the sources.
  • Rereading the source, it seems that maybe the farm itself was celled Laitila? I've changed the text to indicate that it was close to the border of Asikkala. Esculenta (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "the plant and cryptogam floras of Tavastehus"— Tavastehus is the Swedish name for Hämeenlinna. I would double-check which is the more commonly used name in English, but at least English WP's article uses Hämeenlinna rather than Tavastehus.
  • Changed it so it's aligned with English WP. Esculenta (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Apart from that, looks very good! Feel free to ask if you have any language-related questions, I can try to clear things up. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Thanks so much for reading, you have caught some errors that would have been very difficult for me to find! Esculenta (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy I could be of assistance! One more thing I was wondering: what is the significance of Lake Vesijärvi to Vainio's life and career? Most Finnish municipalities are in the vicinity of at least one lake, therefore I think it needs to be clarified why this lake in particular is mentioned. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Several of the sources I used mention this lake, so I thought I should also. To add more relevance to this article, I added mention of the fact that Norlinn and young Vainio went on their botanical excursions in the area surrounding the lake. Esculenta (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Vainio_1924.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US? Ditto File:Matkustus_Brasiliassa._Kuvaus_luonnostaja_kansoista_Brasiliassa_1888_cover.jpg, File:Evard_August_Vainio.jpg
  • Added PD-US-expired to both. Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In the first case, the publication listed is after 1926 - was there an earlier publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Not that I'm aware of. I've switched to PD-1996. Esculenta (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 70 years after a publication date of 1934 would put expiration after the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok, I figured out that my original Finland-PD tag was incorrect (this is not a "work of art") and I've switched to the correct PD-Finland50 tag. So it became PD in 1984, and makes the URAA deadline (I think). Esculenta (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:HU-main-building-1870.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago?
  • Added PD-1996. I added the publication date of the original source (Jan 1 1989), to show it meets the second requirement of this tag (published before 1 March 1989). Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Johannes_Müller_Argoviensis.png: if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • We don't, so I switched to tags PD-France (anonymously authored photo published in Paris 70+ years ago) and PD-US-expired. Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:William_Nylander-2.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Ditto File:Thore_Fries_x_Emil_Österman.jpg
  • For the first, author is unknown, so I replaced PD-old with both PD-Finland50 and PD-US-expired. Couldn't find the death date for the second, so I swapped out this image for one in which the photographer's death year is known (1950); I guess the "life plus 70 years or fewer" requirement of the PD tag is met as of today. Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:University_of_Turku_1922_pic4.jpg needs a US tag and publication details. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I added a PD-US-expired tag. Couldn't find publication details, but the photo is from 1922 (depicting the official opening of the university) so it clearly meets the creation + 50 years part of PD-Finland50. Esculenta (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If you can't find publication details, how do you know this was published before 1926? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Poking around, I found this image in the University of Turku archives, but their licensing isn't Wikipedia friendly. So I swapped for a similar image that's CC-BY-4.0. Esculenta (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting as I read through; feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

Your copyedits are great! You appear to have a much better grasp than me at trimming unnecessary verbiage. I will study the diffs and try to better apply this technique to my own writing. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Watching my prose get improved by scores of other editors here at FAC has certainly helped me, but I also think it's very difficult to copyedit your own prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • which became a heavy burden for him in his academic circles: it only becomes clear what this refers to once this part of his career is covered in the body of the article. Suggest "which led to his ostracism by the Finnish scientific community".
  • from all continents, including the Arctic and Antarctica: you say this both in the lead and the body. I know what you mean, but the Arctic isn't a continent and I think it would be best to find another way to phrase this.
  • Left out the continents and phrased more generally: "... other collections from all over the world" Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is the "Later life" section before the "Education" section?
  • An artefact of early article development. I have placed it more chronologically. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Vainio married Marie Louise Scolastique (née Pérottin): annoyingly, I don't think there's a standard way to present the names of women in sentences about their marriage, but I think this is not ideal -- I assumed "Scolastique" was her surname and it took me a second to realize I was wrong. I would just make this "Vainio married Marie Louise Scolastique Pérottin".
  • I was so confused by the Lang/Wainio/Vainio changes that I quit reading the article linearly and searched it for the explanation. I think you should refer to him as "Lang" until he changes his name, or else the first time you use "Vainio" in the body explain -- even if only in a footnote -- the chronology of the name changes. And since he was Wainio for a long time we should make that clear before using "Vainio", too.
  • I've placed a footnote after the first usage of Vainio in the article text, and changed the instances of Vainio to Lang in the early life section. I contemplated similarly changing the Vainio's to Wainio's but figured it might be too confusing to the reader (indeed, it was confusing to me as I was trying to change them and remember what his name was at the time). So I haven't used the Wainio spelling in the article text, other than to explain the orthographical changes. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    I've been thinking about this some more, and I have a further suggestion, though I don't think there's an ideal way to handle this so I'm open to other ideas. The two goals are that the lead has to make it clear he held all three names, and the reader should not be confused as they read through. I think this might work:
    • Add note 2, about his name, to the lead sentence -- I would suggest putting it before or after the current footnote 2. That allows the reader to see a more detailed explanation immediately if they wish, without interrupting the lead.
    • Expand note 2 to explain the logic of the usage in the article -- something like "His family name was originally Lang; in 1877 he adopted the Finnish name Wainio, first written with a “w”, which was a common practice at that time in the Finnish language. In 1919, he adopted the modern spelling Vainio. In this article he is referred to as Vainio for events after 1877, as this is the name by which he is known within lichenology."
    • Currently note 2 follows the first use of his name. I think we have to have something in the text itself. How about "During his time as a graduate student, Vainio, who had by now given up his original surname,[note 2] published two works on the cryptogams of Finland"?
  • I think this is a great solution, and although I struggled with figuring out how to correctly name a footnote for resuse, I think this diff implements your idea. Esculenta (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, a pedantic note: you have né Lang until 1877 in the lead, but he was né Lang after 1877, technically. How about "Edvard August Vainio (né Lang; Wainio from 1877 to 1919; ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Pedantry is welcome – changed to your suggestion. Esculenta (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • against either the long traditional Swedishness or the attempted Russification of his country: wouldn't "both" make more sense than "either"?
  • MoS requires either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes in running prose; you have multiple examples of both -- please make them all one or all the other.
  • Changed to consistently unspaced em in the article text. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In one of Nylander's publications,[30] eleven new species were described based on the collections of "E. Lang". Since something similar happened with Nylander's 1870 publication that credited Lang, I would make it clear that this was the second time Nylander had done this; I had to go back to the "Early life" section to be sure this wasn't a duplicated mention of the first instance.
  • In these publications, Vainio determined the lichen material he collected from the Vyborg region: I'm not familiar with this use of "determined"; is it standard in the field to mean identification, or analysis? If so I'd suggest glossing it or substituting less specialized language.
  • Sure, changed to the more accessible phrasing "analysed and identified". Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • gave him the qualification of a docent and his teaching rights: suggest "qualified him as a docent and gave him teaching rights".
  • With the help of grants from the university, Vainio made several scientific expeditions abroad around this time. Since this is a new section, there's not a good referent for "around this time". Perhaps "early in his career"?
  • What do you mean by "collecting excursion"? You use the phrase twice in the "Work abroad" section. I would have thought this meant a trip to a location to collect specimens, but it appears from the article that Vainio and Gounelle were staying at the Santuário do Caraça and did not go anywhere else. Perhaps something like "The French entomologist Pierre-Émile Gounelle stayed at the monastery while Vainio was there, and some of their collecting work was done together"?
  • I'm using it the sense of "a short trip to collect specimens", but have used your wording above in the second instance in the "Work abroad" section. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • and suffered a sandfly infestation: I don't think "infestation" is the best word. Perhaps make it "He ended up spending a night in a wet, sandfly-infested cave without food, water, or a way to make fire." Then make it "sandfly larvae" in the sentence about his recovery.
  • with about 1600 collections packed in five large crates: surely this should refer to samples, not collections?
  • Few non-specialist readers will understand "exsiccatae"; I'd suggest giving a parenthetical definition.
  • Do we need to mention Regnell at all? We've listed three other Nordic scientists as examples.
  • he later became known infamously for his erroneous views on the nature of photobionts: suggest either "he later became infamous for his erroneous views on the nature of photobionts" or, perhaps better, "he later became known for his erroneous views on the nature of photobionts" or "known for having held"; "infamous" is a bit strong for encyclopedic tone.
  • So firm is the public conscious: can you confirm this is a correct quote? "Conscience" would make more sense than "conscious" here.
  • I corrected my faulty transcription. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "For many significant details on the world's Cladonia's, ...": shouldn't this be "Cladonias", without the apostrophe?
  • Thanks for reminding me of that, I've fixed the error. Esculenta (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That's everything I can see on a read-through. A remarkably detailed and very thoroughly researched article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much Mike, I'm grateful for the improvements. Esculenta (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Chandler's Ford shooting[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a slightly thinner article, on a slightly more recent subject, than I normally bring here but I've had little luck in attracting feedback (though I'm grateful to SchroCat for casting an eye and helping to dig up some more sources). It's part of my back-burner project on British police shootings. This one wasn't especially controversial in that the people shot were pointing a loaded handgun at a security guard, but police shootings in Britain are few and far between so they always attract plenty of attention and they're the subject of some academic study. This one raised some interesting questions about police tactics, being a pre-planned operation with the stated aim of apprehending the robbers. Also of note is that the whole event was caught on video by the police, and (somewhat sensationally) the video of the shooting was later played in court at the trial of the surviving gang members. See what you think! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Could you archive the sources?

~ HAL333 17:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I did for them. Le Panini [🥪] 20:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks, Le Panini, I wouldn't have known how to do that. I'm not convinced it's necessary, but it certainly doesn't harm anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, neither am I. Le Panini [🥪] 20:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


I'm coming into this article knowing exactly nothing about the topic, so can provide a fresh set of eyes! It's a very interesting article.

  • "and apprehend the suspects in the commission of the robbery." - could be trimmed and converted to more accessible language (e.g. "and apprehend the suspects as they attempted the robbery" or similar)
    • Sure , that works. Done.
  • "Armed police officers arrived in the early hours of the morning " - arrived where?
    • In Chandler's Ford. Added.
  • The 'Prelude' section would benefit from a description of the rules of engagement or similar which governed when police could fire on armed suspects, and especially those who have been classed as highly dangerous ones like the robbers here.
    • I've added a few sentences of background. Does that help?
      • Yep, that's good. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Flying Squad received intelligence that the gang intended to rob a G4S cash-in-transit van as it delivered to the HSBC bank branch in Chandler's Ford, Hampshire. " - do we know what the source of this intelligence was, and when it was received (and hence how long the police had to prepare and plan for this operation)
    • No. The Flying Squad are notoriously tight-lipped about the sources of their intelligence. Much of it is gleaned from criminal contacts.
      • Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Could a map, based on Open Street Map or similar, be added to the 'Robbery' section? I presume that the inquiry reports or similar will provide the geographic details and possibly a map which can be used as the basis for this
    • I'm open to this. It's fairly easy to work out where some of the locations are. But I have no idea how to generate one! Any help would be appreciated.
      • The clunky way to do this (which is the way I'd do it...) would be to screen cap the relevant OSM area and mark up the locations with MS Paint or a similar basic graphical tool. There's also an OSM template for Wikipedia which allows this to be done in a clever way - Wikipedia:WikiProject OpenStreetMap has helpful step by step guides for both approaches. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
        • @Thryduulf: is this something you can help with? I'm out of my depth! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
          • @HJ Mitchell: Possibly. It's not something I've ever done so I would need to learn how, and it will be a few days before I can get to that, but I can give it a go. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "the team received word " - do we know from where? (from intelligence sources, or were the robbers being followed by other police officers?)
    • This one we know. The gang were under surveillance at this point.
  • Did the snipers request/receive authorisation or orders to open fire, or were they able to do on their own initiative and/or at a set escalation point under the plan for this operation?
    • There wouldn't have been time to clear it. The officers acted on their own initiative as they apparently felt the guard's life was in danger, though what possessed Markland to pick up the gun is beyond me.
      • I'd suggest noting that (my comments on issues around planning and authorisation are inspired by the inquests into the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney, which found that the local police force's rules of engagement for snipers and SWAT teams and the associated communications procedures were somewhat defective - note also that the article on the siege provides an example of using an OSM map) Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The article is largely written from the perspective of the police. Can anything be said about the robbers' planning for the robbery before the day it was attempted or what their plans were - e.g. were they actually intending to have killed the security guard as the police feared if he resisted them, and did they have armour piecing ammunition?
    • History is written by the victors? We don't tend to hear from the criminals involved in notorious crimes (Ronnie Biggs being the obvious exception that comes to mind), especially when they're dead. Probably even more so in this case because it's only really notable for the police actions. Had they succeeded or been arrested without shots fired, it's unlikely the incident would have received much coverage. It would seem that they did have armour-piercing ammunition. Their history of violence is discussed in the prelude section; in my opinion it's unlikely they would have shot him—in most previous robberies they used fists etc and brandished a gun but had never actually fired it. But imagine having to make that judgement in a split second with a gun being held to somebody's head.
      • Did the court cases for the surviving gang members cover these issues - e.g., did they attempt to defend themselves by claiming that only a threat of violence was to be made, and if so was this upheld? Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Has this incident attracted any attention in academic journals? None are listed, but it seems an interesting example for academics with an interest in the use of weapons by police.
    • I drew a blank on Google Scholar when I was researching this, but tow of the books used (Squires & Kennison and Punch) are by academics. Most other academic works on police shootings pre-date this incident or focus on a specific case.
  • I'd suggest adding the Coroner's report and the IPCC report as 'further reading' if they're online - the BBC story says that the IPCC report was published. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't believe coroners or the IPCC routinely release their full reports to the general public and I can't find either report online. I think the IPCC released their reports into the Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes because Punch cites those in his bibliography but that was an extraordinary case. Thanks for your comments and happy new year, Nick! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
      • OK, comparable Australian reports seem to be usually published online so it's interesting that the UK doesn't do this given the British government tends to be a bit more open to scrutiny than Australian governments are. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • The lead seems excessively long, at 29% of the wordage of the main article.
    • I always struggle with leads! Especially with all the caveats required for a potentially controversial subject. I've trimmed it a bit.
  • "which concluded that the armed officers had acted properly, though found flaws in the planning of the operation." Is it me, or does this not quite read right? Maybe 'though flaws were found'?
    • I'd rather not switch to passive voice if possible, but I added an "it" after "though", which hopefully makes it clearer.
It does - that was my back-up suggestion.
  • "where their actions were later considered unjustified". Would 'where it was later considered that their actions may have been unjustified' be more accurate?
    • Isn't that just more words for the same meaning? ;)
I assume, possibly incorrectly, that you are saying that officers actions have been held to account in the courts, which may or may not have found them justified. If so, my suggestion seems to capture that better. If, on the other had, you are saying - and they have been found guilty of criminal offences, then fine; but, IMO, the sentence still needs tweaking.
Hmm. I've reworded it a bit. The point is that officers have to have a rock solid justification for opening fire (I can think of at least three incidents where an officer was charged with murder, two where the officer was mistaken about a matter of fact, though all were acquitted).
  • "was pursuing a criminal gang". "pursuing"? Perhaps 'investigating'; attempting to apprehend'; or similar?
    • "Investigating" works. Done.
  • "The gang had used a handgun in previous robberies and had fired at bank staff and members of the public and were in possession of armour-piercing ammunition"> Does "and" need to be used twice?
    • Re-worded.
  • "along with snipers providing cover from nearby buildings." Optional: explain the purpose of these snipers, as the purpose of the armed officers closer to the bank has just been explained.
    • I've added a little bit. See what you think.
  • "the team received word from overs watching the gang".
    • Oops! Fixed.
  • "the town of Chandler's Ford"; "were spotted in the village".
    • Fixed.
  • "and parked in a space opposite the bank." Is "in a space" necessary?
    • Ah, the benefit of fresh eyes! Gone.
  • "By this time, the armed officers hiding in the toilet block were running towards the bank." 'the armed officers who had been hiding in the toilet block'.
    • Done.
  • "by the second police sniper". If it is known that the number of snipers was two, could that be mentioned earlier?
    • I'm pretty sure there were more than two; possibly four but I can't find the exact number in the sources.
In which case could "the" be changed to 'a', as it is in the lead?
Good point. Done.
  • Second image. I am not sure that the MoS requirement that "Image captions should be succinct" is met here.
    • I feel it's as succinct as it can be; a short caption on a non-free image would invite a challenge that there wasn't sufficient "contextual significance" (NFCC#8).
  • The first link under "See also" seems a little random to me. What is the link.
    • As far as I can tell, it's the only other Flying Squad operation of the decade that has a Wikipedia article (also, I was seriously struggling to find places to link this article from).
  • "several recommendations. Among them was that a separate firearms commander—independent of the investigation—be appointed for similar operations in the future to better balance public safety against the need to gather evidence." I can have a pretty good guess at what is being implied here, but do the sources allow you to be a little more explicit?
    • Sadly not. The implication is that the police let it play out too long and should have arrested the gang before they were holding a security guard at gunpoint but the IPCC were never explicit; in fact they acknowledged that they couldn't be certain that the outcome would have different had there been an independent firearms commander.

Very neat little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. Happy new year! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
And to you Harry. A couple of counter-responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
And replies inline Gog. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text for lead image
    • Done.
  • File:Chandler's_Ford_robbery.jpg: the "unique historic images" tag is typically reserved for cases where the image itself, not the subject, is the subject of commentary - is that the case for this specific still? I see commentary on the footage overall, but not clearly for the image specifically. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The still is from a video which is the subject of commentary, but the full video was not released to the public and use of the whole thing would fall foul of the "minimal use" requirement.

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Lead says 17 robberies, text says at least 18 - which is correct? (Not a sourcing issue but I'd actually suggest rephrasing both sentences, as they're a bit hard to parse)
    • Fixed (and re-cast per your comments)
  • Grohmann has a harvref error
    • Ugh. I'm not sure what the error is, but I think this fixes it.
  • FN19 is confusing me a bit as there is an author credited as "Pa" at the source link - do you know if this is a pseudonym, or is this an error?
  • This source has links to some additional stories on this subject that are not cited, for example concerning issues with the inquest - have you reviewed these?
    • Yes. I didn't include the missing document because it didn't seem to have any effect on the inquest and none of the other sources mentioned it. None of the others contain any details not already mentioned but I added one of them anyway.
  • For FN28, the citation information provided doesn't match that at the link given. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • The gang were responsible for at least 18 robberies, from which they stole around £500,000. In previous robberies, gang members had carried firearms and had violently assaulted security guards who had resisted. Suggest "The gang were responsible for at least 18 robberies, in which gang members had carried firearms and had violently assaulted security guards who had resisted, and had stolen around £500,000."

Support. That's the only nit I can find to pick, and I'm not going to hold up support over it. Concise and readable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I've addressed that sentence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Suzanne Lenglen[edit]

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Suzanne Lenglen, one of the first global superstars of tennis. Lenglen was virtually unbeatable, winning 287 out of the final 288 matches of her career. She gained immense popularity through her balletic playing style and vibrant personality, and first drew attention to herself by winning a World Championship tournament a few weeks after turning 15 years old. Her popularity forced Wimbledon to move to a new venue more than twice the size of the previous one to accommodate all of the fans who wanted to see her play. While still in her prime, Lenglen spurned amateur tennis to turn professional. She was the first top amateur player to turn professional, kickstarting the professional era. In one year of professional tours, Lenglen made more money than Babe Ruth in the year Ruth hit a record-setting 60 home runs.

A former featured article from the Stone Age of FAC reviews, this is your chance to get a former FA back to featured status and to review one of the most vital articles in tennis history. If passed, this would be my third FA; here are the first two: Kim Clijsters (also tennis) and Erin Phillips (Australian football). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review

I think resolved, but not confirmed yet. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  • File:Suzanne_Lenglen_1922_(instant)_(cropped).jpg: when/where was this first published, and what is the author's date of death?
    • The publication date on BnF/Gallica is listed as 1922, and the author is an agency (Agence Rol), not a person. I think the Template:PD-old tag may not be the correct one. (The rights on Gallica are listed as "public domain".) Does Gallica have its own public domain tag (such as Template:PD-GallicaScan?), or is there a broader one related to the EU or France (such as Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure)? A bunch of the other images below have the same issue. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Or is it even simpler than that and do the Gallica images listed as "public domain" (with the author as Agence Rol) just count as Template:PD-author? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Only if Gallica is the copyright holder - are they? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
        • I believe BnF/Gallica owns the image itself. (They own all of Agence Rol's collections, and Agence Rol merged with other agencies in 1937.) Does that mean BnF/Gallica also owns the copyright? (or alternatively, does no one own the copyright because Agence Rol is gone?) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Separately, I found Template:PD-BNF as a tag option. Would that alone suffice, or does it also need a US tag? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
          • That tag would suffice for French status, but it would need a separate tag for US. Owning the images does not automatically mean one owns the copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
            • Okay, then would the PD-BNF plus the generic PD-US work for all of the Agence Rol Gallica images from before 1925 (all but one)? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
              • Assuming they were all published, not simply created, before then. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
                • Gallica says they were published before then. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Ditto File:Suzanne_Lenglen,_Elizabeth_Ryan,_1914_(light).jpg
  • Ditto File:Suzanne_Lenglen_playing_baseline_1914_(cropped)_3.jpg
  • Ditto File:Suzanne_Lenglen_1920_Cannes_(cropped).jpg
  • File:1919_wimbledon_final_(instant)_(cropped).jpg: as per the UK tag, image description should specify research to verify anonymity
    • If the image was published in a newspaper and the author wasn't specified in the newspaper, does that suffice? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Was it credited in any other source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
        • The National Portrait Gallery has a restored version of the same image, and they state the photographer is unknown. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
          • I would suggest adding this information to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Mlle_Lenglen_et_Brugnon_(cropped)_2.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    • France 1921. (I'll switch the tags to PD-BNF + PD-US, and clarify the publication info.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Ditto File:Mallory_and_Lenglen_1921_St_Cloud_(cropped)_2.jpg
    • France 1921. (I'll switch the tags to PD-BNF + PD-US, and clarify the publication info) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Not resolved yet. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  • File:Mary_Browne_%26_Lenglen_(Tennis)_LCCN2014710151_(cropped).jpg when/where was this first published?
    • US 1926. (I think the two for this one should suffice, and clarify the publication info) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Suzanne_lenglen_1920.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
    • As the image was published in Lenglen's book (that she wrote), would it be correct to say that Lenglen is the author? (If yes, she died in 1938.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Is there any attribution in the book? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes, I just noticed! It was by the Maull and Fox company (which was taken over in 1928), but not Maull or Fox themselves because they were already dead. Would Template:PD-UK-unknown make sense here with no individual author identified? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Yes, but as above you'd need to include evidence of research into anonymity. Was the author identified in any other source? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
            • Okay, I found that the firm was continued by Fox's son Herbert Fox (1870–unknown) and Frederic Glover (who joined in 1890). Does it suffice to assume that neither lived past 80 years old (to use the Template:PD-old-70 tag)? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
              • Commons uses commons:Template:PD-old-assumed for cases where the author's date of death is unknown but reasonably assumed to be over 70 years ago, but only for works published over 120 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
                • I just realized the book was published in the US (and I can't find the photo published anywhere else). In that case, would just a regular PD-US tag suffice (since it was published in 1920).
                  • Was the book only published in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
                    • The publisher was based in the US. I imagine the book was circulated elsewhere, does that affect anything? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
                      • If it were simultaneously published elsewhere that might affect things as far as Commons goes, but if it was published US and only circulated elsewhere - and assuming you're corrected that the photo was not published elsewhere - that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Lenglen_Wills_Match_of_the_Century_1926_2_(instant)_(cropped).jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Silly question, but is the PD-US tag for images published before 1925 or for images published at least 95 years ago? (because the 95th anniversary of this photo is less than two months away) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
      • At the moment it's 1925, in a couple of days it'll be 1926 - the turnover is start of year, not the exact anniversary of publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Okay. As an alternative, would Template:PD-1996 apply to this image? (I see it was used for Maurice Ravel, which has a similar state in that it is also listed as public domain on Gallica, and has no identified individual author.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
          • 1926 +70 would put this after the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
            • Okay, I replaced this image with a non-free one that I believe to be fair use. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
              • The "unique historic images" tag is intended for cases where the image itself is the subject of commentary, not just what is depicted - eg. Tank Man. It's not clear to me that that is the case here. Suggest replacing that tag and expanding the fair-use rationale, particularly as regards purpose of use - what do readers gain from seeing this image over and above just being told that they thought the match was over when it wasn't? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
                • Hmm, I picked that image in particular because I thought it was a unique historic image where the image itself is what's important and the subject of commentary. Is it within reason that a sports photograph could be a unique historic image? Or is the issue that I didn't discuss the image in the prose? If the latter is the case, I reworded the section to mention the image. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Amakuru[edit]

  • Early life and background:
    • "Several years after Suzanne was born, her father sold the omnibus business and relocated the family to Marest-sur-Matz near Compiègne in northern France in 1904" - were the selling of the business and the relocation separate events? If so, it would be worth separating them out so it's clear. And if they're actually part of the same event, then we should chop either "Several years after..." or "in 1904", since both indicate a point in time.
      • I don't know exactly when the selling of the business happened. Changed it to "her father sold the omnibus business, after which he relocated the family". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "Nice Lawn Tennis Club" - we have an article for this, so link to it
    • "loved to play diabolo" - it may be just me, but "loved to" doesn't quite sound like formal encyclopedic language. Is that what the sources says? Could consider "enjoyed" instead.
    • "through attending tournaments on the Riviera where the world's best players" - a comma after Riviera might help the flow a bit here.
    • "the world's best players would compete" - just "the world's best players competed" would be preferable.
    • "Having played the sport recreationally in the past, he bought Lenglen a racket from a toy store" - are his playing in the past and the fact that he bought her the racket specifically linked? If not, could either split it up, or rephrase to something like "He had played the sport recreationally in the past, and he bought..." or similar.
    • "to practice with friends" - since the article is tagged as British English, this should be "to practise", I believe.
    • "She quickly showed enough skill for tennis to convince her father to get her a proper racket within a month" - was the previous racket not a proper one then? Toy stores might also sell such things, so if the previous one was actually a toy then maybe say so. Also, should be "skill at tennis"?
      • Clarified the second one was from a tennis manufacturer. "skill at tennis" Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "Three months later in September, Lenglen" - a comma after "later" I think, as "in September" is an appositive phrase.
    • "a proper tennis court" - second use of "proper" this paragraph... not totally convinced it's an encyclopedic word, and could change at least one of them to something else.
      • I feel like alternatives (e.g. real, actual) would be less encyclopedic. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "the singles handicap event" - a link might be useful, to aid readers in understanding what this is
    • "towards the end of the fall" - "autumn" in British English
    • "They only showed restraint in their criticisms when she was sick, leading to Lenglen becoming comfortable with being ill" - I'm not quite sure what this means. Did she fake illness in order to avoid their criticism?
      • Sort of, but more like "it was not clear whether she was actually sick". I added "That trait made it difficult for others to ascertain whether Lenglen was sick when she was showing symptoms." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 1912-13: Maiden titles:
    • "Lenglen entered her first open singles event" - does "open" mean non-handicap? A link or clarification might help
      • Changed to "standard", and clarified "standard non-handicap" at the beginning of this section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "After her opponent defaulted" - a link of some sort would be useful, so unfamiliar readers can know what this means
    • "not won a title" - "failed to win a title"?
    • "a tie" - link to what this means?
      • I actually don't think we have an article on this. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "Nonetheless, when Lenglen returned" - why is this "nonetheless"? I'm guessing maybe you mean that "winning one match" in the prior event was a bad thing, in which case probably add in "only one match" or similar.
    • "She won her next event in Lille as well. Both titles came within a few weeks of her 14th birthday" - might work better as a single sentence with a comma rather than two short sentences.
    • "the latter of which by default" - any reason why?
      • No, it was more common to default at that time for reasons that would be considered "non-serious" by today's standards. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • More to follow! I'm impressed with the article so far anyway, so I'm likely to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "South of France Championships" - link
  • 1914: World Hard Court champion:
    • "Cannes" - link, as it's the first mention
    • "was regarded as a huge surprise" - should probably say by whom
    • "Wimbledon" - link
    • "Racing Club de France" - link
      • I think the article is more for the club rather than the actual facility. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "where she only lost three games" - "in which she lost only three games" sounds better
      • Split in two: "Nonetheless, she won three matches to make the final against Germaine Golding. She defeated Golding for her first major title, losing only three games." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "when she had already lost" - maybe "given that she had only lost"?
      • Done (assuming you didn't mean to change "already"). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • World War I hiatus:
    • Can't see any issues here.
  • 1919: Classic Wimbledon final:
    • "in the challenge round" - although we've already introduced the "challenge round" concept, we're generally calling the event "the final" in this section, so would make sense to clarify
      • I think the statement from the 1914 section establishes that the challenge round is the final: "The format gave the defending champion a bye until the final match, known as the challenge round." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 1920: Olympic champion:
    • "Ryan was able to defeat Lenglen in mixed doubles at Cannes in windy conditions" - should probably say who the partners were
    • "was also a rematch of the previous year's final" - should probably drop the "also", as it's a bit repetitive
      • It refers to the fact that both the singles and doubles finals were rematches. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "only losing three games" - not sure why, but I feel like "losing only" is more formal than "only losing"
    • "after their opponents withdrew prior to the match" - I assume "the match" means a bronze-medal playoff, but probably worth clarifying
  • More to follow.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

1997 Football League First Division play-off Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Once again, another candidate on the most valuable single football match on the planet. Worth a read, used an official video to enhance the game summary, which includes an almighty BANG when Don Hutchison falls from a great height and dislocates his shoulder. Hopefully it's all up to scratch having just passed WP:GAN thanks to a review from Casliber. As ever I'll endeavour to get to any comments and queries on the candidate as soon as I practically can. Cheers in advance for your time and consideration. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

  • Final is capitalised in the article title, but not the infobox title. Is that intentional?
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The "which was" in the first sentence is probably unnecessarily elongataing the opening. As a comparison, the 1998 final does away with it?
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "before be adjudged to have crossed the goalline", I'm guessing this should read "being"?
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Their advantage last just four minutes", minor adjustment needed.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "and had losing the previous season's final", sentence doesn't quite work.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "running out of his area and kick the ball into touch", same again.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Was Kachura replaced due to injury? Might be worth noting if the source supports it as it seems strange for United to sub off their top scorer in the first half with no explanation.
    Welllll, if you watch the match replay, he jogs (un)happily off the pitch, the commentators "speculate" that it's related to a "niggling hamstring injury" as he leaves, but later there's more speculation over whether it was purely tactical. So, I left it...! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    No worries, I guessed it would be along those lines but was just wondering. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Linighan needs linking in the match details section as he isn't mentioned prior to this. He's also listed as Linigham in the following sentence.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No captain icon for the Sheffield United side?
    I haven't found an explicit source for that. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    Got it, Holdsworth. He introduces the team before the match, and although he's not wearing an armband (that I can see) I think that's sufficient. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Other than a few minor points noted above, this another article in great shape. Kosack (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Kosack thanks, I've responded above. Cheers, The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
All of my comments have been addressed, happy to support. Kosack (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "while the clubs placed from third to sixth place in the table". Either delete both "from" and "place", or rephrase to avoid "placed ... place".
    Rephrased. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The top two teams of the 1996–97 Football League First Division season gained automatic promotion to the Premiership, while the clubs placed from third to sixth place in the table took part in play-off semi-finals; Sheffield United ended the season in fifth position, one place ahead of Crystal Palace." I think this is trying to do too much work for a singe sentennce.
    Rephrased. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Sheffield United ended the season in fifth position, one place ahead of Crystal Palace. The winners of these semi-finals competed for the final place for the 1997–98 season in the Premiership. Wolverhampton Wanderers and Ipswich Town were the losing semi-finalists." It may just be me, but this reads a bit arse about. Consider naming the four semi-finalists first, then saying what happened to them.
    Rephrased. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Winning the final was estimated in the media to be worth up to £10 million to the successful team." I realise that this is the lead and a summary, but a non-aficionado is likely to assume that this is the match prize money.
    It's how it's discussed in the RS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Does that mean that you don't believe that non-footballing readers will be mislead? Or that you think they may be but are content for this to be the case as the RS is similarly misleading?
It's not misleading at all, it's just not explicit about how that money is won. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe that it would improve the article if it were explicit in this respect.
The RS say what the article says. And it's factually and verifiably correct. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
And, as I am sure you are aware, I am not addressing any of those points. Perhaps you would care to address the one I am making?
Well not really, I can't make up stuff that I don't have RS for. The reports used all have that terminology, along the lines of "winning the match is worth around X to the victorious team". That's how it's phrased for the citations for this year. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "made an early change". Again, seems in-group language to me. And "early" and then stating when smacks of redundancy. Perhaps 'Sheffield United replaced Pyotr Kachura with Gareth Taylor midway through the first half' or similar?
    Early is important because making a seemingly tactical substitution midway through the first half is unusual. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "for the London club". As it is not obvious to a non-football fan that Crystal Palace is/was in London and the club's location has not previously been introduced, this doesn't, IMO, really work. I don't personally see what it adds and would suggest deletion.
    The reader literally goes on in the next sentence to read "Crystal Palace's victory marked the first time a club from London..."
Err, that's my point. Once the reader has been told that Palace are "a London club" you can refer to them as such and expect a reader to understand. But not before. Not even a sentence before.
Ok, I tend to assume the reader will use context provided, but okeydokes, reworded. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
See my comment below on the use of Wikilinks.
I understood that the text of an article should explain itself and that Wikilinks were there for readers who wished for more detail on a topic or term, not to provide a basic understanding of the text. Eg Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style says, among other things:
  • Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.
  • 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.
I'm sorry, I simply don't agree that we need to explain in every article that uses the term away goals rule what it means. Similarly two legged tie and aggregate score, these are all English terms and they are certainly not "highly technical". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll give you a counter-example: e.g. 1st Missouri Field Battery. This, for some reason, feels obliged to describe in a footnote what is meant by the common English word "bore" yet leaves our readers to guess at what is meant by Trans-Mississippi Department, James rifle (not even a rifle!), 6-pounder smoothbores, "case shot, and canister", rifling, caissons, etc etc. I've read the article and I'm happy that the relevant linking provides a sufficient way of me working these all out, but I don't think FAs should now be forced to come with a glossary of terms attached. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I am unsure how how another nominated article "feels" is relevant to this point.
It's about consistent expectations across featured articles. The examples given above are way more technical than "aggregate score" (for example) which is a dictionary definition. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not believe that a non-specialist reader should be required to work out what the prose of an FAC means. I believe that the section of the MoS I quoted above supports this
I'm not going to add footnotes for phrases which are wikilinked and are actually plain English. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It would indeed be preferable for the text to be clear in line to a non-expert, to terminology being explained in footnotes.
I am left unsure whether you are arguing that "leg", "on away goals" and "yellow card" or "booking" are 'plain English', or that there being a Wikilink for each allows 'working these all out', or both. Or one for some and t'other for others? I am trying to get to grips with why you feel the current prose is acceptable - I am entirely open to being persuaded - but am struggling, which is quite probably due to my slow rate of comprehension, to get to grips with just what you are saying. Any chance of explaining for each of these why you feel that the current situation is broadly comprehensible and why each meets the three points above from the MoS? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
My acid test is that I have been through dozens of these reviews and not one single reader, be them football aficianados or otherwise, has found a single issue with the linking to explain plain English terms. I won't be adding countless footnotes to explain terms that are linked and which, to what appears to me to be the vast majority of readers, fully comprehensible. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah. When I first read it I assumed that you were including any appearances as a player. "was making his twelfth appearance as a manager at Wembley Stadium" or similar would avoid this potential misunderstanding.
If the above suggestion were to be adopted, this would, I think, be clear(er).
Well then there'd be complaints about the repeat of manager. It's clearer now, but probably not as plain as you would like it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed not. It is still not clear what constitutes an "appearance".
It says "the first of his managerial appearances at the national stadium, in which he led Everton to " so if that's not clear, I don't know what else to say. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll keep the discussion at first mention then.
  • "Kevin Muscat won the ball which fell to Dyer". I don't follow this. If Muscat won the ball, how did Dyer end up with it?
    He won the ball in a tackle and the ball ended up with Dyer. That's why the video is linked, so it can be verified. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
What you have just written is clear to me. Why can the article not read similarly, to spare the likes of me having to watch the video in order to understand the text?
Because the way I wrote it above is hardly engaging prose. I could make it "... won the ball but it fell to Dyer ..." if you think that makes it clearer? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I do, it would.
I've added "then" to make it clear what the sequence of events was, but in general I'm not going to write down basic dumb prose I'm afraid. It's supposed to be engaging. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
That seems clear to me. Thanks.
See above for my comment on Wikilink usage.

A nice little article. I enjoyed reading that. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild cheers, all comments addressed and/or responded to above. Thanks for the comprehensive review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that TRM. Some response to your responses above. Where they are missing I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Some further thoughts above on your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild Responses above. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Some queries and suggestions above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild Responses above. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looked over it again - I feel it is fine in comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Casliber many thanks for taking the time to give it a read through. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil[edit]

A great read, that once again reminds me why I'm missing out by not being into football. Some things:

  • But his shot under challenge from Carl Tiler went across the face of Sheffield United's goal and out for a throw-in - wot
    He made his shot while he was being challenged by Carl Tiler, and said shot went across the face i.e. parallel with the goal line, and instead of being caught by the goalie or out for a goal kick (because it was parallel with the goal line) it went out for a throw-in. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    Ok thats much clearer. It was "out for a throw-in" that confused. Can you rephrase those few words. Ceoil (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm not being cheeky, but it already says that exactly and concisely. What would you recommend? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Nash punched clear a corner on 77 minutes - at?
  • reworded lightly - what does punched clear a corner mean. Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, well the cross from the attacker was "cleared behind" which is common speak for kicked off the pitch over the defender's own line, and a corner is awarded to the attacking team for doing that. It may be a touch "in-universe" but I've linked as many terms as possible. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil cheers. Let me know if you have any suggested alterations based on my responses? Best wishes, The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
No that's it. Nice work, as always gripping from the opening sentence. Support Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, and much appreciate your suggestions, easy to get into a "not seeing the wood for the trees" scenario. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Amakuru[edit]

  • Lead:
    • The section detailing the match itself feels slightly short. Obviously there's less to say about a game that was almost a goalless draw, but for exapmle is there any sense from pundits of which of the two sides had the better of the game? Was Palace's victory regarded as deserved etc.? Some notion of this could be incorporated into the match summary and then repeated here.
    • Also, the body goes into some detail on how Hopkins' winner was regarded as a stunning goal, something you could mention in the lead.
  • Route to the final:
    • "Crystal Palace faced Wolverhampton Wanderers in their play-off semi-final" - since we've already established in the previous paragraph that we are going to call them "Wolves", should we not just call them that here? I don't see any other instances nearby that would make it jarring...
      That's what happens when you listen to reviewers at FAC and don't tidy up after yourself....! Fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "the first leg taking place at Selhurst Park in London" - up to you if you think this needs actioning or not, but a completely uninitiated reader might not be aware that Selhurst Park is CP's home ground, or indeed that they are based in London at all.
      Jeez, what a mess. Actioned but unhappily. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "through Jan Åge Fjørtoft who" - a comma after Fjørtoft?
      Comma added. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "with a rising shot which hit" - similarly, a comma after shot might help parse the next part. (initially I thought the "before" referred to Kachura rather than the shot)
      Funny, I always get told I use too many commas. Added. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "With the scores level at 3–3 on aggregate at full time, half an hour of extra time was played but no further goals were scored, with Sheffield United advancing to the final on away goals." - could consider splitting into two sentences.
      Splitttted. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Background:
    • "where he led Everton to victory" - could change to "in which he led..."
      Fair. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "I enjoyed that cup final over Watford because we won it ... that's the only way I will enjoy Monday. If we win". - full stop should be inside the quote I believe, as it terminates a full sentence.
      Tsk. Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "Ray Houghton, the Crystal Palace midfielder had suffered defeat in the previous season's play-off fina" - there should be a comma after "midfielder"
      Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • But we see ourselves winning this one". - same as above re full stop
      Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "late-February" - probably shouldn't have a hyphen
      Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "Alan Kelly who" - maybe a comma? I suppose things like this *could* be written in a comma-light fashion, but if that were the case I'd expect there to be no comma after "bench" in the following sentence.
      I beg to differ, there seems a natural pause in the latter case and not in the former. But hell, if that's all that's left to debate, I'd invite you to change it your preference!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "worth £8–10 million to the winning team" - actually on reflection this one's probably just about OK, but will mention it anyway - neither of the two sources actually directly suggests this range of 8-10 million. In fact, one of them says "10 million" and the other says "up to 8 million", which are of course mutually exclusive estimates. If the Guardian is to be believed, the actual figure might even be less than 8 million. Ah well.
      Well it's the best way to summarise the two sources I suppose. I would colloquially say "anything up to £10m", but that doesn't seem encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • We sometimes mention kit colours at this point. The report and graphics from the details section [18] seem to cover this, but could mention it in prose too.
      I don't see the kit mentioned in that reference, I could "estimate" the colours from the video I suppose? I was told by a woman in Laura Ashley that I was colour blind though, so if you can see it, perhaps you could do it... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
      Well, if it's not sourced then where did those pretty strips down below come from? But I was assuming that the intention was for "...for the red and blue contingent..." and "...the men in white dropped..." from that reference to more or less not-quite-verify it. To be honest I'm not that fussed, so we can just leave it as is.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • First half:
    • "Kevin Muscat won the ball which fell to Dyer" - which came first, the "falling to Dyer" or the "Kevin Muscat winning the ball"? It's kind of phrased as if the ball fell to Dyer first, but I suspect you meant the opposite.
      Amazing how controversial this sentence is turning out to be. Which came first? Muscat winning the ball. I could add "then" between "which" and "fell" if it's so confusing? I'm tempted to delete the whole thing as I seem to be the only person who gets what I wrote...!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "volleyed the ball from the edge of the penalty area which was deflected behind" - the penalty area was deflected behind?
      Can't reword suitably without a quick repeat, so split sentences. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "while he was attended to off the pitch" - sounds a bit colloquial, maybe change to "while he received attention off the pitch"?
      Addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Second half:
    • My only observation here is that the phrase "X minutes later" appears seven times within the section, giving it a slightly repetitive feel. If there's any way to rephrase, please do. You could even lose a bit or precision with a "shortly afterwards" or something.
      Actually eight times within two sections but I'm not going to argue that it might be repetitive. Will tidy this up. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
      It was even worse if you included "one minute later". So much for precision. Axed a load and made it vaguer. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
      Yeah, my seven within the section was including the one minute later cases...  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-match:
    • "Hopkin made his debut for Scotland against Malta less than a week later" - this feels slightly out of place, tucked in the middle of analysis of his winning goal. Was the call-up a direct result of the goal or his performance in the match? Might be worth clarifying that, and probably moving it a little later in the paragraph.
      Moved to the end of the discussion of Hopkin. I offer no causality between his goal and the call-up/performance, that's down to the manager... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that's about it. Excellent article other than these minor points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru all addressed and/or responded to above, many thanks as always. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Cheers, all looks good. Happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Amakuru - pass[edit]

  • (Source numbers are given as of this version of the article: [19])
  • I'm slightly suspicious about, which looks like a personal project by one individual rather than a published source (albeit a thorough and well-researched one, and I see that the author is also a Wikipedian). But from looking at previous FACs that there is a general consensus that it's OK so will defer to that. And the two facts it verifies are not at all controversial. You could consider naming it Football Club History Database in the refs, rather than giving the web URL.
    We've gone over FCHD and RS until the cows come home, but I'll reformat web name. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref [58] links to an American lawyer called Martin Lipton, and I'm pretty sure that's not the guy who wrote the article in the Aberdeen Press and Journal.
    It ain't, gone. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Formatting looks generally excellent.
    Of course it does. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Observation) Some web sources provide a courtesy archive URL, while others don't. Per similar comment here, this is not an error and doesn't necessarily need to be fixed.
    I use the Wikimedia-accredited tool for this, if it ain't functioning, talk to Jimbo! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Spot checks:
    • [4] - checks out (technically the source doesn't mention Molineux Stadium directly, but that's probably trivially obvious)
    • [28] - checks out, video timing and description of events is accurate
    • [61] - checks out.
  • That's enough spot checking IMHO as the author is a veteran contributor with numerous FA badges, and his sourcing is generally excellent.
  • Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    Lovely, ta. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    Amakuru All done/noted/acknowledged/bathed in glory. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    Cheers, and enjoy that bath. Passing the source review.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


Hi there, TRM. I've seen you kickin' about. I'm still a pretty new FA reviewer, so bear with me if I make an arse of myself. Instead of leaving comments re: prose, I prefer to just go through and copy-edit to save us both time. If there's anything you don't like, feel free to revert. After that, I'll do some spot-checking, and we'll see where we land. You can expect the review within 24 hours, I think, but I'll let you know if something comes up. Catch you soon! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello ImaginesTigers, of course, Wikipedia is a collective effort and nothing is stopping you from getting stuck in. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Bud (2018)[edit]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 20:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the first land-impacting Category 4 hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season. Through some digging, I found the storm had done a decent bit of damage in Mexico. NoahTalk 20:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 20:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Support from Destroyeraa[edit]

  • These two sentences - "Bud originated from a tropical wave that departed from western Africa on May 29. It traveled across the Atlantic Ocean before entering the Northeast Pacific Ocean late on June 6." - can be combined. Something like "Bud originated from a tropical wave that departed from west Africa on May 29, traversing the Atlantic Ocean before entering the Northeast Pacific Ocean on June 6."
  • This doesn't sound right to me and would be rather lengthy. NoahTalk 20:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Linked it. NoahTalk 22:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, west Africa → West Africa. It's a proper noun of a subregion.
  • Done. NoahTalk 20:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Some additional comments:

  • The National Hurricane Center (NHC) first forecast on June 4 that a low-pressure area could form during the next several days. Where? You mentioned the tropical Atlantic above that but the source says in the EPac.
  • the NHC forecast a near 100 percent chance of development while the system was around 400 mi (645 km) south of Acapulco, Mexico. I'm not sure if this is worthy of inclusion. We don't want to get too specific about what the NHC does.
  • Cut that out and merged in the next sentence. NoahTalk 13:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You mention "Bud" too much in the MH. Try to replace some of those with "the storm" or "the hurricane."
  • This should be better now. NoahTalk 13:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah: ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 20:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


  • The infobox gives a damage figure of "> $167,600". The lead states this figure is specifically at one particular mall. The text provides figures that add up to that number from specific stores, but notes that "Total damage from the storm in the Plaza Patria mall is unknown". Given that context, I don't think the phrasing in the lead is appropriate, nor do I think this figure should be included in the infobox. Sure we know that the damage was at least that much - but given the scale of what is not included, that could mean anything. (Also are there no sources that provide any other damage figures?)
  • I will just remove the field entirely per off-wiki chatter and change the lead to have a general statement for that damage. There really aren't sources for damage totals in third world countries unless the storm "beats the hell" out of them. NoahTalk 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The lead further states that "At least 100 additional structures were flooded in the city [of Guadalajara]". The text counts over 100 structures damaged, but damaged doesn't necessarily mean flooded
  • Source mentions affected by flooding or something similar, but affected could honestly mean anything so I changed the lead. NoahTalk 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Lead says 90 passengers were evacuated from a train, text says from a station - which is correct?
  • The train was trapped in the station by the floodwater according to the sources, but it isn't really necessary to mention being rescued from the flooded train and then taken out of the station. Removed mention of the station. NoahTalk 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Lead says "More than 60 homes in Maruata, Michoacan, had roof damage". However, the text says more than 60 homes were damaged, and of those "most" had roof damage - those claims aren't the same
  • Text is correct. Replaced the roof damage with wind and flood damage. NoahTalk 02:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Lead says the storm "slowed the growth of wildfires in the Southwestern United States". The text mentions two fires, only one of which is in that area.
  • Mentioned the two states instead. NoahTalk 02:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why do preparations at the Marquis Los Cabos hotel in particular warrant mention?
  • It's really the only preparations that could be found for the city where the storm made landfall. I can remove it if you find it frivolous. NoahTalk 02:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Flash flood watches were issued for parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and southwestern Colorado." - the source supports the latter two, but I don't see mention of such watches in Arizona, nor do they appear on the map shown
  • Removed Arizona from this spot. NoahTalk 02:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Given these issues, I'd like to see someone spotcheck the Spanish-language sources (which unfortunately I'm not able to do) before striking my oppose. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Most of the lead accuracy issues for MX sources appear to be sloppiness on my part when writing it up. NoahTalk 01:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I think everything is fixed. (Note that I support making Hurricane Bud (2018) FA) MarioJump83! 12:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@MarioJump83: I have asked for the sources to be checked with the utmost scrutiny, which is what Nikki wanted. She won't consider lifting her oppose until after that occurs. NoahTalk 13:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I have started a list that I will source review on the talk page of this FAC, and will chip away at them. Meanwhile, I listed three things there that should be addressed throughout, and left sample edits: 1) there is more than one El Universal, 2) please add |trans-title= to citations so our readers can know what the source is about in English, 3) there are incorrect curly quotes, and double curly quotes, and double quotes on titles that should be converted to single straight quotes (quote within quote). More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I added links for all of those El Universal refs just to be sure people know which one it is. NoahTalk 03:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I translated the citations and I believe all the quote issues have been fixed. NoahTalk 04:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from LightandDark2000[edit]

  • I think that the figure is appropriately included in the infobox. However, I would like to see if there are any more recent sources that have a more comprehensive damage total.
  • As I said above, unless countries report the totals and tally up damage, you won't see any total damage reports. This is especially the case for third world countries like Mexico. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In the lead, I see More than 60 homes in Maruata, Michoacan, had roof damage. I also noticed that there appears to be an inconsistency when this phrase is compared to what's in the main body of the article. I would like to see this inconsistency resolved.
  • Fixed in Nikki's review. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There were some other issues/inconsistencies that I also noticed in the lead. I would refer to Nikkimaria's comments above for those.
  • Fixed in Nikki's Review. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Consider adding a note in the lead specifying the NHC's definition of a major hurricane, since not everyone reading the article may be familiar with that term.
  • There already is a note in the lead. It is at the end of the first sentence mentioning major hurricane. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that you should also mention that Bud's remnants caused flash flooding in the Southwestern US, since this is another significant impact of the storm.
  • Added a brief mention. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Linked in lead and met. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed capitalization and linked. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Linked in lead again and fixed in article. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • We don't link large geographic regions that everyone should be familiar with (Ex: United States as a whole shouldn't be linked, but SW region should). NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The system continued to organize, spawning a tropical depression around 18:00 UTC "Spawning" sounds a little awkward here. I would suggest changing it to "becoming".
  • Done. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Bud reached its peak intensity as a Category 4 major hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 140 mph (220 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 943 mbar (27.85 inHg) at 00:00 UTC on June 12, while located 200 mi (325 km) southwest of Manzanillo. This reads like a run-on right now. Add a comma after "major hurricane".
  • Added a comma there. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • the cyclone's eye had warmed and become well-defined, Currently a little awkward at "and become". I would change this to "and had become".
    Removed. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • and the convection was decreasing in the northern half of the storm. You don't need the "the" before "convection".
  • This one was fixed... Just forgot to add a comment here. NoahTalk 02:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It's already linked in the met and on the synonymous upper-level winds for the lead. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The mid- and low-levels of the storm split apart, You could be even more specific by changing this part to "The mid- and low-level circulations of the storm...". It's more explanatory that way.
  • Changed. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A Radioshack lost over MX$100,000 (US$4850) worth of products. Change "US$4850" to "US$4,850".
  • Added the missing comma. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Heavy rainfall from Bud caused the waters of the Laguna Negra of Puerto Marques to become contaminated with sewage, which in turn sparked a die-off of four fish species. Since it's only 4 species, could you consider naming them? Especially if any of them are threatened or endangered.
  • Actually... I missed the part saying "at least" four species. The source doesn't specifically mention which ones died off. It lists ones sensitive to pollutants and discusses how officials state things need to change or X will die. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Flash flood watches were issued for parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and southwestern Colorado. The given source doesn't mention Flash Flood Watches being issued for Arizona. Could you provide one that does?
  • Appears it never happened. Im not sure what happened, but it likely was accidentally added since that area was in drought along with the other states. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Bud left mostly minor damage in Baja California Sur. I would change "left" to "left behind".
  • DOne. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • bringing much needed rainfall to the drought-stricken region. Change "much needed" to "much-needed".
  • Done. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Rain from Bud slowed the growth of the 416 Fire in southwestern Colorado and a fire in southern Wyoming. Could we get a name for the fire in southern Wyoming? Since it's just one fire.
  • Source doesn't mention a name and I couldn't find any that do state a name. NoahTalk 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

These are all of the issues that I came across. Overall, the article is pretty solid and close to being an FA to me. However, there are a handful of issues that need to be addressed first before it can be promoted. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

With these changes, I'm formally supporting this FAC nomination. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Recently noticed the wave of storm FAs. I'll try help this nomination.

Comments on the lead[edit]
  • "Hurricane Bud was a Category 4 hurricane that brought winds and severe flooding to Mexico"-- Link Mexico?
  • Not done per MOS:OL. Most countries should not be linked. I also removed a few links from the lead I saw were in violation of the MOS. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "It was the second named storm, hurricane, and major hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season." Supported by a source. Leads are usually encouraged to have as less references, if they can be covered about in the body. Does this qualify the exception?
  • It is just a piece of introductory material that relates the storm to the overarching season topic. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Meant to do that originally but placed the brackets at the wrong spot. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "...hurricane late on June 10, and further to a major hurricane on June 11." Probably "...hurricane late in June 10, and further to a major hurricane the following day" sounds more natural?
  • Did the part about the following day. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " death occurred in Mexico City"-- I think omitting "death occurred" will make it less repetitive.
  • Done. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " peak rainfall total of 6.50 in (165 mm) was recorded in San Lorenzo"-- Perhaps linking to whatever "San Lorenzo" the lead is referring to?
  • Sadly there isn't anything to link to. There isn't an English Wikipedia page for San Lorenzo, Sinaloa. It also doesn't exist in Wikidata or even on the Spanish Wikipedia. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Ninety passengers had to be evacuated from a train in Guadalajara after it became submerged in floodwaters." Trivial, but if I were to be the writer of that sentence, I would have it "A train in Guadalajara was evacuated after it became submerged in floodwaters."
  • Removed from the lead. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "In Guerrero state"-- why should there be the word "state", when the linked article is all about the Guerrero state?
  • Removed the word. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed that sentence as 100 people being evacuated is just as trivial as 90. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Severe flooding along a street in Mexico City"-- duplicate link. GeraldWL 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed the second link. NoahTalk 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments on Meteorological history[edit]
  • "...that departed from the western coast of Africa"-- perhaps linking Western Africa within "western coast of Africa"?
  • Linked over the whole phrase. NoahTalk 22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "...over the tropical Atlantic"-- perhaps expand to "...over the Atlantic Ocean"?
  • Atlantic ocean is too broad... I didn't see a link existed for tropical Atlantic, but it does. I linked to that marine region. NoahTalk 22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The wave tracked over northern South America"-- Link South America?
  • "...and later entered the Eastern Pacific Ocean"-- Link Pacific Ocean?
  • "The wave tracked over northern South America and later entered the Eastern Pacific Ocean late on June 6. Convection increased a little on June 7 before significantly increasing a day later as a result of a passing Kelvin wave. A low-pressure area formed early on June 9"-- Since both are supported by ref 3, the citation should just be cited after "June 9" since it's repetitive.
  • Done. NoahTalk 22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Six hours later, the depression strengthened into a tropical storm, receiving the name Bud." The way "receiving the name Bud" is position at implies that "Six hours later, the depression strengthened into a tropical storm" is what gave it the name Bud. If it isn't, then I suggest separating them; if there is an etymology as to where it comes from, probably worth adding an "Etymology" section.
  • The storm reaching tropical storm intensity is what resulted in the naming. We usually don't add etymologies unless it is a foreign name for a storm. Bud is a commonly used English word to boot so I don't think is needed in this case. NoahTalk 22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The storm tracked generally northwestward over the next few days under the influence of multiple high-pressure areas and ridges that were located over the western United States and Mexico." Is that citation overkill? If no, suggest breakdown (i.e. "The storm tracked generally northwestward over the next few days[6] under the influence of multiple high-pressure areas[7] and ridges that were located over the western United States and Mexico.[8][9]"; not saying that it is right, just showing an example of a breakdown). GeraldWL 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed the issues with that statement. NoahTalk 22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments on Preparation[edit]
  • Linked all three. NoahTalk 22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Linked the several mentioned items. NoahTalk 22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments on Impact[edit]
  • "Rainfall totals of 6.20 in (157.6 mm) was recorded in Andrew Weiss, Sinaloa, and 6.01 in (152.6 mm) of rain fell in Alamos, Sonora." Suggest removing "of rain fell" as it is repetitive. And is "Rainfall totals" a spot-on wording? GeraldWL 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I adjusted the beginning of the sentence and removed "of rain". NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments on Jalisco and Colima[edit]
  • "A Radioshack"-- correct it to "RadioShack", then link it to RadioShack, perhaps?
  • Corrected and linked. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Water up to 16 ft (5 m) deep completely submerged a light-rail train"-- link light-rail?
  • Linked. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Parks and Gardens personnel used chainsaws"-- perhaps clarify what Parks and Gardens is?
  • "Parks and Gardens" is capitalized like this and is under a city gov't so I stated department. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "In Colima state"-- similar concern with Lead point 8, above. GeraldWL 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed state. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments on Guerrero and Michoacan[edit]
  • "In Guerrero state"-- similar concern with above.
  • Fixed. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "...beaches in Michoacan"-- duplicate link, if you apply the last point in "Comments on Preparation".
  • Done. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "At least 20 palapas"-- Link palapa. GeraldWL 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Linked here. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Comments on Elsewhere[edit]
  • "A palapa"-- duplicate link, if above point applied.
  • Unlinked here. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Several hectare of chop suey crops"-- Link chop suey.
  • Linked. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The La Olla and San Renovato dams overflowed due to excessive rainfall from Bud, causing extensive road flooding and damage throughout the historical district in Guanajuato City, Guanajuato.[63][64][65][66]" Now that's a seemingly citation overkill.
  • Removed a generic flooding reference that doesn't mention the specific dam names and also a Spanish video reference. NoahTalk 23:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "In Mexico City"-- duplicate link.
  • Removed the link. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Linked both. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " the Taos Regional Airport in New Mexico." Link New Mexico?
  • Linked at the mention of flash flood watches earlier on. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "...the 416 Fire in southwestern Colorado"-- Link Colorado?
  • Same reasoning as the above. NoahTalk 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

These are comments on a thorough read. Additionally, I would note that some sentences have double cites (i.e. "Blablabla.[1][2]"), and I would usually do a breakdown, if applicable. There also seemed to be no alt text on the infobox image. GeraldWL 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Added alt text there. NoahTalk 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As for the references, a decent number are simply saying something similar (when compared to the others on that sentence) and have mostly minor differences from each other. I don't think breaking them down further would enhance the understanding of the article. NoahTalk 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Support: all my comments resolved. GeraldWL 06:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

SG comment: I can't tell if dates are mdy or dmy (there is a mixture); I could run the script to standardize them, but I don't know which to standardize to. Since it's a Mexico hurricane mostly, would dmy be preferable, or was it written to mdy ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

In text, in the references, or a combination of both? NoahTalk 19:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Not understanding the question ... for consistency, why would in text differ from citations? Ipad typing, sorry for brevity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The reference dates have the MLA date style. The text is written as a normal United States-named storm. NoahTalk 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Willie Mays[edit]

Nominator(s): Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Willie Mays, one of the greatest and most famous Major League Baseball players of all time. I've put a lot of work into this to get it from a lower-quality B Class article to GA status. A recent peer review suggested it was too long, so I've cut it down from over 13,000 words to 8,500 in response. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


I will review as I find time; meanwhile, please see this comment on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

SFgiants17, this article is impressively researched and reflects a lot of work, and you did just what reviewers suggested at the Peer review by trimming the article to gain more focus. With that said, I don't think the article is quite ready for FAC. Another route might have been to seek further input from the people who engaged at Peer review before launching the FAC. The prose could still benefit from a good bit of fine-tuning, which can be accomplished more efficiently and pleasurably without the time pressure of a FAC, where reviewers may be reluctant to engage if they have to keep revisiting to strike issues resolved (see User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content for my suggested approach to FAC ... for one of the great greats, there are a good number of baseball writers who would probably be willing to help, if given time).
Here are just a few samples where some prose gurus might help:
  • The first sentence is labored/lengthy: Willie Howard Mays Jr. (born May 6, 1931), nicknamed "The Say Hey Kid",[a] is an American former professional baseball center fielder, who spent almost all of his 22-season Major League Baseball (MLB) career playing for the New York/San Francisco Giants, before returning to New York City to finish his career with the New York Mets.
  • Mays was raised by his father and two girls, or his father raised Mays and two girls? Mays was raised by his father,[10] as well as two girls named Sarah and Ernestine.
  • It's not clear why the opinion of a high school coach is worthy of inclusion: His coach, Jim McWilliams, said Mays was "the greatest forward passer I ever saw," and Mays drew comparisons to Harry Gilmer in a local newspaper.
  • where does the quote end ? Though he turned 18 in 1949, Mays did not graduate from Fairfield until 1950, which Barra calls "a minor mystery in Willie's life.
  • Teammate of Mays or his father ? Later that year, Mays joined the Birmingham Black Barons of the Negro American League, managed by Piper Davis a former teammate with Mays' father on the industrial team.
  • Mays is the godfather of Barry Bonds, whose father was a friend of his when they were Giants teammates. Golf was a hobby of Mays's, though he was unable to continue it (or drive a car) after 2005 because of glaucoma.

These are samples; we could go line-by-line on this FAC to polish the prose, but I believe a faster route would be to engage experienced baseball editors like @Wehwalt, Therapyisgood, and Giants2008: on a new peer review where there is less pressure. You've done the hardest work already (sourcing and putting it all on the page), but the kind of polish that is needed will make for a very long FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

@SandyGeorgia: I don't mind addressing comments here, but you're probably right that reviewers might be reluctant to give it that much attention. Would you recommend that I withdraw this nomination now and seek their help in a new peer review? Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
That would be my recommendation, but I am also hoping that one of the three editors I pinged will have a look to offer an opinion on whether this can be addressing at FAC, or is better approached off FAC. One of the could have a different opinion than mine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll await their opinion, then. Also, the comments you listed above took less than five minutes to address; I have fixed them. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Some images would benefit from being scaled up, eg Queen Elizabeth
    done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanfranciscogiants17 (talkcontribs) 14:28, December 23, 2020 (UTC)
  • File:1952_Bowman_Willie_Mays.jpg: what checks have been done to verify copyright was not renewed?
    • If you will look at the Commons page for this file, you will see that the copyrights were never renewed, according to the copyright. Images from Bowman cards are commonly used on Wikipedia articles about baseball players - see Bob Feller (later years section), Art Houtteman (infobox image), and Stan Musial (infobox image). Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I looked at the Commons page, and I do not see verification of the assertion that the copyrights were never renewed. How do we know that? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • File:The_Catch.png: the given rationale does not satisfy all of the non-free content criteria, and the source information seems contradictory - if the photographer is stated to have been an employee of the News, why would the copyright be held by Associated Press?
    • Looks like from the page that the Associated Press theory was speculative, and someone later added that the Daily News actually holds the copyright, citing where they got the source. Could you state which non-free content criteria are not satisfied? As an image of Mays merely to show Mays, it wouldn't be satisfied because there are plenty of free ones available, but this image happens to be of the most famous moment of his career, an event for which no free images seem to have surfaced. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
      • That contradiction should be resolved on the Commons page. With regards to NFCC, the current statement does not address no free equivalent and insufficiently addresses contextual significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Willie_Mays_1961.jpg: is there an image of the back to verify lack of copyright notice? Ditto File:Willie_Mays_1965.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Source review by Ealdgyth[edit]


Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the capital city of Rwanda, Kigali, my home for a few years in the mid-2000s. Founded by the German explorer and governor, Richard Kandt, it became capital on Rwandan independence in 1962. It has grown rapidly since the 1990-94 civil war and genocide and is now home to lots of shiny new buildings, making it fairly unrecognisable even compared to when I lived there! Note that this is my second current FAC nom, as I am also a co-nom on the 2018 EFL League Two play-off Final with The Rambling Man (who also performed the GA review for Kigali). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • The infobox caption mentions four landmarks, but there are only three images? Does the middle image contain two? If so suggest clarifying which is which
  • File:Rwanda_KigaliDists.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
  • It does not appear that Rwanda has freedom of panorama
  • File:Kigali_Convention_Centre.jpg: in addition to the FOP issue, I don't see this licensing at the given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: I'm not completely familiar with the FOP guidelines, so would you be able to say which of them have to be chopped? The buildings shown in File:Kandt House Kigali (back view).jpg and File:Ste.-Famille Church - Genocide Site - Kigali - Rwanda.jpg were built in 1907 and 1913 respectively, so might they be old enough to be exempt from a copyright provision? A couple of the others are just general views, which do contain buildings, but not as the main focus. Are those OK? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    They don't necessarily have to be chopped if they would be in the public domain for another reason, for example age, but they would need tagging to indicate that. These images do not currently have such tagging: Kigali_Convention_Centre.jpg, Kigali_Genocide_Memorial_Centre_-_Flickr_-_Dave_Proffer_(1)_-_cropped.jpg, Ste.-Famille_Church_-_Genocide_Site_-_Kigali_-_Rwanda.jpg, Kigali_skyline_closeup.jpg, University_of_Rwanda_headquarters.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: pardon my ignorance, but I see you have not included File:Amahoro Stadium 2003 c.png or File:Kandt House Kigali (back view).jpg on this list, but I can't see any tags indicating a FoP exception for those? Is there something different about those two? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    On those two, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't meet the threshold of originality. However, it would not be wrong to tag those as well, in case other reviewers may have a different interpretation - that element is subjective. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: I have replaced or tagged most of the FoP-affected images in the article. However, I have just seen File:La Grande Arche de la Défense and the Yaacov Agam Fountain (1977).jpg, which is a locally-uploaded non-Commons file used at La Defense, which states that it is permitted through our Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights guideline. Would something like File:Kigali skyline closeup.jpg be permitted if it is locally uploaded on en-wiki, or is there a stricter rule set in place for FAC? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
    Sure, local uploads are permitted. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: I think I have resolved all the issues you raised: Alt text has been added throughout, a source has been added for the districts map, and all building images either (a) removed, (b) tagged, or (c) uploaded locally. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


  • Reads well, I like the amount of background information that helps with understanding.
  • the city was founded in 1908 – Later in the "Colonial period" section, it is somehow indicated that the city was already existing when Kandt arrived there: He chose to make his headquarters in Kigali; and no mention anymore that he founded it.
    This seems to result from a couple of edits in the last few months that I hadn't spotted. (1) the date of founding should be 1907, and (2) the notion that the city was founded prior to 1907 and was the capital of the kings in the 16th century appears to be mostly WP:FRINGE. I have added some lines to explain this, with a source.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • more powerful neighbours, Bugesera – the latter links to modern Bugesera District, not sure if this is the correct article?
    Probably not. The area might be roughly the same, but they're different things so I've amended it to a redlink Bugesera (kingdom).  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The formation in the 17th century of a new Rwandan dynasty – I suggest "The formation of a new Rwandan dynasty in the 17th century" for better flow.
    OK, sure. Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Lake Kivu – can this be linked?
    Done. (And I've unlinked a mention further down the article).  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • led to a severe famine at the start of the Belgian administration. – Is there an article about that famine that can be linked?
    Unfortunately that one also doesn't have an article at present, but it is named by Des Forges as the Rumanura famine, so I've provided a redlink to that for now.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The RPF began attacking from the north – As the events discussed in the previous sentences took place in the city, the reader will assume "from the north of the city". Rather, it means "from the north of the country". Maybe specify for better flow.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Travel publisher Rough Guides has described – Maybe add the year of publication to make clear we are no longer in the 1930s? I initially thought it is some historic account.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe add the human development index to the text; it is mentioned in the infobox, but it would be interesting to also state the tendency (did it, or any other similar measure, increase or decrease in recent years)?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Due to its status as a colonial capital, Kigali was not historically the hub of Rwanda's cultural heritage – This does not seem logical. Being a colonial capital does not preclude being a hub of cultural heritage?
    I've removed the part about its status as a colonial capital, it's not really necessary anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Some more points may follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The country's traditional dance, a choreographed routine consisting of three components: the umushagiriro (cow dance), the intore (dance of heroes) and drumming, originated in the royal court at Nyanza – the colon within the sentence disrupts reading flow quite a bit, maybe reformulate.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • during the northern-hemisphere summer. Isn't the country it in the southern hemisphere? It should say "winter", then.
    Well, that was literally what is written in the source. And the seasons as we know them away from the equator don't really exist in Rwanda anyway. But to be clearer, I've switched it to "July or August" with an alternative source.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
    I think this was mainly a neutrality issue; many Australians reading this sentence would have been very annoyed. Your solution now is perfect! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • along with private universities the Kigali Independent University (ULK) and the University of Lay Adventists of Kigali – there is a "," missing, and possibly a "were founded"?
    text modified so hopefully it makes more sense now  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • But the top-three performing individual secondary schools – That "But" at the start of the sentence seems awkward.
    I have put a "however" at the end of the sentence instead. If you can think of a better way to phrase it, let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Any info available on the number of enrolled students at the universities? You only give number of pupils in the schools.
    I have added a line on this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I suggest to add at least one image that shows the typical aura of the city, e.g. a street with people in it. From the pictures present in the article, I didn't get a good impression on how it actually looks there. You have a nice one on your user page, for example.
    Unfortunately the picture on my user page would probably fall foul of the Freedom of Panorama issues which are mentioned by Nikki above, as it features two of Kigali's office towers. I have found a street scene on Flickr though without such issue, which is now in the infobox. If there are anyother pics you think might be valuable, let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there anything about security and crime rates, and how this compares with other large cities in the region?
    I have added a crime and policing subsection...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • That's it from me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Jens Lallensack: I think I've addressed all your points now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Support – thanks for carefully addressing all the points! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Quelccaya Ice Cap[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the second-largest (after Coropuna) ice cap that currently exists in the tropics. It lies in a sparsely populated area of the Eastern Cordillera of the Peruvian Andes and like many ice bodies in the tropics it is retreating. It is comparatively well studied, since beginning in the 1970s both its former extent and its present-day ice have been studied. Ice cores taken at Quelccaya have been used to reconstruct past El Niño-Southern Oscillation states and to infer that the Little Ice Age was a global phenomenon. As a biological curiosity, some birds have been observed to nest on the ice cap. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


  • Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 03:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I participated considerably on article talk, so will wait for others to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


  • Interesting topic, but I did often stumble over various little issues; the first bit below.
  • is surrounded by tall ice cliffs – aren't the ice cliffs part of it/form the border?
    Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The Cordillera Vilcanota mountain range is ten kilometres (6.2 mi) northwest of Quelccaya, and is sometimes considered to be part of it – part of what?
    Of the Vilcanota; replaced it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The Amazon rainforest-only 40 kilometres (25 mi) away- – we need either en-dashes (–) with spaces before and behind, or the longer em-dashes (—) without space.
  • Who did that after I went through? Hopefully you will find no more of that. Now fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It has also been compared to a plateau glacier – not sure if this should be hidden in a footnote. I think it would be helpful to provide a definition of "ice cap" (and maybe what the difference is to a plateau glacier).
    AFAIK this is a bit of a murky distinction, it's footnoted because "plateau glacier" is a much less commonly used term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Atypical for glaciers, the ice lies on a flat surface rather than on a mountain peak. – I thought it was an ice cap and not a glacier? Again, a bit of background on terminology certainly would help (point above).
    Ice caps are a form of glacier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Jens Lallensack:There is some discussion here but I don't think we can apply that to Quelccaya. Ir refers to this other source which implies that an ice cap is a form of glacier. I am not sure how to integrate this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • ice domes – can this be linked or explained?
    It's a dome-formed mass of ice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    Added an explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Close to the summit the ice is 100–150 metres (330–490 ft) thick, – summit of what, of one of the domes?
    Of the entire ice cap. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    Clarified this point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • and a total volume of over 1 cubic kilometre (0.24 cu mi). – Suggest to make this a separate sentence as otherwise it would refers the summit.
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Spectacular ice cliffs reaching heights of 50 metres (160 ft) form most of the margin of Quelccaya. – "ice cliffs" link to icefall. Is this correct? They seem to be different things.
    Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • On the southern and western sides, parts of the ice cap end at steep cliffs like those in polar regions. – What is the difference to the "spectacular cliffs" that were mentioned earlier?
    That the source makes a comparison only of these sides. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to know when the Quelccaya National Sanctuary was established (i.e., since when was the ice field formally protected)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    Yannow, according to Google the source is the only place where the existence of such a thing is discussed. Perhaps it's a wrong source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    Nevermind, found that there is one since 2020; added that in instead, with date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • as indicated by the preservation of plants below it – I was a bit confused by this. Does it mean "plant remains"? Or even "whole plants"? Surely not living ones.
    "Subfossil", which indeed translates to remains; so changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (such as during the early Holocene) and cold-based and thus not very erosive – I would place a comma behind "Holocene)", otherwise it is not clear what belongs to what; I had to read it several times before being able to understand.
  • The plateau is surrounded by an escarpment and a number of valleys emanate from the plateau. – Not ideal to have "plateau" twice.
    True, but I worry that people will assume that "it" refers to the escarpment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • these valleys include the Qori Kalis valley northwest of the ice cap, Challpa Cocha valley south of Qori Kalis, Huancané valley south of Challpa Cocha valley and "South Fork" valley south of Huancané valley. – its a bit tedious to read; do we have to repeat each valley twice? Why not simply write something like "The valleys are, from north to south, " and then list them.
  • The Huancané valley is 0.5 kilometres (0.31 mi) wide and flat and has the "South Fork" valley as a tributary. The Huancané valley runs southwestwards away from Quelccaya and is occupied by the Huancané River – Why is this valley described in greater detail but not the others? This indicates it must be much more important, but I think the reader needs to know why it is more important.
    Because there are more sources to it; if my understanding is correct Mercer 1974 & 1977 did their research there and it is frequently used as an example of Holocene glacial history in the Andes. I'd say so in the text if there was a source for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
From my understanding, in this case we need to stick with the least common denominator rather than providing excessive detail to some aspects just because they is some en passant info available in some source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I have to disagree, though. We are describing an ice cap, yes, but also some of the surroundings especially since many references to the ice cap are about the terrain previously covered by it. And I think the article makes it clear that it's not an exhaustive list. Also, since we don't have any information on the valleys east of Quelccaya the "lowest common denominator" would be to remove any discussion of the valleys, but I don't think that works per WP:WIAFA 1b. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Clay and peat are also found incorporated in moraines, where peat has been exposed by erosion during floods. – I can't follow. How did the peat become incorporated?
    Glaciers eroded it from the ground and it ended up in moraines. Mercer 1977 has on p.603 used the term "bulldozing" to explain the process; would that be clearer? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, but the part "where peat has been exposed by erosion during floods" is still not clear to me. Floods would quickly erode exposed peat, wouldn't they? Does this part of the sentence just want to inform how the peat in the moraines was discovered? What does it add? Maybe even remove to avoid confusion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Attempted a rewrite to make it clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Annual precipitation at Quelccaya and the neighbouring Cordillera Vilcanota is about 0.8–1.0 metre per year – "annual" and "per year" is redundant.
  • also generated orographic precipitation, a type of precipitation influenced by orography. – I really appreciate explanations of technical terms, but this one here in the second part of the sentence is not useful. I think it could be more specific, and it should explain "orography" to possibly be of help.
    Removed it, I don't think explaining "orography" here is trivial and no source comes to mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
What about "caused by upward movement of air in front of mountains" as explanation? I don't think that a simple explanation of terms for the general reader needs a source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Added a variant thereof, with source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Annually, about 1,150 millimetres (45 in) of snow water equivalent accumulate on Quelccaya, – But the annual precipitation was already mentioned? Seems redundant, although the info is slightly different.
    Tough one, precipitation is basically weather while SWE is more glaciology and both values are not necessarily equivalent (e.g wind driven snow transport). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this issue needs to be solved in some way (merged? remove one of them?), otherwise the article lacks integrity. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Removed one value, with an explanation in the edit summary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This moisture originates from the Atlantic Ocean – previously it was stated it originates from the Amazon.
  • there was actually a net decrease in snow height on Quelccaya. – Not sure what "actually" adds here, can it be removed? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The vegetation in the region is known as puna, which is a kind of grassland – I think it is not just one type of grassland, but a set of different ecosystems. Maybe just call it "Puna grassland" to avoid the issue.
  • and consists of herb – "herbs"?
  • which is a kind of grassland; – suggest to have a full stop here.
    I think the rewrite to drop the half-sentence is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The only human use of the area is livestock grazing but agriculture has also been reported. – If so, then "only" is not entirely correct. Maybe some other word, "main" or "mostly"?
  • There are over fifty plant species. – Still speaking about the "region west of Quelccaya"? How large is this region, how is it defined?
    The source isn't terribly clear on this point but it does indicate it must be very close to the present/recent past position of the ice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, "terrain around the ice cap" is clear enough I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Tussock grasses have been expanding in the area. – As invasive species? If so, it is important to mention. Several species of Tussock grasses or just one?
    Not as far as I can tell, the source does not specify the species. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The source says that there is a shift in vegetation (from Distichia to tussock grass) because of the retreat of ice. Just saying "Tussock grasses have been expanding in the area" is misleading. Furthermore, the source cites this information to another paper: Seimon et al. 2017. Why is this one not incorporated? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
That source applies to Laguna Sibinacocha, this one is the only one that applies the findings to Quelccaya. I've done a minor rewrite for now but perhaps a wholesale removal of that sentence is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Other plants include Festuca orthophylla, jarava ichu – Please state what type of plants these are.
  • and nettles – What do you mean with "nettles"? They are not a natural taxon.
  • Why do you specifically mention Festuca orthophylla and jarava ichu but not other plants? Are they especially characteristic, or important in some other aspect? If so, the reader should know.
I think the MINCETUR mentions them as characteristic for the area, while the other 47+ species are more of specialist interest. I've put some explanation of type. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this is a reason to be inconsistent in the article. We always have to interpret sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I've put "amphibians" instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Sediment cores in lakes and peat, soil formation and cosmogenic isotope dating have been used to infer past states of the ice cap, – Soil formation is a process; how can a process be "used"? Do you just mean "soils", or "paleosoils"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    Done to here, unless noted otherwise above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


  • the Quelccaya record has been used to infer that the Little Ice Age was a global event. The Little Ice Age is not considered a global event anymore [20]. Only the last bit shows globally coherent cooling. Very old source (1986)
    Changed the tense to make it more clear that it was a past idea. Incidentally, does Neukom et al. 2019 really say that the LIA wasn't a global event? To me it sounds like it's saying that it was not synchronous all around the world (e.g Fig 3e) which is not exactly the same thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
What would 'global event' mean then if we're not talking about something that happened globally, but rather normal internal variability? Easily to get lost in semantics here though. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that a change in tense is sufficient to indicate this is an outdated idea. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Is there a source I can use to say "before the idea of a globe-spanning Little Ice Age was discredited"? Neukom 2019 is advancing a hypothesis, but it does not say whether their conclusions have been accepted by the scientific community. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm also very sceptical of these old sources denoting cyclicity (f.i. that 14-year cycle). Statistics showing cyclicity were not always properly done in the older day of climate science. If you can't find any modern sources, I'd delete it.
    Moved them to talk in the interim, as I can't find any more recent sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The terminology business-as-usual is considered obsolete; some mitigation policy has been irreversibly implemented (solar prices are not going up again). RCP8.5 is now considered unlikely to happen, and was even at the moment of design when it was a worst case 'business-as-usual, with RCP6.0 the more likely 'business-as-usual'. I now describe RCP8.5 as a very high emission scenario on Wikipedia.
    I've put "RCp8.5" in. Is there a source I can use to explain that distinction? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I like this Carbon Brief article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@Femkemilene: Added a note with that source. Feel free to improve the text, I don't like the formulation very much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • according to Rabatel et al. 2018 once the equilibrium line altitude has reached the top of the ice cap, the entire cap will become a zone of net ice loss. remove according to Rabatel et al. 2018: this is true per the definition of an equilibrium line. Femke Nijsse (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    That was wording I added in because I wasn't certain that Rabatel et al. 2018's conclusions were universally agreed upon. I've seen no dissent (except for those due to changing emission scenarios) so it's gone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The article is full of mid-sentence citations, which impede readability. A few examples (non-exhaustive, please check through-out):
    The ice forms a relatively thin and flat structure with two, three or four ice domes, the highest of which reaches 5,645 metres (18,520 ft) elevation. (5 mid-sentence citations). Can you figure out which source is correct? Maybe send an e-mail to the researcher. If not, I'd just go with the most recent, as the ice cap may have lost domes due to melting.
    I don't think there is enough information to decide, and since it's mainly the edges of the ice cap that are retreating rather than the full outline changing, I think the discrepancy is more because they are using different definitions of "dome" than because their number has changed. Also, only Mercer appears to base their conclusions on geophysical research, while the others are less clear on how they get their conclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
    The terrain features landforms such as drift deposits, lakes, moraines and moraine-dammed lakes, outwash fans, peat bogs, rocks bearing glacial striations, streams and wetlands. Do none of the sources include multiple landforms?
    They all do, but none of them covers all landforms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
    Dust layers deposited during the dry season allow the determination of yearly layers, which characteristically thin downward. The later detail seems unnecessary (thin downward). Does the middle source not cover the entire sentence?
    Two birds, the white-winged diuca finch and the white-fronted ground tyrant are known to nest on the Quelccaya ice cap, are these two middle cites needed?
  • Semi-colons seem to be overused, leading to very long sentences.
    I've removed some, but in many instances splitting the sentences makes them flow worse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There is however some uncertainty owing to, for example, changes in precipitation, such as a potential future decrease thereof. Can be reworded to have only one example (for example and such as merged), which would also eliminate a mid-sentence cite.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Within-sentence citations; keep or remove?[edit]
  • I've dealt with some of the problems and will deal with the semi-colon thing in due course (a bit pressed for time at the moment), but I need some feedback on the readability problem. Removing the mid-sentence citations breaks the text-source integrity and I am not sure if that is a price worth paying for increased readability. Especially since, if someone then contests the rearrangement, it'd be quite difficult to revert. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I would agree that the mid-sentence citations distract quite a bit, especially because this is not what other articles do, and it therefore simply feels unfamiliar. The reader tends to stop at every such citation. I see that there might be some benefit, but I think it is minimal in most cases, especially when the cited information is trivial, for example in "The ice forms a relatively thin[36] and flat structure[28]". It might make sense to use in-sentence citations when sources contradict each other though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Let's see how far you can get without having to deal with text-source integrity. There are plenty of examples of very uncontroversial statements that nobody outside the FAC will check. Those not after a comma are especially distracting. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Jo-Jo, while I have come to appreciate your scrupulous dedication to source-to-text integrity, and desire to keep citations strictly attached to the piece of text being cited, I too agree that many citations could be better grouped after punctuation to aid readability. Doing this might also make it easier to disentangle some long sentences (where I am probably responsible for some of the semi-colon excess, as I try to break up very long sentences without being sure how to best do that without juggling the citations). In terms of meeting verifiability, often when you add citations to one piece of data, you are citing a very specific number, which (unlike paraphrased text) would not be hard to find in sources via a ctrl-f search, so I don't think removing them to a spot where there is punctuation would necessarily impede verifiability. I also recommend in some cases that the concept you are explaining is more significant than the precise number cited, and that in some cases, the numbers themselves can be moved to the end of a sentence by re-casting the sentence. Then the casual reader's eye is triggered to skim/skip the precise detail, rather than having to wade through a lot of numbers. Hope this helps; this problem arises because of your scrupulous attention to integrity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, I am convinced now. I've done some of the shuffling but I figure folks may want more. Sometimes I wonder if there is a reference style that lacks these [ and ] tags which double the size of each reference in the written form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Subsectioned this in case more people have issues or someone wants the subcites back. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


  • I'll review here once I've finished some other reviews I've begun, but in the meantime, I see some duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script.[21] FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    Well, one duplicate link (there is only one mention of "dendritic") and many references used more than once. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I see two duplinks now, Holocene and Rwenzori Mountains, have you tried the script? FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
For some reason the script I use didn't show these; they are gone now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The older script has some deficiencies, so I recommend this one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "and Quelccaya sometimes considered to be part of it" Missing "is"?
  • "Politically, Quelccaya is part of the Cuzco Department" Wouldn't "administratively" be a more fitting word?
  • "Together with Coropuna[14] volcano a" The Coropuna volcano? And that's an odd place to put a citation?
  • "also known as Quenamari and is sometimes also spelled Quelcaya," What do these names mean?
  • "and the local population considers Quelccaya an important apu, a holy spirit." Add "native" before population?
  • "A 1974 map shows a homestead on the Huancané River southwest from Quelccaya, about 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) from the ice margin.[30][31]" I'm not sure what the point of this information is. Is that homestead not there anymore? Wouldn't we know? Makes it seem like some mythological ruin.
  • The image under Ice cap is so large that it doesn't fit my very wide screen. Any reason for that size?

Battle of the Saw[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Ancient Carthaginians again. Hannibal's father making his name during a nasty episode in a nasty war. This has been through a GAN and recently an A class review - with thanks to @Hog Farm, Buidhe, Zawed, JennyOz, and CPA-5:. I have given it a little additional work since, and believe that it may now approach the standard required for FAC. I invite your critical comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

Here we go again with this nasty episode.

  • Is it possible to split the second paragraph in the lead?
Done, but I don't personally like it.
  • Hamilcar and fellow general Hanno followed and in late 238 BC wiped them out MOS:EGG here.
I'm not seeing it. In what way might a reader be surprised to click through to an account of a battle in which the rebels are wiped out?
  • Optional and their commander on Sicily agreed the Treaty of Lutatius --> "and their commander on Sicily agreed to sign the Treaty of Lutatius"?
No. He did agree to sign it, but he also, and more importantly, agreed it first.
  • and were thrown into a pit and buried alive.[26][29 Okay here we are again I don't believe unnassary citations like these should be here if a couple of sentences after this already uses these citations.
  • the modern historian Adrian Goldsworthy describes this as "a gross oversimplification".[35] Same as above.
  • had indigenous African forest elephants at the time.[note 3][40] Per this first citation and then note.
I can see no requirement, nor even a suggestion, as to which order they should go in. If I am missing it, entirely likely, could you quote the policy.
  • Well I don't think it's really called a policy. However, it uses the citation first and then the note as an example and since it's meant to help Wikipedians I assume we should follow it or otherwise it has no purpose.
Help:Explanatory notes#Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes explains how to use sfns and notes in the same article. It has to use one of the two possible alternatives when giving examples. But there is no indication that the one chosen is compulsory. If it was intended to be, surely that would be explicit; elsewhere when something is mandated the text is pretty clear. Even if it were explicit, which it isn't, this is a how-to guide, not a policy or even a guideline.
  • and they were massacred to a man. The rebel leaders were crucified in sight of their comrades --> "and they were massacred to a man. The rebel leaders were crucified insight of their comrades"
No. "Insight" means something completely different to "in sight".
  • Can you give me an example or two?
His destination is in sight.
I shall keep you in sight as I do not trust you.
They died in sight of each other.
He possesses an insight into his own condition
Einstein had some important insights.
Luxury brands are built on insights about customers' desired lifestyle.
  • After immense materiel and human losses on both sides Typo here?
Not that I can see. What were you thinking of?
  • Typo of material?
Ah! Wikt:materiel means "Military equipment, apparatus, and supplies."
  • Hanno's attitude towards tax raising from Carthage's --> "Hanno's attitude towards tax-raising from Carthage's"
  • rebel force under Spendius, which kept to rough ground --> "rebel force under Spendius, which kept to the rough ground"
I prefer it how it is. Rough ground hasn't previously been mentioned, so it would be inappropriate to talk of the rough ground; I am refering to rough ground geberally.
  • cause the Carthaginians supply problems --> "cause the Carthaginians to supply problems"
No, that would not be grammatical.
  • and either lure them onto ground of the rebels' --> "and either lure them onto the ground of the rebels"
Same issue as with "the rough ground".
  • On a thin pretext Hamilcar took Spendius, Autaritus, Zarzas and their lieutenants prisoner. Do we not need an apostrophe after lieutenants?
Good thought, but no - "their" has already established the possessive.
  • Was thinking double possessive here as in "their lieutenant's prisoner" you know the prisoner of the unnamed lieutenant or "their lieutenants' prisoner" as the prisoner of a couple of unnamed lieutenants. But I assume that's not the case.
Ah, again. If I meant Hamilcar took Spendius, Autaritus, Zarzas and the prisoner of their lieutenant/s prisoner then I would use one of your suggestions. But I don't, it is the actual lieutenants who are being taken prisoner. Does that make sense?
  • Is it possible to add another image in the sections "Opposing armies" or "Campaign"?

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5, that is very prompt of you. All of your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi CPA-5, do my changes address your points? Is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Have replied to some of your points. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi CPA-5 and thanks. My round of responses to yours is above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi CPA-5, I was wondering if there was any more to come, or if you felt able to either support or oppose yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Pompeii,_Statuette_of_a_war_elephant.jpg should include an explicit copyright tag for the original work
  • File:Poirson10.gif: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
In an 1890 French edition of Salammbô by Gustave Flaubert. Eg here, mistakenly, I believe, given as 1887.

Comments from Eddie[edit]

  • Will do Eddie891 Talk Work 21:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Carthaginian army of 20,000 men on Sicily was evacuated to Carthage." Given that this is the first sentence in a section, I think it would benefit from some more context (why they were evacuated-- possibly "upon the end of the war" or something somewhat similar)?
Good point. Done.
  • "The discontent seemed to have abated when discipline broke down." to me this could read as "because discipline broke down the discontent seemed to have abated", when you probably mean more like "just as discontent seemed to have abated, discipline broke down" I think that could be clarified?
  • "the Senate's negotiators were taken prisoner and their treasury was seized" the senate's negotiators had their treasury seized?
I am not sure if that is a question or a suggestion. If the former - yes - if the latter - I think that the negotiators being taken prisoner needs to be mentioned.
Because the modern equivalent is Utica, to which it is already linked. Same as with Tunis.
  • "He was shadowed by a superior-sized rebel force under Spendius, " is there a reason not to say "larger rebel force"?
No. (I was probably paraphrasing to avoid similar language to the source.) Changed.
  • "swapped sides with his 2,000 cavalry" perhaps it's just me, but I think this sentence could be a bit more explicit as to what sides were being swapped
OK. Done.
  • "ny further prisoners taken by the Carthaginians were trampled to death by elephants." I think this unnecessary because you already express it in more detail and context below
  • Several duplinks are present, including Gaul and war elephant
My duplink tool is playing up. Are there others it/I has/have missed?
  • "The rebel situation was not sustainable," I think it worth reiterating their situation here
Done. Briefly, you will wish to check it.
  • "The rebel commanders led an effective campaign, but they could not match Hamilcar's experience." I think this sentence is redundant to what's already been expressed
I disagree. Up to that point I have talked about their experience. Surely at some point I need to tell the reader what actually happened?
  • ". On a thin pretext Hamilcar " can you be any more specific?
It's one of those where I really need most of a paragraph to explain the details, or leave a reader wondering. It's not worht that many words, so I'll take it out; it's not a vital point.
  • "The rebels were massacred to a man" I'm personally not a fan of 'to a man'- I consider it an unnecessarily complex way to say 'without exception'
Interesting; when copy editing I tend to swap out "without exception". Gone for "All of the rebels were killed".

Great work as always, may have some further comments at a later date. Comments are minor, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Eddie891, your usual insightful set of comments. All addressed, including one where I have not gone with your suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me, Happy with your responses. Support Eddie891 Talk Work 19:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dumelow[edit]

Looks excellent to me. Only a few comments, most of which are probably personal preference - Dumelow (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  • After immense materiel and human losses on both sides, the Carthaginians were defeated[2][3] and their commander on Sicily agreed the Treaty of Lutatius.[4] My understanding of MOS:CITEPUNCT is that the citation should follow the punctuation in all but a very limited set of circumstances.
I am not sure that I understand what change you are suggesting. My citations have been placed with "All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies", from the guidance you mention, in mind.
Perhaps WP:CITEFOOT is better: "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." But it's worded more as a suggestion and the last part of the statement muddies the waters. I've always put citations only after punctuation (and usually at the end of the sentence only) but see now that this is personal preference and maybe out of line with the guidance! - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I used to group my cites more, but had several complaints from source reviewers that this made it difficult to verify my text. Now that I source review myself I can appreciate that, say, three cites at the end of a sentence when you only have access to two of the sources makes spot checking very difficult. So I try, but don't always remember (nor is it always possible) to attribute as close to the text referred to as I can. Or, to be more succinct, as you say: it is largely personal preference.
  • Several soldiers insisted that no deal with Carthage was acceptable, a riot broke out, dissenters were stoned to death, the Senate's negotiators were taken prisoner and their treasury was seized. Presumably this is a local treasury at Tunis? From the way that it is worded it could be construed as the Senate's main treasury (or maybe hat was at Tunis?).
The negotiators were despatched with sufficient cash to settle the back pay of 20,000 skilled men over several years. The sources strongly suggest that it was every bit of ready cash the Carthaginians could scrape together. This amount of state cash in one place and under the control of an official seems to me to meet the definition of treasury. I had hoped that the use of "their", ie the negotiators', would avoid any confusion with the broader use of "treasury" as a state treasury. But I am certainly not wedded to the word and would be happy to entertain alternatives.
For some reason I hadn't made the connection with money that was sent with the negotiators but it is obvious now - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Mathos ordered two groups of rebels north to besiege the two main cities – other than Carthage – that had not already come over "come over" strikes me as a bit colloquial.
Well, a quick search of the one source I can access electronically throws up "come over" in this sense twice. But changed to "rebelled".
  • Hamilcar defeated a large rebel force at the Battle of the Bagradas River and then brought various towns and cities which had gone over to the rebels back to Carthaginian allegiance with varying mixtures of diplomacy and force. "various" and "varying" felt a bit repetitive to me
True. In fact I am not sure what "varying" adds, so removed and tweaked.
  • It might be beneficial to name some of the numbered locations/movements on the map to help the reader follow the adjacent text. For example, I had no idea where Bagradas River (5?) was in relation to the previously mentioned Carthage, Utica etc.
I got told off in a previous FAC for a non-concise caption with the same map! Good point. I have added captions for Bagradas and the campaign prior to the Saw. I am disinclined to add captions for, eg, the Battle of Utica - the 4 next to the crossed swords next to Utica should be comprehensible. See what you think.
Yes, that is helpful. As you say, I think the other movements/battles are obvious - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Dumelow, this is very good of you. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Support - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Dumelow, appreciated. A comment above continues our discussion on citation positioning. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • "on a thin pretext he took the rebel leaders prisoner" - I see the prisoner piece in the text, but not the pretext?
Good spot. I removed it from the main article after discussion with Eddie891 above, but forgot to check to see if I had mentioned that in the lead. Now removed there as well.
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for publications, and if so how these are formatted
I have included locations for all books but not for articles. I had not included a location for the encyclopedis article (Eckstein) but had otherwise messed it up - see next point. Location now included for this. The only discrepancy in formatting I can see is whether I have given the next level of geographic location. I have done so where there would be ambiguity if I just gave the first level. Eg there are two places named "Chichester" in the UK, plus one in Canada and one in the US. I have removed "California" from after "Stanford" on the grounds that the publisher being the university should remove ambiguity.
If it is some other formatting inconsistency I would be grateful if you could specify. Thanks.
  • Can you verify the Eckstein ref? The doi is not working and the details from the ISBN don't appear to match up
I made a mess of Eckstein altogether. It is an encyclopedia and I managed to mix and match with "cite book"! I had skipped the location because it was an encyclopedia, but the template is now reformatted and contains the location. The doi works for me.
Hm. Still not working for me - what's the link where you end up? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, here. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Edition statements shouldn't be part of title.

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Nikkimaria. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

This nomination could do with a prose review from someone who is not a military history regular, in particular to check for jargon, recherche language and general understandability to those not regularly accustomed to the specialist terminology of military history articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Very cleanly written. We disagree on commas, but I hesitate to add too many, having read Lynn Truss on the subject. I have a couple of prose questions and a couple of more general points.

How droll. I hadn't seen that before. Possibly a trifle harsh.
  • While the war with Rome was being played out: a little informal and a little imprecise -- I can't tell whether this means "During the war with Rome" or refers to the concluding phase of the war.
Changed to "During the last years of the war with Rome".
  • The news of a formed, experienced, anti-Carthaginian army: do we need "formed"? I can't see that it adds anything.
Ho, hum. OK, I am being both pedantic and technical. Excised.
  • There's almost no discussion of the ancient source(s). Different articles take different approaches to this problem; I've written articles such as Ælle of Sussex where the sources are so scarce and hard to interpret that a section on them is obligatory. I don't know that that's necessary here, but the article seems to express no doubts at all about the reliability of what facts it gives. That's fine if the historiography supports it but I wanted to check since I know that not every Roman historian is a neutral observer.
There is disagreement between reviewers as to whether a section on sources should be included at all. I have settled on a compromise - a personal one - of including them in articles on wars, but not on campaigns or battles. I could however lift the section on "Primary sources" from the FA Mercenary War and insert it with little tweaking if you feel that would be helpful. As you can see from reading that section, the main primary source is considered a paragon among ancient historians - this is solidly reflected in the secondary literature where virtually all of the debate is around how to interpret his summary style and little or none on his veracity or accuracy. Hence the "no doubts at all about the reliability of what facts it gives" feel to the article; if such doubts aren't in the secondary sources, there isn't a lot for a Wikipedia editor to say.
Yes, he seems ideal. I'll strike the comment but you might consider a footnote for this and other articles in which the sources are not explicitly discussed, placed at the first mention of Polybius and saying he is regarded as one of the most reliable ancient historians. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems that less than half the article is specifically about the Battle of the Saw; everything in the body other than the "Campaign" section would need to be in other articles too, perhaps in more detail. Or am I misunderstanding what's specific to this battle? I had a look at some of the other Mercenary War articles and I am not necessarily arguing that this should be merged, just checking that there's a good reason for this article to be separate. Is the argument that separate battles, indexed separately in the sources, should have separate articles?
As there were six main battles in the relatively short Mercenary War (for comparison, there were four significant land battles - or arguably five - in the 23 years of the First Punic War) there is, it seems to me, inevitably going to be a fair bit of overlap around background and aftermath. That said, there are differences, usually significant, in the "War" and "Aftermath" sections as the chronology moves on. I am probably digressing. Yes, the argument is indeed that there is enough material in the sources to warrant an article for each of the six battles, the events leading up to it and the events immediately after it. One could, of course, make them more unique by removing some similar material - eg "Opposing forces" - but this would seem to pointlessly deprive a reader. Given our discussion above on sources there seems to be a case for introducing further non-unique text. Given that, for example, Hoyos bangs on for over 300 pages in Truceless War (including 21 specifically on the Saw campaign and battle) I don't think that six articles and a summary article is "milking" the sources. Obviously, other opinions may be available.
I have rattled on a bit there, apologies. Hopefully I have at least partially addressed your point.
I wasn't concerned that the articles were stretching out what the sources could supply, more checking how the division into subarticles was made. If the sources you're using go into that much detail then a separate article does seem warranted, and I take your point about the need to repeat context -- I don't think you could make the article any shorter. I think Wikipedia is inconsistent about this; we have separate articles on rulers who are no more than a name in a regnal list, which seems silly to me. Here I'd be more inclined to wonder if there's more you could add from the sources, but since I'm not familiar with them I'll trust your judgement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, all good stuff. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. I haven't read any of the previous Punic War series but found this works fine as a standalone article, and could find little to criticize. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The 2nd Armoured Division was formed in 1939 in the UK, and was built up over the course of 1940. While at home, it was assigned to a counter-attack role to any potential invasion of the UK. It then departed for Egypt, and had a substantial portion of its forces reassigned after arrival. The remnant of the division drove across land to Libya, suffering numerous mechanical breakdowns en-route. Shortly after establishing a presence on the frontline, Erwin Rommel launched his first offensive in Africa. This swept Allied forces from Libya, with the exception of Tobruk, and back into Egypt destroying the division in the process. Due to logistical, mechanical, and command difficulties, the historical consensus is that the division stood little chance to stop Rommel. The article has previously been worked on by the GOCE, and has passed its GA and A-Class reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

image review[edit]

  • Possible to increase the text size on the maps?
  • File:British_2nd_Armoured_Division.svg: what's the date of the design's creation? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for looking over the images and maps.
    I have updated the template for the insignia and placed a year of design as c.1940. The divisional HQ was formed in late 1939, and troops were not assigned until the following year. Based off the wording used by Chappell, the insignia was adopted prior to the division leaving for Egypt in late 1940.
    As for the maps, I have played around with them some. Do the tweaks work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Not super thrilled with the maps - perhaps someone at the lab could help? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    I have placed a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, hopefully there will be an answer before this FAN comes to an end.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Is this - File:AfricaMap2.jpg - of any use? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The Map Workshop was not able to assist over the last few weeks, so I have removed that request. The map that Gog indicate, I have updated and used.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


I reviewed this at GA and believe that it meets the Featured Article standards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

Hi EnigmaMcmxc, as I have reviewed and contributed to "your" articles before, I intend to simply make many of the changes which I would normally laboriously write out as suggestions. But if there is anything you don't like or don't understand feel entirely free to revert and post the diff for discussion. If you would prefer a more "traditional" style of review, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "the division was deprived of forces for a short while". I am not entirely sure what you mean by "forces". Sub units?
    Yes, and I have made a tweakEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "forced to make do with leftovers". Is there a more encyclopedic way of phrasing this?
    Tweaks have been made, do they work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The division arrived in Egypt in December 1940 and was stripped to support Operation Lustre, an expeditionary force to Greece. The rest of the division moved". Possibly a little more detail here of which sub units were transferred to what?
    I have made changes, do these work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that the quote commencing "'tank-heavy' … with too few ...", being well over 40 words (54),should be in a block quote.
  • "According to French, this thinking predominated". Which? You have just listed two.
  • "in the Panzerwaffe (Tank Arm)". 1. Why use a foreign language phrase? 2. Suggest dropping this phrase, the "German counterparts" of the "the British armoured formations" hardly seems to need explanation.
  • "The issue was broached a month later". Do you mean 'broached again'?
  • "Following the outbreak of the war". As this is its first mention I would suggest stating when it started, and perhaps even naming it.
  • "the 1st Light Armoured Brigade comprised four armoured regiments". But you then list three.
  • "The division had 77 Vickers light tanks". Between the seven brigades? So the Heavy and Light Brigades were similarly equipped?
  • "the 2nd Armoured Division had to make do with what remained." Do the sources give any further detail on this?
  • "the division had 17 new Cruiser tanks". Optional: explain what a cruiser tank is.
  • "the 102nd (Northumberland Hussars) converted to being solely an anti-tank unit." Does "soley" add anything?
  • "had the strength of a brigade group". Perhaps give an idea in line of how this compared with a division, for the uninitiated?
  • "had to rely on overland routes from Tobruk". Possibly give an idea of how far this was in miles?
  • "Once operations got underway, Neame also predicted the 2nd Armoured Division's tank numbers would rapidly dwindle due to breakdowns." Should this be 'Neame also predicted that once operations got underway, the 2nd Armoured Division's tank numbers would rapidly dwindle due to breakdowns'?
  • "The British underestimated the scope of Axis reinforcements". What does "scope" mean? Size?
  • "and preparations closing in on El Agheila". How can preparations close in?
  • The "March" section has a map - which is not up to FA standard - which seems to lack a caption/key.
  • "at least eight tanks in return". Is it not known how many tanks were claimed?
    Jentz quotes British and German records at length. This particular sentence is sourced to the British after action report that stated "The ranges given by Tank Commanders in their fire orders varied from 900 to 1500 yards, and at least 8 enemy tanks are claimed to have been put out of action by our surviving gunners." Jentz indicates that the German records only show three tanks knocked out, and an unknown number damaged.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There are several instances where the accuracy of conversions seems to me to be spurious. Eg "900–1,500 yards (820–1,370 metres)" or "2 miles (3.2 kilometres)".
    I am not sure if I am following here. The miles to km appears to be the correct calculation: roughly mi/5 then *8. As for the yards, the convert template appears to have rounded slightly. I have added an extra component of the template to remove the default rounding, which brings the figures to 900–1,500 yards (823–1,372 metres) instead. I have added this same part to most of the other templates to provide more accuracy for the mi-km conversion, epeically over larger distances.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "These figures exclude 6RTR, who had abandoned all of their M13s". 1. It should be the 6RTR. 2. If 6RTR had abandoned all of its tanks, why does the total exclude them?
  • "and omitted the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade" I am not sure what "omitted" means in this context?
  • "Following the new instructions". Should "the" be deleted?
  • "the main coastal road". "main" suggests another (non-main) road. If there wasn't one, "main" isn't necessary.

I have got as far as the start of "Demise" and am going to pause. See what you think of the copy edits and the above and I will have another look. My thoughts at the moment, which are subject to change, is that this is a basically solid article which isn't quite there yet. Specifically:

  • The prose is choppy, sometimes unclear, and tends to change tense. (I was surprised, just, to discover that it had gone through GoCE; I was going to recommend that.)
  • It needs a map showing just the relevant area of Libya with all, or nearly all, of hte places mentioned in the text on.
  • Most of "Axis offensive" is, to my mind, written in too much detail. It could do with boiling down to 50-70% of the current wordage.
  • There are little inconsistencies - eg, every unit name should have "the" in front of it - and occasional words or phrases which seem unclear.

So I am currently leaning oppose. Nothing which can't be fixed, but possibly not during this FAC nomination. But let's see if I can be pleasantly surprised. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and review. I have started working on the points that you have raised. I will take a longer in-depth look through the article too to tweak out some of the minor inconsistencies that you pointed out. Would you suggest another GoCE pass, in addition?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I am plodding my way through the article. Lets revisit in a day or two :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest doing what you are doing. Work through my points, where you agree check to see if they apply more generally. Trawl through the article with the more general points I made in mind, and see if any others spring out at you. Once that is done, and it is a job and a half, I'll have another proper read through and let you know what I think. Does that work for you? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about ancient Assyria's most famous king. Sennacherib appears as a ruthless conqueror in the Bible, with his attack on Jerusalem being portrayed (and later remembered) as a near-apocalyptic event, the city only being saved through divine intervention. The real Sennacherib was more tragic and seemingly uninterested in conquest. He was superstitious due to a religiously damning fate that befell his father and he built the greatest city the world had ever seen up until his time. Throughout most of his reign he was plagued by problems caused by his arch-enemy, Marduk-apla-iddina II of Babylon. Sennacherib stands out among the Assyrian kings as a complex figure in his own right; his reign and his actions read more like a narrative, riddled with twists and heartbreak, than the otherwise seemingly randomly directed campaigns of his predecessors and there is significant discussion to be had in regards to his actual character and who he was as a person. The article has passed through a GA review, peer review and a copy edit and I believe any potential remaining issues could be addressed during the FAC process. Should the article pass, it will be the first FA of an ancient Assyrian king. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Sennacherib/archive1, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


  • Marking my spot here, will return when I've done reviewing a couple of other FACs (also note the current palaeo collab FAC Acamptonectes needs some palaeo reviewers!). FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Any edits I do this week are actually procrastination but if Acamptonectes is still in need of reviews by next weekend (which I assume will be the case), I can take a look then :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • In the meantime, I see a bunch of duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script:[22]
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Subjects of images should preferably face the text instead of away from it. Though you don't really have much room to do that everywhere here, I think the first image after the infobox could be right aligned so that Sargon II faces the text. Then the image just below in the "Sennacherib as crown prince" section could be left aligned.
Realigned the two images specified. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Link Neo-Assyrian and other terms only linked in the intro at first mention in the article body (these are not seen as duplinks).
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Sargon claimed he was the son of the earlier king Tiglath-Pileser III" You could perhaps say "claimed he was himself the son of" for clarity, had to read it a couple of times to understand you didn't mean Sennacherib.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Assyria and Babylonia shared the same language" Mention which?
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "The relationship between Assyria and Babylonia was not entirely unlike the relationship between Greece and Rome in later centuries; Assyria and Babylonia shared the same language" This would imply Greece and Rome shared the same language, but that wouldn't be the case, no?
Languages of the Roman Empire – Latin and Greek were the two official languages of the Roman Empire, even before Byzantine times, so Rome and Greece did share a language. You are correct however that the linguistic aspect isn't really relevant to the Rome-Greece comparison on account of Latin eclipsing Greek among the Romans. I've moved the bit on them having the same language to its own sentence after this one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • You introduce "Assyriologist Eckart Frahm", but not for example Josette Elayi. Would be best to be consistent throughout when introducing modern people.
Made it consistent throughout the article to introduce with "Assyriologist" or corresponding occupation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems a bit problematic that the svg maps used are in German. Maybe English versions could be made? Perhaps the author, Enyavar, could be asked?
I've asked Enyavar at their talk page, so we'll see what happens. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Because portions of the Assyrian army were away in Tabal in 704 BC, and Sennacherib, possibly considering a two-front war too risky, he left Marduk-apla-iddina unchallenged for several months." This sentence is pretty convoluted and hard to understand. Seems to be something grammatically wrong? Perhaps the words I bolded need to be removed.
Looks like it has already been removed. I've also rewritten the sentence and split it into two, should be clearer now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "had fled to the southern Sea Land" Anything to link?
The Sea Land is explained right after and we don't have an article on it yet (though one should probably be made). I can't link to Sea Land since that redirects to the Principality of Sealand, where Marduk-apla-iddina definitely did not flee to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "brother of an Arabian queen" Link Arab? And isn't "Arabian" more of a geographic designation than ethnic, unlike Arab?
Don't think "Arabian" is explicitly wrong as the queen in question ruled in Arabia but Arab should be fine as well seeing as Assyrian inscriptions explicitly title her as the "queen of the Arabs". Changed "Arabian" to "Arab". Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "destroying the fields of the Chaldeans, Arameans and Babylonians who had supported the revolting regime and taking over two hundred thousand prisoners." Confusing who did the bolded part. If the Assyrians, you could say "and took over two hundred thousand prisoners" or such.
Yeah, it was the Assyrians. Went with your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Sennacherib described Bel-ibni as "a native of Babylon who grew up in my palace like a young puppy"." That's kind of hilarious!
Gotta love ancient writings. There's a lot of fun to be had reading ancient Mesopotamian documents commenting on politics (also if they are written by someone making the decisions themselves, such as Sennacherib) or random stuff (this customer service complaint is a classic for instance). Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
On that note, I really like the quotes sprinkled throughout, adds colour! FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Lachish is linked in two successive captions. Each term only needs to be linked in the first caption it is mentioned in.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "proclaimed a noble by the name Ethbaal as the new king of Sidon as his vassal" The double "as" is confusing. Do you mean "and" the second time?
Yeah, changed to "and" at the second time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know; changed so that it is two separate links. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The article becomes very image-heavy as you go down, and the images seem to almost clash with each other. Perhaps related images could be collected into double images, as I tried in for example Podokesaurus and Réunion ibis?
Oh, I see you had already done this a few places, but perhaps more could be tried, I attempted small fout image compilations yesterday at quagga... Could maybe be used to collect some of the Lachish reliefs?
Not ignoring this; I'll go through and fix the images sometime after christmas. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I've gone through and grouped together many of the images. Unsure about some of the ones I didn't group together, so see how you feel about the images as they are now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Levant could be linked in the article body too.
Linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Negal-ushezib and the Elamites attacked the Assyrian army " First time you spell the name "Nergal"?
Yeah, Nergal is correct (it comes from the god); fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "some Babylonians seized their king Ashur-nadin-shumi" Not sure what else you could do, but seems somewhat inappropriate to refer to someone imposed on them as "their" king...
Very true. Removed "their king" entirely so that it just says that the Babylonians seized Ashur-nadin-shumi. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "The king who had anxiously considered" Is there a reason to use the ambiguous" the king" when you are dealing with two kings here?
See under the next point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • " The king who had anxiously considered the implications of Sargon's seizure of Babylon and the role that the city's offended gods may have played in his father's downfall was gone, replaced by a king wishing to avenge the death of his son and tiring of a city well within the borders of his empire that had repeatedly rebelled against his rule." This s very specific and almost seems like mind-reading, so could be made clear if this is speculation by later historians or somehow implied by Sennacherib himself.
I've reworded this part and split it up into more sentences; this is Brinkman's interpretation of Sennacherib's reasoning. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "This leaves the blame of the fate of the temples not personally on Sennacherib himself, but on the decisions made by the temple personnel and the actions of the Assyrian people." This also reads like one historian's interpretation, so could need in-text attribution.
Something is up with this being the only action during Babylon's destruction that Sennacherib doesn't take personal credit for, but yes I agree. I've added in-text attribution here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "eradication of the Babylonia" Is "the" needed? You don't use it elsewhere when you mention Babylonia.
Removed "the". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Construction of Nineveh" This title made me think he constructed it form scratch. Is there a way to imply it was more of a expansion, rebuilding, or similar?
I've changed "construction" to "renovation", if that works better? Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "where colossal statues of bulls from Sargon's palace depicts them with five legs so that four legs could be seen from either side" I think it should be "depict"?
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Removed link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "His father forced Arda-Mulissu" This seems oddly worded considering the article is about this father (and not about Arda-Mulissu), why not just say "Sennacherib forced"? Perhaps switch it around: "Sennacherib forced Arda-Mulissu to swear loyalty to Esarhaddon, but Arda-Mulissu made many appeals to his father to reinstate him as heir".
Yeah, changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "as he had reached the height of his popularity but was powerless to do anything to him" This is a bit unclear. Maybe the last "him" could be "his brother"?
Changed "him" to "his brother". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "escaping after murdering Sennacherib" Perhaps add "after murdering their father Sennacherib?" for context?
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "and in the meantime, Esarhaddon had raised an army" Where was he at the time of the murder?
This is already in the article; he was still in "the western provinces", where he had been sent by Sennacherib, who feared Arda-Mulissu would hurt Esarhaddon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Anything specific on how his death was lamented? Anything on his funeral, ceremonies?
I don't think anything is recorded for this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "It is possible that Sennacherib suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder" This seems awfully speculative, and should probably have in-text attribution.
Yeah, you're right. I've attributed it to Frahm in the text (his full name is given earlier in the article so just including his last name down there). Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Medieval Syriac tales, characterize Sennacherib" Why the comma?
Removed the comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "where some have even been reburied" Why?
Elayi doesn't say anything except that they were large; maybe to avoid damage being caused to them by the elements (since they were too big to transport out of there)?
  • "Hormuzd Rassam returned" You shouldn't spell out his full name at second mention.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "under the Assyriologist T. Madhloom" Can we find the full name? And if not, what's the point of a red link?
I've added his full name (Tariq) and removed the link entirely. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "The traditional assessment of Sennacherib as a ruthless conqueror has faded away in modern scholarship. Writing in 1978" But can you cite a single 1978 article for this broad statement?
I've added Elayi's 2018 assessment of Sennacherib as well. Maybe this introductory sentence could be reworded to be less all-encompassing but I can't find many other concrete assessments of who Sennacherib was. I don't think many modern scholars hold the view that he was a ruthless enemy of God. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "exhibited at the Iraq Museum" You don't mention the museums in any other image captions, so it should either be removed here or added to all of then, I think...
Removed this part of the caption; IIRC it was mentioned in one of my previous Assyrian GA:s that mentioning the museum was unnecessary in image captions since objects tend to move around a lot and only be exhibited sometimes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's interesting to note even if something is exhibited somewhere temporarily, as wherever something is now, it was there when the photo was taken... But the most important thing s just to be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There are various more terms that you link multiple times in image captions which only need a link at first occurrence.
Think I've fixed all cases of this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "or because of the ill omens associated with the battlefield death" The article body doesn't seem to say specifically this was due to ill omens?
I've removed "ill omens". Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "His most famous work in the city is the Southwest Palace, which Sennacherib named his "Palace without Rival"." Should this perhaps be past tense, as it doesn't exist any more?
The palace doesn't exist anymore but it is only the "most famous work" today, hence the present tense. I'm unsure on this one but I can change it to "was" if you think that is correct. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there any speculation at all on why Arda-Mulissu was replaced at crown prince?
Not beyond the little speculation that is already in (that Esarhaddon's influential mother might have had something to do with it) - it is clear that it was a strange decision in comtemporary times as well since even Esarhaddon, who benefitted from it, commented on it later. I'm not sure if it is needed here since it might clog up an already long article, but Esarhaddon's account of this stuff is in his article, with some quotes, if readers are interested in that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Arda-Mulissu and another son" Not sure, but would it be appropriate to name the son here?
Yeah it is a bit strange to only mention one of the conspirators (even if Arda-Mulissu was clearly the senior of the two), I've added Nabu-shar-usur to the lede as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Could be nice to find a higher res version of this drawing[23] and clean it up a bit, it's pretty cool...
The image is huge (2839 x 3486) in the source specified at Commons so I've added the larger version. I agree that it's pretty cool. What type of cleaning did you have in mind? Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh, quite an improvement, I was thinking a version could be made where the border was cropped and the contrast and tint was corrected, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the 1553 drawing is really useful here, it is pretty nondescript (it looks like any random guy), and the images are really crammed in that section. Perhaps put it in a double image with the somewhat similar Georg Pencz woodcut?
I've removed the image entirely; think it would look even more crowded if grouped with the George Pencz woodcut, which looks a bit cooler anyway IMO. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I think the article looks very good now, and I hope to see more of your articles about ancient Mesopotamia at FAC! FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for taking your time to go through this one (it's one of the longest I've done) and for the support! I'm gonna have a busy spring but I'm hoping that at least one more of the Sargonids makes it over here to FAC in the not too distant future :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments (including source review) by A. Parrot[edit]

This looks close to FA standard, but I see two overarching problems. One is wordiness: ideas are often conveyed in a repetitive way, to such an extent that whole sentences could be shortened and combined with each other without loss of meaning. I've cut out some verbiage myself, but for more major instances I've listed my suggestions in the bullet points below. Second, the article seems to speculate a lot about Sennacherib's thinking and character. I'm uncomfortable with speculation about the thoughts and feelings of ancient people, especially before classical antiquity, in which we have more extensive evidence of what individuals' personalities were like. In most cases the speculation seems to be supported by the sources (though I haven't done a thorough source check), but in at least a couple of cases it seems like the article text could express more caution, and if there are sources that challenge the speculation, they should absolutely be brought in. A. Parrot (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for working through the article and for offering your input. I'll work through your comments soon, just wanted to quickly clarify that I haven't inferred any of Sennacherib's thoughts or anything of his character myself in the article; it should all come from the sources. Some of the assumptions could probably be better attributed, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Levantine War of 701 was made necessary by…" It seems like this sentence can be combined with the description of the beginning of the war in the preceding paragraph.
I've almost entirely removed the beginning of this paragraph; less repetition now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "…a campaign recorded not only in Sennacherib's own accounts, but also in the Second Book of Kings in the Hebrew Bible." It doesn't seem necessary to mention Sennacherib's own accounts here, as it's only one of many campaigns the Assyrians recorded. Secondly, why is "Hebrew Bible" used and linked here, while "Old Testament" is used and linked in the first paragraph?
Removed mention of both Sennacherib's account here and of the Hebrew Bible (since this is already stated in the first paragraph). Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The opening paragraph leaves one wondering why Ataliya was ever considered Sennacherib's mother. Elayi specifies that Ra'īmâ was identified by a new reading on her stela, so it seems worth pointing out that a recent development changed the picture. According to the article on Sargon II, Ataliya's grave is also a fairly recent discovery, from the 1980s, so if the sources specify that those two developments changed the picture, it seems best to say so.
Added dates and changed some things around here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Why would Sennacherib's mother have to have lived to 692 BC? Or should that clause apply specifically to Ataliya because her approximate date of death is known? If the latter, does it derive from her grave?
Inscriptions mention a "Queen Mother" as alive in 692 BC and as that title only applies relative to the king, that means that Sennacherib's mom was still alive by then. Added this with source to the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "…though his letters indicate he wanted to please Sargon, they also show he knew him quite well." It's hardly surprising that these would both be true. It would be more straightforward to say "his letters indicate he knew Sargon well and wanted to please him."
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Sennacherib may have resented his father for this as he missed out on the glory attached to military victories." Elayi mentions this possibility in a rhetorical question, which seems like an even weaker way of putting it forward than stating "Sennacherib may have…". If it were me I would leave this sentence out, but if you want to keep it, at least qualify it further by attributing it to Elayi.
Elayi brings this up later in the book again (amended the citation to list both pages); so she appears to believe that it is a possibility and I think it is worth noting. I've attributed it to Elayi in the text. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "…not entirely unlike…" is wordy, and this kind of double negative is rarely advisable. "Similar to" works fine here. That said, the paragraph as a whole is great at clarifying the cultural background, and it ends with the kind of punchy sentence that we rarely get to write in Wikipedian NPOV-speak.
Changed to "similar to". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "He appears to have been in denial, refusing to acknowledge and deal with what had happened to his father." More psychologizing; I can only access a snippet of the source on Google Books, so I can't see on what grounds the source suggests it, but it seems like it would need greater qualification. In the snippet that I can see, the wording is uncomfortably close to that in the article text.
I've attributed it to Frahm and added in his direct quotes, which should help with the problem of the wording being uncomfortably close. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "…images that Sargon had created at the temple in Assur…" Were they statues or reliefs?
The source did not specify. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Sargon's wife Ataliya was buried hastily when she died without regard to the traditional burial practices…" In what way? She was stuffed in a coffin with another body, but the structure of the sentence implies that there was more to it than that. In addition, the sentence would be clearer if rearranged to begin with "When Sargon's wife Ataliya died…".
The odd coffin-sharing was the "withour regard for ..." thing IIRC, changed the wording here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Notably, it is the most well-documented event in the history of Israel during the First Temple period" could be shortened through merging with the preceding sentence: "…is very well-documented compared to many other events in the ancient Near East and is the best-documented event in the history of Israel during the First Temple period."
Done as per your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Marduk-apla-iddina's main strength…" This sentence seems redundant with the one about the results of Elamite support later in the paragraph.
Removed the sentence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The sentence that begins "He conspired with Egypt…" is confusingly structured, making it unclear whether the actions later in the sentence were performed by Hezekiah or Sidqia.
Hezekiah did them; made this clearer. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The two sentences about the Rabshakeh could be shortened and combined with each other.
Shortened and combined. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The same is true for the beginning of the paragraph about Ashur-nadin-shami's apparent position as crown prince.
I've shortened this paragraph a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "The king who had anxiously considered the implications of Sargon's seizure of Babylon…" This sentence feels like it could be shortened a good deal.
I've split it up and changed things around, you're welcome to take a look and see if parts of this should still be removed or if you think it's fine as is. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "…it is possible to assume some aspects of Sennacherib's character." I think "infer" would work better here.
Changed to "infer". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "…the popular image of the king has been mainly negative. There are two primary reasons for this. The first is…" The middle sentence could be cut out and "The first" amended to "The first reason…"
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • If "world event" is worth putting in quotes (as it is, because it's not a common term), it should be attributed.
Attributed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "In Midrash, similar examinations of the Old Testament…" Similar to what?
Removed "similar" here, unclear why it was there in the first place. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking about doing a source review for this article as well, given that I'm familiar with an adjacent field and source reviews are in short supply, but I'm not good at detecting problems with the formatting of sources, and I'm not sure I'll have time. In any case, here's my last round of comments outside a source review.

My only substantial point is about Egypt: Egypt in Sennacherib's time was really the Kingdom of Kush, which should be mentioned and linked. Moreover, there's a hypothesis (first advanced in a rather polemical fashion by a non-expert, but deemed worthy of consideration by a whole volume's worth of RSes) that the Kushite forces were responsible for the lifting of the blockade of Jerusalem. I don't know how you want to treat that, but I'd be inclined to briefly mention it as a possibility. The rest of my comments are mostly more prose stuff. A. Parrot (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added that Egypt was under the Kushites in the time of Sennacherib. I think the hypothesis of Kushite intervention is worth mentioning as a possibility; I've added it to the article but I haven't elaborated on it; a more elaborate discussion of this idea (and the other ones) could probably be added in an eventually expanded Assyrian siege of Jerusalem (where it is already mentioned briefly). Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the third paragraph could still be trimmed a bit, like so: "In the Levantine War, the states in the southern Levant, especially the Kingdom of Judah under King Hezekiah, were not subdued as easily as those in the north. The Assyrians thus invaded Judah."
Trimmed as per your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems like the discovery of Ataliya's grave would go more naturally in the sentence that mentions the information derived from it: "…Ataliya's grave at Kalhu, which was discovered in the 1980s, indicates she was 35 years old at most when she died."
Yeah, I agree. Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The sentence about Assyria and Babylonia as husband and wife is awkward. Perhaps: "The relationship between Assyria and Babylon was emotional in a sense; Neo-Assyrian inscriptions implicitly gender the two countries, calling Assyria the metaphorical 'husband' and Babylon its 'wife'."
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The passage about the Rabshakeh's threat could be rendered more directly: "According to the Biblical narrative, a senior Assyrian official with the title Rabshakeh stood in front of the city's walls and demanded its surrender, saying the Judeans would 'eat feces and drink urine' during the siege."
Amended to almost your suggestion, with "threatening that" instead of "saying". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not clear to me from either Luckenbill or 2 Kings that Sennacherib remained at Lachish while fighting Libnah. Perhaps you could say: "According to the biblical account, the Assyrian envoys to Hezekiah returned to Sennacherib to find him engaged in a struggle with the city of Libnah."
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "…and Sennacherib granted substantial portions of Judah's land to the neighboring kingdoms of Gaza, Ashdod and Ekron."
Changed to this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the third paragraph about the Elamite campaign could be crisper; something like "Sennacherib was cut off from his own empire by Elam and Babylonia, whose alliance now had the upper hand."
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The link to Hanigalbat goes to Mitanni, a kingdom that had been defunct for centuries in Sennacherib's day, though apparently Hanigalbat became a province within the Middle Assyrian Empire. Was the term used for a city in Sennacherib's time?
Good spotting. I made a mistake here; Hanigalbat is used as a name for the wider geographic region corresponding to the ancient kingdom in the source. Fixed the error. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Source review

As I said, I'm not the best at finding errors in source-list formatting, but everything looks well and consistently organized. Most of the sources look to be of excellent quality. There are a few I can question, though. A. Parrot (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Barcina Pérez has some problems. It seems to be a master's thesis, which isn't generally regarded as an RS, but you've formatted the citation as a journal article, which it doesn't seem to be. Can it be replaced with a stronger source? If not, is there anything about it than makes it more reliable than a typical master's thesis?
  • Luckenbill is a very old source. Luckenbill 1927 is an anthology of primary source texts, but Luckenbill 1924 is a history, and a lot of the article is dependent on it. Interpretations of ancient texts can change a lot in a century. My advice is to look over the passages cited to Luckenbill and see if they can be replaced or bolstered by a citation to a more recent source.
  • It's also weird to include Luckenbill's two books in the external links as well as the works cited. The works-cited entries already link to the online copies of Luckenbill, so putting them in the EL section is redundant. I know that that if you remove them the Commons category box is left sitting awkwardly on the right side with nothing under the section header, but you can use {{commonscat-inline}} to put the Commons category in a bullet point instead.
  • Mark seems to run one of the better publicly accessible ancient-history sites on the web, but that doesn't make him an RS. The only thing you cite him for is the statement that Sennacherib is one of the best-known Assyrian kings because of his prominence in the Bible; do none of your other sources say that?
  • The Google Books URLs often include specific search terms that only apply to one passage in the article. It's more convenient to have a nonspecific link to the book.

Citations and spot-checks

I've checked at least twenty citations to the sources that I can access. Most have no problems, but here are the problems I found.

  • Why are there citations in the lead section? FAs generally shouldn't (though there seems to be an unwritten exception for details about spellings and pronunciation of a subject's name). Aside from the details about the name, I don't see anything in the lead that isn't supported in the article body aside from the assertion that Sennacherib is one of the best-known Assyrian kings, which should be somewhere in the Legacy section.
I'm going to be very busy for the next 10 to 11 days so I won't be able to deal with most of the source review very fast but I'm going to respond to this point immediately; I agree that there shouldn't be any citations in the lede (with the exception of the name stuff, which feels appropriate when compared to other articles). I've added that he is one of the best-known kings in the legacy section and removed that citation from the lede. The remaining citations in the lede serve to counteract vandalism. There have been at least one time where someone tried to remove that Marduk-apla-iddina was a Chaldean (unclear why) and the passage about how it is unlikely that the Assyrians were outright defeated at Jerusalem and that Sennacherib actually won the Levantine war (through Hezekiah submitting to him) was very frequently vandalized (since it contradicts the Bible) before the citations for that part were added to the lede as well. Not sure if there is policy justifying this, but there has been much less vandalism since they were added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand Citation 4, though I assume it's meant to function as a note as well. I'm assuming this is how Sennacherib's name was spelled in Sumero-Akkadian as opposed to Assyrian cuneiform, but it's not apparent why it's moved down there when the Neo-Assyrian cuneiform spelling is in the running text, especially because the article doesn't contain any other notes. I can't make head or tail of the cited source either, though I'm guessing that Sennacherib's name in cuneiform is contained within the inscription.
  • The citation structure in the section on Sennacherib as crown prince is odd, treating pages that are very close together as if they have to be cited separately. Citation 18 could easily be changed to pp. 30–31 and Citation 16b eliminated so that Citation 18 would cover most of the paragraph. Similarly, Citation 21 can simply be merged with Citation 20, which includes the same page as Citation 21.
  • Citation 32, to Frahm, checks out in and of itself, but it doesn't say anything to connect Sargon's unspecified "sin" with the taking of Babylon, nor does it say at what point in Sennacherib's reign he expressed concern about it. Unless Brinkman (which I can't access) says something about it, the sentence about Sargon's "sin" looks rather like synthesis.
  • Out of the Luckenbill 1924 citations, I particularly wonder about Citation 59: the assertion that Humban-numena had suffered a stroke that locked his jaw. I don't know the which ancient text says this (Luckenbill leaves it unclear), but it seems like the kind of thing that some later scholar might reinterpret as a metaphor or as a derogatory remark by the Assyrians. Do the more recent sources say anything about it?
  • The wording of the text supported by Citation 74 is uncomfortably similar to that of its source.
  • Citation 95 ("He viewed Assyria's enemies as people who did not respect the gods…") seems to be cited to the wrong page, and possibly the wrong book (it's to Elayi 2017, which is her book on Sargon II, rather than the one on Sennacherib published in 2018).


I enjoyed reading this article a lot – I found it easy to read and well-explained, and therefore learned much from it.

  • Why do you choose the name Kalhu and not Nimrud, which is much more widely known?
  • The population of Babylonia was divided into various ethnic groups with different priorities and ideas – I don't understand what you mean with "ideas" here. "Ideals"?
  • The section "Assyria and Babylon" provides the basic background. Why isn't this the first section of the article?
  • Before he began any other major projects, one of Sennacherib's first actions as king was - these two parts of the sentence are somewhat redundant, maybe remove one of them.
  • under the command of his commander – what does this add? It seems unsurprising to me that the commander had the command.
  • seemingly spent the rest of his reign in peace, – reads a bit awkward, maybe this can also simply be removed as the rest of the sentence tells everything already.
  • After the reliefs were completed, – this also seems redundant.
  • makes this idea somewhat unlikely – Can we drop "somewhat" here? Also, is this accepted consensus?
  • apparent for several years – "apparently"?
  • The event and its aftermath affected and had consequences for not only the Assyrians and the Israelites, but also the Babylonians, Egyptians, Nubians, Syro-Hittites and Anatolian peoples. – what are those consequences?
  • Many of Sennacherib's reliefs are exhibited today at the Vorderasiatisches Museum, the British Museum, the Iraq Museum in Baghdad, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Louvre in Paris. – Some of these museums were already mentioned for the inscriptions; seems repetitive and redundant to list them again for each category of objects. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


Image review

  • Some images are missing alt text
  • Suggest scaling up the maps, and would it be possible to get English versions? If no, suggest including the displayed labels as translations in the caption
  • Captions need editing for grammar
  • Images of 3D works from places without freedom of panorama should include explicit tags for the original works
  • File:DESTRUCTION_OF_SENNACHERIB'S_HOST..jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Ditto File:Inschrift_über_dem_Kopf_des_Königs_Sennacherib.jpg
  • File:Palace_of_Sennacherib_Restored.jpeg: source link is dead, needs a US tag
  • File:A_dictionary_of_the_Bible.._(1887)_(14801703843).jpg: as per the Flickr tag, this should have additional tagging indicating specific reasons why it's PD
  • File:The_Death_of_Sennacherib_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Columbia, South Carolina, Sesquicentennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about... another of the commemorative half dollars issued in 1936. This one wasn't scandalous and they went out of their way to be fair, other than unnecessarily having the coins struck at multiple mints, increasing the cost to the individual collector seeking a complete set. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Nikkimaria, but I've added three more. Could you clear those?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • New images need alt text
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Seal_of_South_Carolina.svg: the rendition here is different from the one provided at the source site - what supports that the one here is a US federal government work? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Switched to the state legislature's site, which contains the history and so it's out of copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources are of the first rank. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

Am currently obsessed with old and rare coins.

  • Link Treasury Department?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • was a committee to be established by Columbia's mayor Who is he?
Named.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Davidson, a Jewish immigrant from Russia If he was from Russia then pipe it to the Russian Empire if he's from Soviet Russia then we better link that.
He left in 1922, but the source doesn't say exactly when in 1922. Although the USSR was formally created close to the end of 1922, I don't like to presume it was after Davidson left. Open to ideas.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • 9,007 were struck at Philadelphia, 8,009 at Denver and 8,007 Per MOS:NUMNOTES we should avoid numbers at the start of a sentence.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

In the infobox

  • "Value: 50 cents (0.50 US dollars)" Shouldn't it be "(.50 US dollars)" I don't know I thought that Americans don't use the nought before the full stop in numbers a lot?
I believe the idea is that the leading zero provides clarity.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
The weight of the half dollar, in 1936, was defined by section 15 of the Coinage Act of 1873 as "twelve grams (grammes) and one-half of a gram (gramme)". Although the other dimensions are not prescribed by law, it seemed best to be consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Composition: 90.0% silver 10.0% copper" I don't know if it's necessary but shouldn't the noughts be rounded since they're unnecessary?
They are not required in this case but earlier in US coinage history it wasn't an even 90 percent so again, consistency seemed in order. I don't see it as a big deal either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Where is the US/imperial conversion of the mass?
Generally, we've avoided using it because of possible reader confusion between the total mass, and the amount of pure silver it contains. It's easy enough to convert.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Due to real life, it may be two or three more days until I can deal with these.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
All done or replied to. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I collect silver dimes and nickels, so I might actually have some background knowledge as to this subject. Hog Farm Bacon 06:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  • It strikes me as odd for some reason that you use both "fifty-cent piece" and "half dollar" in the lead.
They are the same thing, and saying that the Columbia half dollar was a commemorative half dollar would not be an improvement, I suspect.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "frustrating coin dealers who hoped to accurate more to resell to their customers." - Disclaimer: I speak a very bastardized rural form of South Midland English, so maybe I'm just illiterate. But I have never in my life seen an instance in which "accurate" would have the correct meaning here. Is this a typo, or did I increase my vocabulary today?
Typo. Burned by the autocorrect on a recent edit and wasn't careful in checking.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • In the lead, you say that the New State House was completed in 1907, the body says 1903
It seems a bit foggy as work continued until 1907, but there's a book used as a source in our article on the State House that says it was declared substantially completed in 1903, so that's what I'm sticking with.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Uncited stuff in the infobox: not seeing where mass, diameter, the reeding, the composition, or the quantity of silver is cited.
Cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

That's my comments. This one is in pretty good shape. Hog Farm Bacon 20:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Much obliged. I've responded or made changes regarding each.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Supporting, very nice work here. Hog Farm Bacon 00:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • Not a source review, but I see you have an ISBN for Taxay, which is given as 1967; do you need an orig-year parameter here?
I don't have my copy with me so changed to 1966 per Worldcat and will double-check.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • was settled by British colonials: I would have expected "colonists" here; is there some distinction of meaning?
They were of British origin, not necessarily born in Britain but descended from. "Colonials" I thought more common for pre-1776. Open to suggestions.
Footnote dropped.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A concise and well-written article; I was unable to find a single thing to copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. See above for responses.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Support, though I think the wording in the footnote needs a tweak. Shouldn't it be something like "The flag of the Confederacy had 13 stars..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24[edit]

Being such a short article, I suspect I'll do a source review after this content one. Aza24 (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • There are some dup links
I saw sabal palmetto. That was because the first link was in an unexpected place and I thought it best to relink it for the design section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You have A. Wolfe Davidson in the lead but spell out his first name everywhere else
A lot of the sources just use the A. I've standardized with the Abraham.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In my mind it makes more sense to stick with "Lady Justice" consistently, rather than sometimes "Justice" – but I'll leave that completely up to you; either way, the lead doesn't capitalize "Justice" but you do so in the Preparation section
Cleaned up.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I must say, I'm not sure what is meant by "coin redemption" in the lead
Surplus commemorative coins were often returned to the Mint and they paid the face value and then melted them for recoinage. I've tried to clarify a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Surely "despite the fact that the...."? or perhaps something like "despite the Treasury Department's opposition and President Franklin D. Roosevelt asking in 1935 that Congress..." would be better
  • you mix up ." vs ". but perhaps you're following a convention of some sort?
  • Alright that seems to be it, there's little to say here, though I tried to give you something. Good work!
  • Was doing a source review but am now seeing Ceoil checked through them above. Well I can also confirm that there are no issues in formatting or reliability. Aza24 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi-5 (Australian band)[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the Australian children's musical group Hi-5 - they once rivalled the Wiggles in popularity, but as of this year, the band is inactive, ending a 20 year run. The page reached Good Article status in 2016, and I have worked on it for 5 years now. This is the 4th attempt at a Featured Article nomination, however, my most recent attempt was hindered due to minimal comments on the review. Now that I am more familiar with the process, having just secured my first FA with Bluey (2018 TV series), I believe that I will be able to secure more comments on this review. I am fully committed to the process, ready to collaborate with other editors, and have seeked out the involvement of mentors through a very successful and detailed peer review which has just been closed.

@Aoba47: and @SandyGeorgia: I am so grateful for your guidance through the most recent peer review, and would appreciate your continued feedback here.
@Casliber: @Dweller: @: @Nick-D: @Shaidar cuebiyar: @Aircorn: Thank you to these editors who have all been involved in GA reviews, FA nominations and peer reviews of this article in the past. If you are able to, I hope you will provide your feedback to the article again.

Looking forward to feedback. Thanks in advance! SatDis (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The article was also copy-edited through the Guild of Copy Editors by @Twofingered Typist: SatDis (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Just a reminder to leave some comments if you are able to. Thank you in advance! SatDis (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

My policy when I have previously engaged an article (on talk or at peer review) is to wait until uninvolved editors have been through, as they will likely see things that I didn't. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for letting me know! SatDis (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Apologies for the ping again. Just wondering if there's been enough traction for you to leave comments now? I'm eagerly awaiting feedback. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For the lead, I'd move the sentence on the Hi-5 show right after the lead sentence to group the information on the show together. I'd focus on making these parts on the show flow a little more as it reads a little off to me.
  • Moved.
  • This sentence, Five performers who entertained and educated preschool-aged children through music, movement and play made up the group, reads a little awkwardly to me. I think something like, The group were made up of five performers who entertained and educated preschool-aged children through music, movement and play, sounds more natural to me even though it swifts to a more passive voice.
  • Fixed.
  • I am not sure why Kathleen de Leon Jones' maternity leave is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead since she was not the last of the original members to leave the group. I would remove it.
  • Removed.
  • For this part, released music albums, why do you specify "music albums"? I would think most people associate albums with music unless it is specified otherwise.
  • Fixed.
  • For this part, placing in the Business Review Weekly's annual list several times, I would give an exact number if known. I have a similar comment for this part, They collectively starred in numerous television series. I am guessing that an exact number would be known.
  • There is no exact number available. I can only cite two to three times they appeared, but I'm sure there are more.
  • Have actually found 5, but there are definitely some missing so I don't want to put a number on it. SatDis (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I have also stated seventeen television series, but I am referring more to seasons. Is that what you meant? ... But that is for all of the groups, does it sound like the paragraph is referring to solely the original cast? SatDis (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarifications. If the exact number Business Review Weekly's annual list appearances is unknown, then the current wording is fine. I'm American so series to me means separate shows not seasons, but I know that series is used to mean a season outside of the US. That's where I got confused so apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • When you talk about the 2017 revival in the lead, I would add a link to Hi-5 (2017 TV series, series 1). I would also add the link to the body of the article. Also, why do you call it "attempted"? The revival did run (even if it was only for a single season).
  • Have linked in both places, and changed it to "short-lived".
  • That seems better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The Hi-5 (Australian TV series) article mentions that the group was named after the high five gesture. While that is fairly obvious, I think it is still worth stating in the body of the article.
  • I did have this in previously, but I only just removed it in the peer review, as the citation was not from a verified source. I could not find any other reference and figured it was obvious information.
  • Understandable. If a high-quality reference for this cannot be found, then it should not be in the article. I am guessing that articles just assume everyone can deduce this by themselves. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are some comments mostly on the lead. I am trying to go through the article slowly to be as thorough as possible and since it is rather long (which is not bad), it will take me some time. Here are some comments to start with. Aoba47 (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks, @Aoba47: I have left replies above after each point. SatDis (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the replies. I will try to finish up the review sometime later this week. Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It may be beneficial to link preschool in the lead and the first instance in the article. I noticed you linked it in Bluey (2018 TV series), and it may be helpful for readers who may not be familiar with the preschool age range for instance.
  • Done.
  • For this part, Kellie Crawford (née Hoggart), the maiden/family name is not needed so remove it.
  • I have included this for Crawford because she was mainly referred to as Hoggart for the majority of her tenure. So older fans reading the article may only recognise her maiden name. Please let me know if I should still remove.
  • I see your point. I will leave this to other editors as I do not have a strong opinion about it. It was just something I noticed while reading the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This part, After being commissioned and filmed beginning in October 1998, is not grammatically correct. I would change it to and filming began in October 1998 instead.
  • Fixed.
  • This part, with their releases consistently receiving album accreditations, uses the "with +ing" sentence construction, and that is discouraged in FAs. I do not have a strong issue with it, but this is a common note I have received and see in FACs. I see it in other places like, with a circus theme incorporating tricks such as trapeze, tightrope walking and gymnastics and with one reviewer finding fault with the group's vocal abilities, so I would check the article as a whole.
  • Have fixed these three instances.
  • Thank you for addressing this. Here are other instances of it: with Nine Network representatives saying she would leave to explore "other career options", with new member Gabe Brown taking his place in February, and with groups touring and producing local adaptations of the television series. I think those are the only remaining instances in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Added.
  • I am not sure why useful this sentence, Crawford described the band as "a pop group for kids". really is since at this point I think it is already clearly established they are a pop group for kids. This quote is repeated in the "Musical style" section, where I think it makes more sense.
  • Have removed and kept only in the "Musical style" section.
  • I would avoid having two sentences in a row with "performed". I am referring to an instance in the first paragraph of the "Early success" subsection.
  • Fixed.
  • Would you consider adding years to the subsection titles to make the chronology easily understood at glance? This is something commonly done in biographies like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and Lorde for instance.
  • Yes, I have considered this before. Have added these in. Could you please comment on how I've changed Fourth generation: Short-lived television revival to 2016–2019: Fourth generation, short-lived television revival with a comma? I already had to colon and am not sure if it should be used twice.
  • I think the commas are much better than repeating the colons. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • For this part, Robinson (by then Delaney), I am not sure the parenthetical information is needed.
  • Noted. The only reason it was there was because all of the sources referred to her as "Delaney" and this might be confusing information, seeing as it was her married name and she's since changed back to her maiden name.
  • This was not immediately clear to me while reading the article so it came across as rather random, but I will leave this matter up to other editors as this is pretty minor and I do see your point. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • Link equity in the body of the article. It is linked in the lead, but not in the actual article.
  • Done. I have also linked equity group on a separate occasion to avoid confusion.
  • Thank you for linking this and the link to equity group is very helpful, particularly for someone like me who has very little knowledge (embarrassingly so) on this topic. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I notice there is a far bit of repetition between the "History" section and the later sections. For instance, both the "History and "Education theory" sections both talk about the group being the audience's older siblings rather than adult teachers and the music video inspiration. I'm not saying it is wrong, but I just wanted to bring this to your attention.
  • Okay, thanks for noting. If a reviewer sees it as significant that I remove the duplication, I will do so. For example, I think both of these would suit the "Education theory" section more effectively.
  • I just thought it was worth noting. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I have noticed in your sandbox, there is a fair bit of new information on the group that is not used in the article. What are your plans for that?
  • Yes, that is all drafted information for projects that were upcoming... for example, an animated series. These didn't eventuate so they will just remain as drafts for now.
  • Thank you for the explanation. I was just curious about this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • That image was actually non-free which was tagged as public domain, incorrectly (it should actually be deleted). I had to reupload the image for the TV series article, and that is only licensed to appear on that one page.
  • That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. I am not sure how to do anything with images and I would tag it for deletion if I know how to do that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That's it for all of my comments. I thought I might as well finish the review today. I am only focusing on the prose as I am not familiar with the publications being used as I am not from that area. I hope these comments are helpful, and have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you so much for your comments, they have been so helpful. I have left replies to them above. Please let me know if any further changes need to be made. SatDis (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the responses to everything. The only point remaining is that there are three "with +ing" sentence constructions in there that could be corrected. Once that point is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope this FAC does better this time around given all of the work you have put into it over the years. Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for the comments @Aoba47: I have changed those -ing sentences. I really appreciate it, and I will definitely be working hard to make sure this article gets more comments this time around! SatDis (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I support this nomination for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


As I am increasingly busy irl, there will be a delay in my review. Placing this as a placeholder. On first glance, the article is in good shape for FA. As I voiced my support for this article based on prose (May 2019 FAC), I'm hoping to support on prose again. As mentioned by another review in the previous FAC, however, there may be spotcheck issues, which I'll leave to the source reviewer, (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I believe then-record should be avoided unless a mention of who broke the record and when it was broken is there
  • Fixed.
  • I am dubious if the personal relationships between members (i.e. Crawford and Foley's planned marriage) are necessary here
  • Hmm, okay. Other FA the Wiggles mentions the wedding of two of its members, but I will remove if you think I should.
  • Unless the events impacted the lineup/schedule of the group then I don't think it's needed, but it's up to you, (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Overall the flow is easy to follow, which I think is excellent
  • Thankyou! I've spent a lot of time on perfecting this.
  • Are there any info on "iconic" songs or performances by the band?
  • Not so much performances, though I have mentioned the Sydney Opera House as a highlight venue. Hard to find reliable sources about iconic songs which aren't advertisements.
  • I think a link to A$ is needed
  • Have linked on first time in lead and prose.
  • I will not be reviewing sources, but I have some concerns with Twitter as a source used in this article.

Overall that's all I have. A well written article! Will be happy to support once my concerns have been addressed, (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not realize the Stevie Nicholson tweet was not about himself; I agree that his tweet cannot be used to source a fact about other members. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No worries, have removed that Twitter reference but kept the other one as it's from the official account.
  • Thanks @: I have addressed your comments. Please let me know if anything was missed. SatDis (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Happy to support on prose. It's great to see your dedication after quite a few unsuccessful FACs! (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Have removed on the basis of it sounding like celebrity gossip. Thanks so much for the support @: I really appreciate it! SatDis (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Le Panini[edit]

As per request from my featured article review, I'll leave some comments that will eventually lead to a support. It's a good article, hence the GA promotion, and have little to pick at. This could be nitpicky depending on how you view it. This list isn't really organized, as I kinda just jumped around.

A featured article review is for articles that need to have their already-conferred FA status re-evaluated. Yours is a featured article candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The article should have a short description.
  • Thanks for picking that up.
  • "In July 2006, de Leon Jones said she was intent on returning to Hi-5, however, in July 2007, made the decision to leave the group permanently to focus on being a mother." This should be split, using either a period or a semicolon.
  • Done.
  • The sentences about Crawford and Foley's relationship floats between two paragraphs, and should be merged to one of them.
  • Have moved these.
  • Is there citation for the sentence Hi-5 continued to film one television series and record one album each year.?
  • No, I have removed this line.
  • "Four of their albums reached the top 10 on the ARIA Albums Chart; It's a Party (number four, July 2000), Boom Boom Beat (number three, August 2001), It's a Hi-5 Christmas (number four, December 2001) and Hi-5 Hits (number ten, July 2003)." Why are these not organized in any numeric order? I think the sentence would flow better with it, but probably not.
  • I have listed these in order of their release, which I think flows nicely. Let me know how you might word it if it were changed.

But seriously, fix these and a support from me. Good job! Le Panini [🥪] 05:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks so much for reading @Le Panini: I have addressed all of your suggestions. SatDis (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Great article! You have a support from me. Le Panini [🥪] 15:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Heartfox[edit]

  • created the television series for the Nine Network → they actually created it specifically for Nine?
  • Yes, they pitched it to Nine and I have cited the source again to make this clear.
  • Ref 2: Do you have access to If so you should clip the article rather than linking to the page. The citation should also include regardless. I can clip it if you don't have access. Additionally, the newspaper is The Sun-Herald, not The Sydney Morning Herald.
  • Really? Thanks. I have changed to The Sun-Herald, but the page I was reading said The Sydney Morning Herald. I only have access to the OCR transcripted on that web page, but I am unsure what you mean with "clipped"... I would appreciate your help.
  • Ref 3: The date says November 19 for me, not November 18 (maybe time zone difference?). It does not refer to her as the co-creator.
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 5: it only goes to page 8?
  • Error with the chapter archiving - this is now been fixed.
  • Ref 7: She doesn't say it "could", she says it does.
  • Fixed.
  • The band's work had multiple layers → like what?
  • Have removed mention of layers as it is ambiguous.
  • Ref 8 doesn't mention the editors given in the citation
  • Removed, was previously added in GA review.
  • Ref 4: pages 41–42 cited don't mention them intending to act as older siblings
  • Thanks for picking up, have amended as it was on page 40
  • Harris's inspiration for Hi-5 came partly from living in England, where she realised she could develop a show with universal appeal and accessible themes such as family and animals. → her quote could be better explained than this (right now I don't know what living in England and the realization she could develop a show with universal appeal have to do with each other)
  • Have changed to Harris was inspired develop a show with universal appeal and accessible themes such as family and animals.
  • She strove to incorporate items of current interest → like what? are we talking current events, news stories, pop culture references, etc.??
  • Have updated to She strove to allude to items of current interest (such as relevant curriculum as well as popular jokes, films and music) as supported by the reference.
  • Fixed.
  • I know sources differ but it's kind of hard to understand what the target audience is when some sentences say 2–8 year olds and others only refer to preschoolers.
  • The target audience is 2–8 year old (that is referenced), but I think it's important to keep preschool, for reasons such as awards in the "Best Preschool Program" category (which is also referenced).
  • The creators saw the need for "life-affirming" television for rapidly maturing preschoolers and found most children learned from shows which incorporated movement and song. → How were pages 131–151 accessed when the given URL only goes to page 8?
  • Again, this relates to the issue addressed above. Chapter 6 features pages 131–151 and this has now been fixed.
  • was produced in mid 1998 → I think there's supposed to be a dash (mid-1998)
  • Fixed.
  • After auditions for the group in June 1998 (narrowing down around 300 people to only five), the television pilot for Hi-5 was produced in mid 1998, with the original cast consisting of Kellie Crawford (née Hoggart), Kathleen de Leon Jones, Nathan Foley, Tim Harding and Charli Robinson, who were aged between 18 and 24 at the time of filming. → This should definitely be split into two sentences.
  • Now split.
  • with the original cast consisting of Kellie Crawford (née Hoggart), Kathleen de Leon Jones, Nathan Foley, Tim Harding and Charli Robinson, → not in source
  • Have added correct source
  • who were aged between 18 and 24 at the time of filming → I think it's kind of original research to assume they were 18–24 at the time of filming when the source says the "cast are aged between 19 and 25" in September 1999
  • Have amended to explicitly state who were aged between 19 and 25 by the time the show aired and avoid original research.
  • ref 15 is probably unnecessary as ref 16 goes into more specifics and is more reliable
  • I will remove if deemed as unreliable, but the premiere date has been contested before so I feel as if two references are important here.
  • In September, Sony Music released the corresponding debut album, Jump and Jive with Hi-5 → this article is about the group, so maybe "the group's debut album"
  • Fixed.
  • The group toured Sydney in their first year. → Right now this sentence could mean they toured around different places in Sydney. The source only refers to one show in Newcastle.
  • Have reworded to explicitly state The group performed at venues such as the Newcastle Civic Theatre in their first year..

Given the amount of comments (and sourcing issues) I found myself writing for just three paragraphs, I am probably going to find it hard to support promotion. I might suggest looking into The Wikipedia Library if you haven't already as you may have an easier time finding higher-quality sources using ProQuest, etc., especially for the earlier years. Heartfox (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  • @Heartfox: While I appreciate the suggestion, I have just looked through 10 pages of ProQuest to double check, and I could only find 1 or 2 relevant articles - many are from 2010 and beyond, and mainly advertising material. I'm sure you can understand how there are little articles on this Australian band from the early 2000s available, and I believe I have found the best resources (including theses) available.
  • @Heartfox: Thanks for looking at the artcile. I would really appreciate your continued comments and feedback. I've gone to great lengths to work on this (five years researching, successful GA review, in-depth peer reviews, full copy-edit from GOCE and detailed FA reviews here) and I always put in the effort required. Others have supported the nomination, and you have picked up extra items that everyone else has missed (and many of them are easy fixes). I'm sure with your help the article can reach FA standard, and I love working with you. SatDis (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I will endeavour to leave additional comments. Heartfox (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Source review by Ealdgyth[edit]

As I understand it, Ealdgyth has left unstruck 1) // and 2)
On 1), as it does seem to be a doctoral thesis, I am looking at what it is used to source. Most instances of where it is used are double or triple cited, and are not statements that concern me as to needing higher quality sourcing. Except:
  • Article says: The series' creators based it on an underlying educational structure, citing Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences primarily. They recognised that each child learns differently, so each group member targeted a different aspect of learning.
  • The source seems to say that a different program (Dora the Explorer) is "based on Gardner's multiple intelligences theory". When addressing Hi-5 specifically, the source uses the term "loosely analogous" wrt Gardner, and says that "Harris designed the program to represent the style and energy of a music video". It is not clear to me if the two instances (Dora the Explorer versus Hi-5) are confused, although I may be missing something in the source. Unless I am missing something, I am concerned we may be drawing too strong of a conclusion from this source.
  • Understood. I have reworded it to The series' creators loosely based it on an underlying educational structure influenced by Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, however, I don't believe a strong conclusion has been drawn as Gardner's theory has been cited by Hi-5 on several occasions (I have added these sources to better support the claim). SatDis (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Separately, the article later says, "The group's musical performances were fast-paced, designed in a way which would replicate the energy of contemporary music videos", which is too close paraphrasing of the source.
  • Have reworded to The pace and design of the group's musical performances were influenced by that of contemporary music videos. SatDis (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I am also concerned that this part of the source is based on personal correspondence with Harris, so one could wonder how accurately it is portrayed. All other instances of the use of Hynd seem OK, but that this examination revealed some close paraphrasing unfortunately indicates that a more indepth source review will be needed.
On 2) similarly, most of what it is citing does not raise eyebrows, or is double or triple cited. But on the one instance I want to check, the page range is much too broad for me find and verify the specific instances (the document is almost 20 pages long, and ctrl-f is not producing the desired content). Page numbers should be tightened for this source, and excerpted quotes to back the following article content would help me review check it here:
  • The creators saw the need for "life-affirming" television for rapidly maturing preschoolers and found most children learned from shows which incorporated movement and song.[5]
That's all for now. I have disabled web pings, but will see them when I check email, so please do ping me when you have finished resolving these. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have tightened page numbers for both thesis citations. I have done this by listing the thesis in a bibliography and citing individual pages. Please let me know if I need to make further changes, as I am eager to correct any mistakes. SatDis (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Support by Jayfax[edit]

@SatDis: Just some quick first-read comments.

  • Hi-5 were an Australian children's musical group, don't think there needs to be a comma here.
  • highest paid entertainment entities "entertainment entities"? Tell me if there's otherwise a subtle distinction being made here, but wouldn't it "entertainers". Could not find the word "entity" in the Business Weekly articles.
  • Changed to "group" as they were collective.
  • and that the following years spent with the group were her favourites favorites -> favorite
  • Robinson (then referred to as Delaney) exited from the group in February 2008 left would be better word than exit
  • the remaining original cast members had stated their intent to withdraw from the group. withdraw from -> leave
  • Park also stated she would be departing the group depart -> leaving
  • They did not receive the same critical reception as the original members the same (positive?) critical reception
  • Burgess and Maddren declared their departures in late 2012 declared their departures -> left the group
  • Datuk Jared Lim, Asiason's managing director, conveyed plans to expand Hi-5 throughout Southeast Asia conveyed -> described
  • Will have another read later. JAYFAX (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @JAYFAX: Thanks for the comments. Just a quick note, one of my strongest suggestions from another reviewer was not to use "leave/left the group" so much as it became repetitive. Not sure if going back to simple terms is better or not? I have fixed all of the other suggestions. SatDis (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks @JAYFAX: I understand the concept; though I don't think "exited", "withdraw" or "departure" are unclear or distract the reader, as the policy suggests. Did you have any further comments? SatDis (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @SatDis: There is another instance of entertainment entities I perhaps should've mentioned in the "Reception section.
  • I don't intend to do an informal source review, and rereading the article I'm overall quite happy with it. The level on detail is on par with The Wiggles, something I read once described "like a history of a small country". Will indicate support after this fix. JAYFAX (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @JAYFAX: Thanks! I have fixed that last suggestion. SatDis (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and density of factual information. JAYFAX (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

  • Harris said Hi-5 was primarily a television series, but the music itself stood alone. - "stood alone" is odd - I get what you mean but odd wording
  • Harris was inspired develop a show with universal appeal and accessible themes such as family and animals. - I'd say "broad" rather than "universal" here (nothing has universal appeal)
  • A serious motorcycle accident in June 2007 left Harding unable to keep up with the high energy of Hi-5 - "high" unnecessary here. "pace" may be better than "energy" too.

Otherwise looks in good shape. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks for the comments, I have addressed those suggestions. SatDis (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by ImaginesTigers[edit]

Hi. I'll be reviewing at some stage over the next day or two. There's a child running around me right now, so there's a chance you won't get the full review until tomorrow. I'll do another source review given that there were some problems with the last one, and a prose review. Best wishes. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @ImaginesTigers: I'll draw your attention to the two thesis used, as those were the only remaining problems (see above). Haha, maybe your child would like Hi-5! Thanks again. SatDis (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Just my niece! I'm too young to have kids. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
ImaginesTigers please see my post above in the Ealdgyth section, lest you are able to sort those portions as well. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll do a thorough source review. I haven't found the time to devote exclusively to this right now, but knowing that the scope of my source review will have to expand a bit, I'm going to need some additional time. I estimate Sunday, but it could be Monday. I'm still going to be carrying out my prose review; that might follow the day after, or be the same day. Sorry for the delay. — — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @ImaginesTigers: and @SandyGeorgia:. I have addressed the comments above. Thank you for your time, I just ask that you allow me the opportunity to correct any mistakes, as I am very devoted. Thank you. SatDis (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies in advance for the big wall. I've included a summary at the bottom, but I won't tease; I don't think I can give the article a pass right now because my time is limited and I've found problems with most of what I've checked. I have such a mixture of wiki-work + IRL stuff right now that I can't afford to do more than this right now because of how long it took. I was hoping it would be quicker. I'm hopeful that someone else can pick up where I've left off and do more spot-checking. If not, and the FAC is still open next week, I should have some more time. I don't think this article is too far away from passing on a surface level, but the problems below really do jump out at me if they continue to appear.

# Analysis Conclusion Reply from SatDis
6 Source "It's obviously primarily a television show, but the music and album itself stands alone." Not paraphrased Doesn't pass Have paraphrased to Harris said that while Hi-5 was predominantly a television series, its music was able to be differentiated from the show.
Article Harris said Hi-5 was primarily a television series, but the music itself was able to stand alone.
6 Source "We don't want it to be in-your-face educational, although every single segment has an educational aim and that is reflected in the theme of the episode." Source doesn't mention accessibility, or give examples of themes (animals, family). Doesn't pass That source 6 is published across two pages and this is noted in the citation; the information comes from page 2. Animals and family are specifically mentioned. Broad appeal is a paraphrasing of "Hi-5 appeals universally". Accessible themes comes from "all of those things that appeal to children everywhere."
Article Harris was inspired develop a show with broad appeal and accessible themes such as family and animals


Source (Too much to reproduce; see links.) As the prior column indicates, no issues. Pass. There's an unnecessary double reference The double reference is necessary. Source 33 covers the fact that her maternity leave took place from April onwards, however, it was published after the baby was born. 32 covers the earlier pregnancy announcement.
Article In early 2006, de Leon Jones announced she was pregnant, and would take maternity leave from April onwards.
41 Source The troupe had just one week of training to master trapeze, juggling and tightrope walking before heading to Singapore. Paraphrasing is fine, but isn't information being needlessly omitted here? They had one month of training; some members benefitted from prior experience.

Also, "The group toured the Hi-5 Circus Stagesshow in 2007"... Is this right? Not, they did this tour, or such and such?

Omission? Thanks for the suggestion. I have added They had only one week of training; some members benefitted from prior experience. In regards to the second query, I do not understand. I have mentioned that they toured the Circus Stageshow in 2007 and this is supported by the reference.
Article The group toured the Hi-5 Circus Stageshowin 2007; the show adopted a circus theme and incorporated tricks such as trapeze, tightrope walking and gymnastics.
24 Source The group behind the hit television show are already in the early stages of planning a feature film while negotiating a single release as well as foreign-language franchises in India, South America and Germany. As above, it just feels like there's a lot of missing information. One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness—in addition to the planned film, this article mentions plans for a South American and German franchise extension. It mentions the S. American as if it'd already been reported. Omission? I would like to explain this. If you scroll down to the "Brand and finances" section, I extensively covered the international versions that were made. The ones cited here did not eventuate; however, I have added it to the paragraph By 2005, franchises local to India, South America and Germany were planned, but these did not eventuate.. I have also expanded to It was reported in 2005 that a feature film starring the group was in early development, as well as arrangements for a single release. I'm sure you can understand that I didn't want to weigh down the article with information about plans that never occurred. In regards to South America, no, I don't think it had been reported.
Article It was reported in 2005 that a feature film starring the group was in early development.
30 31 Source (Too much to reproduce; see links.) This sentence is just constructed really weirdly for me. [30] supports that they were regulars at this event, but not that they entertained the event's younger viewers; this is editorialising, even if it seems obvious.

I'm also really unclear on whether Gill and Bear were both playing Santa? I don't really understand how it’s relevant to this article.

Editorialising, irrelevant (and confusing) info I understand your point. In a previous review, we had worked at making that sentence coherent, but seeing as you struggled to understand it (and that it is editorialising), I have decided to remove the entire line. While it seems irrelevant, culturally, it was merely a significant point to Australians who annually viewed the event.
Article The group performed a short selection of Christmas songs to entertain the event's younger viewers; Santa Claus, who was played for many years by Terry Gill, and Humphrey B. Bear, joined them
45 46 Source (Too much to reproduce; see links.) Fine. Pass Just thought I'd mention: Please note that some of the reference numbers have changed, as I have removed some citations from the article while answering above queries.
Article She expressed an interest in proving herself as an actor for an adult audience and said she would help find a replacement member.
47 53 54 Source Neither of them responded to these reports, but Park denied the industry rumours, saying that there had been no pressure for any of them to resign. The second source [54] is a re-print of the first interview [53] from a less reputable outlet. It’s about here that I finally noticed, because of the reprint, that the source is misidentified. Although the website is, the publisher is the Telegraph (on the right hand side of the page); you can see the original article here. You're going to need to go through all instances of and keep an eye out for these. I notice there's a few others which are flagged as, but aren't from that site. For instance,

Go looking for other websites misidentified as I think these are being aggregated by that site, but do not come from that site—the writers are not employed by, but by the publication you will see named on the page. There's a lot of them in the article, and I'm sorry about that. I have started by removing the re-print from less reputable source, 54. Thank you for pointing out, as somehow, I had completely missed that!
  • I have reformatted 47 as from The Daily Telegraph - this has led to prose to change, now it reads The Daily Telegraph's Sydney Confidential reporter alleged...
  • I have searched through all citations. This has involved changing 4 to The Daily Telegraph.
  • One was credited as AAP, so I have kept as the work and added Australian Associated Press as the agency - this is 50
  • Two were written by the same national music writer, listed directly for publisher News Corp Australia, so I have kept the work as - this is 67 and the first dot point of 69
Whole article is relevant.
Park denied there had been any pressure for any of the members to leave and that it was entirely her decision.
Article Neither of them responded to these reports, but Park denied the industry rumours, saying that there had been no pressure for any of them to resign

I really don't have time to do much more. Based on what I've seen so far (and I'm not that far into the article), I'm not comfortable giving this a support. I think that there are likely to be issued beyond what I've seen here. I've looked at 11 citations, supporting 8 statements in the article. I've had issues with all except two of them. Because of the issues, I don't have the time to look through more of them, but I have really serious reservations about the article as a whole. On a prose-level, too, it just isn't working for me. I won't harp on about style because style is so hard to articulate, but it really does feel strange to me that the group is consistently referred to as a "band" by the prose, but as a "group" by every reference that I've looked at. More of the sources call it a franchise than a band. This problem extends even to the title. A 'band', to me, confers a certain level of independence, when the members of Hi-5 seem to be contracted employees. Does the title need to change...? Maybe...? I'm sorry. I can't support but I won't oppose right now. Have a look at the problems I've noted, and then check through the article really carefully for other instances. Feel free to score through the table as you work through issues (or just take a new line and reply in italics within the table); you can also reply to me (with a ping!) if you have any questions. Once you're confident that the article has none of the problems I've noted in the table, summon me back with a ping, and I'll find the time to finish the review. If none of the above problems exist, then I'll support. Wishing you the best. — ImaginesTigers (talk) PS. The three items in Reference 71 are broken. Install this script and you'll be able to see them. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @ImaginesTigers: Thank you so much for your comments - they have helped me immensely. I have replied to each in a new column in the table above (I hope you don't mind me adding a column). SatDis (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have removed all instances of the word "band"... and I am in agreeance that the title of the page needs to change. The "band" was something I inherited from the early origins of the article. What would you suggest the page be changed to... Hi-5 (Australian musical group), Hi-5 (Australian group), or Hi-5 (Australian children's musical group)? I am confident this change could be made without discussion (no other editors to consult). SatDis (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have also found that the items in reference 71 (now 69) are not broken for me and working fine. SatDis (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I am so eager to continue fixing any errors and I thank you so much for taking an in depth look (no one has made the effort to look this deeply before). I'm hoping I can work towards a support. SatDis (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Islanders (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠PMC(talk) 03:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm back with my second FA nomination, a much shorter article on a wildly different topic - Islanders, a charming little indie game I fell in love with last year. There's just something hypnotic about the simple gameplay loop of planning, placement, and points that keeps me coming back to it this long after release. I should mention that concerns were raised at peer review about the reliability of some of the more obscure review sources. I believe these are reliable enough to cite as reviews for a smaller indie game, and their inclusion is necessary to provide a more balanced perspective to the reader. In particular, the larger gaming sites like Kotaku were almost uniformly positive about Islanders, so the inclusion of indie review sites helps to balance that with some reasonably-deserved criticism. In any case, I hope you enjoy reading this article as much as I enjoyed writing it. ♠PMC(talk) 03:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891[edit]

Will review, unencumbered by any background knowledge. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Strikes me as odd that the specific release date (April 4, 2019) is only mentioned in the infobox
  • Fixed
  • "The goal of the game is to obtain the highest score possible in a single session, which can span multiple islands" unclear at this point what 'islands' mean in the context of the game. Could you rephrase to get the explanation before the bit about a session spanning multiple islands somehow?
  • Moved that sentence to the end of the paragraph, that should help.
  • "and a pack of basic buildings to place" do we know how many? What defines a 'basic' building?
  • None of the sources mention that detail, although anecdotally I think starter packs usually have three. There's not really a defined "basic" building per se. There's a kind of progression in that you generally start off with packs of industrial-ish stuff, then residential-ish places, then commercial buildings and finally the late-game stuff like balloons and monuments. Once you've picked every named pack, the game gives you random assortments until you run out of space/buildings. Unfortunately, none of the sources get into more detail about the order of the packs than what's already in the article, so I can't expand on that without getting into OR.
  • "There are several types of islands" do we know how many?
  • It's unfortunately not in any of the sources, so while I could load up the game and do some counting, I can't put it in the article.
  • "other buildings within its scoring radius" I think the basic concept of 'scoring radius' and its relevance to the game should be briefly glossed at the first use of the term, not in subsequent sentences.
  • I rewrote that paragraph a little, hopefully that's more clear now?
  • Is there a difference between 'earning points' and 'scoring points'? If not, no action needed.
  • No
  • "planning are important to maximize the score" perhaps "the score reached" or "the score obtained" or something else? just 'the score' kinda strikes me as odd, but it may just be me
  • I think it may be you, in a gaming context "the score" makes sense
  • So does the inventory of buildings deplete as the game goes on? If so, how does that work? this is implied when the article talks about refilling it, but not really explicitly laid out
  • Should be more explicit now
  • Is Grizzly Games really notable?
  • No, I think someone else redlinked it and I just left it in there. I'll pull it.
  • "Rather than struggling against the limits of working with a small team" I'm not convinced that this bit of the sentence actually adds any encyclopedic value to the article
  • Mm, I think it speaks to their design choices - rather than trying to "overcome" the handicap of a small team and still produce something at the AAA-level of photorealism or depth, they just went whole-hog into minimalism.
  • "aggregate score of 82/100 on Metacritic." what does that score indicate? Is it average for games of the type? High?
  • Hard to say. Islanders is quite stripped-down compared to most city-builders and there's not much else out there in the same vein. Comparing it to something like Sim City or Anno 1602 would be a bit like comparing a haiku to a novel. As far as average for the game industry as a whole, gaming tends to have a problem with artificially high scores (the TvTropes page on the so-called Four Point Scale sums it up fairly well), so 82 is probably right about average.
  • I think that this article is long enough to have items linked again in the body that are linked in the lede, but am not sure
  • I'm happy either way so if you want links, only say the word and I shall make links :)
  • Reception slips into "A of B said C. A of B said C" cycles at times-- can you try and mix it up a bit more? WP:RECEPTION may be helpful if you haven't read it already.

A very nice article overall. I think that's it from me, but may come back with more later. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi Eddie891, thanks for your comments. I've addressed most of them and the only thing left to work on is the reception section. Should be finished overhauling it sometime tomorrow. ♠PMC(talk) 03:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, I overhauled the reception section - now it's organized by topic, with less pull quotes. I'm way happier with the structure now. ♠PMC(talk) 05:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed your changes, they look good to me. Support, mostly on prose. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Islanders_(game)_header.jpg: FUR is incomplete
  • Ditto File:Islanders_gameplay_in_progress.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Fixed both and added alt text. ♠PMC(talk) 23:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Support from SatDis[edit]

  • The article is looking good. Just a comment about the references, in my experience of Feature Articles, it is encouraged to have all URLs archived. I would also ensure you have all the aspects of a citation: consistently italicise Islanders, link the work and publisher on first mention and write out the entire date; like this example [1]
  • I'd say this would be a quick way immediately improve the article. SatDis (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello, just want to say I've seen this, but haven't had time to dig into updating the refs yet and probably won't until after Boxing Day. ♠PMC(talk) 15:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to say I did the archiving for you. Happy holidays! Le Panini [🥪] 19:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay in responding, thanks for the archiving, Le Panini, I appreciate it. ♠PMC(talk) 04:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Good to see the references have been archived, however, dates and publishers need further formatting.
  • Gameplay section looks good and is well referenced. I would link sandbox though - I think that would be the correct page but double check. SatDis (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • SatDis, I linked sandbox as above and am working on references. Most are not linked because they are not independently notable (and thus would be redlinks), and most appear to be published "by themselves" in the same way that The New York Times is published by The New York Times Co, so I've omitted the publisher field there are recommended by {{Cite web}}. I also didn't italicise Islanders in ref titles as I notice that other FAs for games (such as Dishonored) don't italicize the game name in the ref titles. ♠PMC(talk) 04:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response. That sounds fine with the independent works, and the italicising is all good. The references are looking better, I will check in again once complete. SatDis (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry, I'm done now. ♠PMC(talk) 05:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I have gone through and just expanded on the dates for the archive-date and access-date; writing it out in full is usually the way to go. Another suggestion; for the Italian, French and German references, you can use trans-title= in the citation to write out what the translation is. SatDis (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, thanks for that. I've added the translated titles now. ♠PMC(talk) 05:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for addressing the comments. Well done with the article! Based on the prose and these fixes to reference formatting, I will support the nomination. I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my featured article nomination, even if just some basic comments. Thanks so much and good luck with your article! SatDis (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Just wondering if you are able to leave any comments on my featured article nomination? I completely understand if you are too busy. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Support from ImaginesTigers[edit]

Hi! Tagging now to let you know I'll be reviewing in the next 24 hours. ImaginesTigers (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's jump right in. I have one question about citations, and a few about the prose. I've made a few changes to the prose already for concision, but you are free to revert them.

Generally communicates gameplay very plainly and clearly with a minimal use of jargon. Similarly, attention has clearly been paid to ensuring that sections flow naturally from one section to the next. That said, I have some questions! The last paragraph of Gameplay details some post-launch updates, but it’s unclear if those were free or paid DLC. At the same time, it glosses over the times of those release and their distribution on the various platforms — did these all go live at once to every version of the game? The section on criticism begins with a sentence that indicates the remainder of the paragraph will discuss only the criticism of the low poly style (it is not; it serves as a very abridged negative criticism section, compared to the several positive paragraphs). As a result, the critical reception component of the lead feels a little underdeveloped.
a) Free, which is why I called them updates rather than DLC; in my gaming experience, update tends to imply changes made at no cost to the player, while DLC implies paid content. b) Mac and Linux support were added after the other updates, and the June 2019 update was the last big one save for a bugfix and a language update. To solve this, I consolidated the sentences about the updates into a paragraph sub-heading called "Release and updates" under Development, so now all the wording about the June 2019 update is together and (should) be more cohesive. c) I don't think it implies that at all. "The game's studied minimalism" refers to the whole game, not just the visuals. The article as a whole discusses the game's minimalist schtick throughout - the gameplay, the lack of "bells n whistles" like tech trees or achievements, the graphics, etc. I don't think it would surprise someone who's read the whole to see the whole game referred to as minimalist in that way. As for the size of the criticism section, I could try to expand it, but I'd be reaching/fluffing a little - most criticism really boiled down to "but I wanted it to be more of itself" in some way, and it's hard to expand on that more than I have without repeating myself or over-relying on pull quotes just to expand the word count. ♠PMC(talk) 04:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I notice that one of the sources for the game's development is the developer's blog. I understand why this might be necessary, but I do have some concerns about using it here because the rest of it is advertising-related -- it’s a pitch. On another note on citations (note that this is only a recommendation based on experience), using a French-language source, it would be really helpful to put the French language original in the "quote" section of the citation. This just makes it easier for others to find, given the language can't just be Ctrl+F'd.
I also don't super love using the primary sources (the Steam news release is another), but in this case it's in there mostly to cite the detail that it was made in their 3rd year of a game design BA, which I think is interesting enough to be worth keeping in even at the price of citing a primary source. (I also use the dev's blog to cite for the infobox that the game is built on the Unity engine, so given that it's kind of in there anyway I figured I could throw it in again). Regarding quotes in the citation, why specifically only the French source? There are German and Italian ones also. In any case, I'm not partial to that given that those sources are used elsewhere in the article, so the quote wouldn't apply to those other citations. ♠PMC(talk) 04:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

At this stage, these are my only real observations. I think this is a very small article, reasonable in scope, with a survey of the relevant literature. One issue is, of course, that very few non-games outlets are quoted. But the criteria asks for the "relevant" literature, and this is simply what exists, and isn't a reflection on you. I've conducted a few searches and cannot see any glaring omissions. Pending your responses, I am leaning support. I don't ask that you make changes based on what I've said; only that you explain your choices as best as you can. It was an engaging article; well done! ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate you taking the time. ♠PMC(talk) 04:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm fairly new to this process, so those explanations also help me. I'm going to Support this nomination. Great work! ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

David Fuchs sorry to hassle you, just wondering if you're still looking at commenting here? ♠PMC(talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • Since the release date is included in the lead and article, I do not see the need for a citation for this in the infobox.
  • I was just being completionist but I'll pull it
  • Currently, the game engine is only mentioned in the infobox. Is there a reason to not include this in the lead and the article as well?
  • The reason is that I am dumb :) But I have fixed it now.
  • For this part, German independent game studio, I would extend the link out to independent game just to make the link clear to the reader.
  • Done
  • Would a link to inventory be helpful to readers who have not played a video game?
  • Done
  • For this sentence, The game intentionally omits many features common to city-builders, I would link city-builders since this is the first time it is mentioned in the article and a link would stay consistent with what is linked in the lead.
  • You link procedurally generated, but not in the article. I would recommend linking the first instance in the article for consistency. Also, I notice an instance where you use this with hyphens and another without so please be consistent with either way.
  • Done for this and the above, and inventory since it's mentioned in the lead and the body.
  • Done
  • Is there any further information on why Shahrabi left Grizzly Games?
  • No, I assume he graduated, but can't confirm.
  • This is more of a nitpick, but in the second paragraph, I noticed you used "found that the process of" in two back-to-back sentences, and it may be beneficial to change on these instances to avoid being repetitive.
  • Oh, nice find. I fixed that.
  • I have a question about the Michael Moore review. I have not looked at the cited review, but it reads more like a negative perception of the game. Is that a fair assessment? I was curious about this because this sentence is put between more positive reviews so I was struck by it when I first read it, and I was wondering if it could be placed differently.
  • The Moore article isn't really a review, it's a column that compares Islanders with another miniature city-builder, 20 Minute Metropolis. I see what you mean though; I reworded the sentence to tie it more clearly to the aesthetic theme of the paragraph.

Wonderful work with the article. A majority of my comments are very minor nitpicks as I believe the above reviewers have already done a great job with reviewing this. I have seen this game on Steam a lot so it was fun to finally read and learn more about it, and I appreciate that you chose to do a FAC on such a wildly different topic than your previous one. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I never like to strike the same place twice :) Cheers! ♠PMC(talk) 06:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Source review by Ealdgyth[edit]

  • What makes the following high quality reliable sources?
    • //
    • //
    • //
    • //
      • Based on a search of the WP:FACR talk page archives, "high-quality" is subjective relative to the subject matter of the article (and arguably as to what material in the article is being supported). As this is an indie game made by students, there was always going to be less "top-tier" gaming journalism devoted to it and a lot more indie-level coverage.
        • I would argue that the dev's blog is reliable as a citation of what engine the game uses, since I can't cite the game itself, and it's not mentioned in any other coverage.
          • That's a good usage of a primary source. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Indie Game Website is used on Metacritic, indicating that an industry aggregator takes their reviews/coverage as reliable. The "Entropy" piece is bylined to a human, well-written, and not promotional of the game; in fact, as an odd little thought-piece it's significantly more negative than most other coverage. IMO including it is important to help balance the article's perspective.
          • Being bylined by a human isn't exactly a indication of reliablity. And used on Metacritic is ... iffy itself. If this was being used solely as a "review" ... it MIGHT be enough to use, but I'm not clear if it's just being used for the reviewers opinion or if its being used for other facts in the article. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
            • Well, it is cited in the Gameplay section once, but not for anything particularly controversial or that isn't supported by the other two citations as well. ♠PMC(talk) 00:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
              • Then lets remove it from the gameplay section and it should be okay for the review part. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Although IND13 allows users to submit articles for consideration, the review in question is bylined to Rahul Shirke, who is the site's deputy editor, so it's not user-generated. I don't see any indication that it's churnalism or based on a press release. Again the criticism from the article is relevant as a balancing factor.
          • As above - if solely for the review potential, I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide if it's a concern, but if it's used for facts, that's probably not a high quality source. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
            • Also as above - it's cited once under Gameplay to back up the lack of multiplayer elements, but other sources support that too. ♠PMC(talk) 00:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
              • Let's remove it then, if better sources support the same info. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
                • Both are removed. ♠PMC(talk) 18:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I could swap that out for the original Steam announcement, if that's better.
          • This is supporting the best selling on steam fact, right? (Forgive me, I did a pile of source reviews in a short period so some things are running together)... if that's all it's supporting, changing out for the Steam source would be better, honestly. This is a classic example of when a primary source is better, honestly. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
            • Yeah, that's all it's there for, so I'll swap it over. ♠PMC(talk) 00:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:ALLCAPS, all caps shouldn't be used, even if they are in the original.
    • Handled ♠PMC(talk) 23:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Ealdgyth (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Reliability is satisfied - I did not do spot checks nor formatting checks. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Le Panini[edit]

I see I said I was gonna review this, but withdrew... a month ago. Sorry about that. That was probably annoying to see. Comments soon. Le Panini [🥪] 02:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "It was built using the Unity 3D engine." I think this sentence belongs in the third paragraph, about development.
  • "so careful placement and forward planning are important to maximize the score." This sounds two game guide-like to me, and I think it'd be better if this was removed.
Release and updates
  • "The game, which uses the Unity 3D engine, was initially released on Steam for Microsoft Windows on 4 April 2019." There's four references for these simple statements. If two of these sources are to cite the Unity 3D engine claim, I'd move them up, like this: "The game, which uses the Unity 3D engine,[1][1] was initially released on Steam for Microsoft Windows on 4 April 2019."[1][1]
  • "Critical reception to Islanders was largely positive, and it received an aggregate score of 82/100 on Metacritic," I'd change this to "Critical reception to Islanders was largely positive, receiving an aggregate score of 82/100 on Metacritic,"

This article is good. A simple article for a simple game. Le Panini [🥪] 03:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Haane Manahi[edit]

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Haane Manahi was from New Zealand, a Māori soldier of the Second World War and a recipient of the Distinguished Conduct Medal. He had been recommended for the Victoria Cross for an action at Takrouna in Tunisia in 1943 but this was downgraded to the DCM, which has since been the source of some angst. The article was a GA as long ago as 2012, but was revised and expanded in anticipation of the just completed A-Class nomination at the MilHist project. As part of the A-Class assessment process, source and image reviews were done by Gog the Mild and buidhe respectively. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass[edit]

Per ACR. (t · c) buidhe 13:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • FN1 should include publication date
  • The publication date field doesn't appear to be used by the DNZB template that I used for this. I have switched to the generic webcite format in order to populate the date field that way.
  • FN55: work title should be italicized. Ditto FN56. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I have italicised both work titles. Thanks for doing the SR. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D[edit]

It's great to see this article at FAC. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • Give the date of his action at Takrouna in the lead
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "His training commenced at Trentham Military Camp in January 1940[5] but shortly before he left his home, Manahi married Rangiawatea Te Kiri, the mother of his son, born in 1936." - this is bit clunky. I'd suggest separating it into two sentences (one on the marriage and another on his training)
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "In May 1940, after Manahi had a brief period of leave,[7] the battalion embarked for the Middle East " - presumably this leave was the routine pre-embarkation leave soldiers were typically granted?
  • Have expanded a little here. Zawed (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Can anything be said about Manahi's time in the UK?
  • Not a lot really, but have expanded a little. Zawed (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "he participated in a swimming competition for the entire 2nd New Zealand Division" - bit clunky
  • Rephrased, how is it now? Zawed (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Bennett ordered Manahi" - Bennett hasn't been introduced, so this is unclear.
  • I'm surprised I made this mistake, it's the sort of thing I regularly ping GA/A/FA article nominators for! Have fixed. Zawed (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Has there been any discussion by constitutional experts or similar about the communications between the NZ Government and the Queen regarding this issue? It's interesting that the NZ Government seems to have always stopped just shy of formally advising the Queen to award the medal (which as a constitutional monarch she may have been obliged to act on especially regarding the separate VC for New Zealand), but this led to a situation which seems to have been unsatisfactory to everyone.
  • Moon says the NZ Government felt an "official recommendation ...might not elicited the desired response." I suspect that for Buckingham Palace there would be an element of not wanting to set a precedent and open a can of worms for other belated claimes. The King's decision of 1949 probably makes it easier for authorities to take a hardline on this. Zawed (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • While the Australian and NZ Victoria Crosses are now separate, has the recent posthumous award of a VC for Australia to Teddy Sheean led to proposals that Manahi be awarded a VC for New Zealand? This 2013 Australian report noted Manahi in the context of proposals that the VC for Australia be granted retrospectively. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Not that I'm aware of. I did do some Googling to see if there was any recent news regarding this and didn't come across anything. I suspect the events of 2006/2007 put an end to it. Zawed (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • OK. The decision to award Sheean the VC for Australia was slightly controversial, as an earlier and arguably much better qualified panel had recommended that he not receive the medal. Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Nick-D, thanks for taking a look at this, I have responded to all your points now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • of the Te Arawa and Ngāti Raukawa iwi (tribe) Isn't iwis or anyother plural form of iwi?
  • Iwi is used in both singular and plural form. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • the Te Arawa and Ngāti Raukawa iwi (tribe) on his father's side Same as above.
  • As above. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • a village near the town of Rotorua in the North Island of New Zealand --> "a village near the town of Rotorua in North Island of New Zealand"? Since North Island sounds odd with an article.
  • This a grammatical quirk of New Zealand; we would use the article for both "the North Island" and "the South Island". Zawed (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Link "secondary school" since some countries don't have that system and call it high school (btw here in Belgium we use also secondary school).
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • and building industries alongside his uncle, Matiu What's his surname if he is from his dad's side then maybe add here "from his father's side" or something similar.
  • Have added. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Manahi married Rangiawatea Te Kiri, the mother of his son, born in 1936 "Te Kiri" isn't her néé right?
  • Have added.
  • It was hoped that Elizabeth II would reconsider --> "It was hoped that Queen Elizabeth II would reconsider"
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This involved near constant fighting across Libya --> "This involved near-constant fighting across Libya"
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • the division was forced to breakout from Minqar Qaim on 26 June --> "the division was forced to break out from Minqar Qaim on 26 June"
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • C Company as well as ammunition and stretcher bearers --> "C Company as well as ammunition and stretcher-bearers"?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • On returning to Rotorua, Manahi entered a wood working course --> "On returning to Rotorua, Manahi entered a woodworking course"?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Rotorua and returned to the work force --> "Rotorua and returned to the workforce"?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • traffic inspector which involved traveling around American "traveling" here.
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • in swimming coaching as well golf and fishing --> "in swimming coaching as well as golf and fishing"
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • way home to Maketu from the RSA club rooms --> "way home to Maketu from the RSA clubrooms"?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • through former Governor-Generals of New Zealand Isn't it "Governors-General" as plural form?
  • No, it is governor-generals. Zawed (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. Fixed and self-administered a trout slap. Zawed (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The links of the Maori words like iwi, tangi, marae and patu should have a language template.
  • I'm not familiar enough with the Maori language to pull that off for the words that don't have one already in use. I was able to find the iwi template but when adding it in, it looked quite clumsy with the English-language translation so I'm not a fan of it. Zawed (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • In the infobox: "Western Desert Campaign" --> "Western Desert campaign"
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  • CPA-5, thanks for the review. I have responded to your points above - note the one RE the language template. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Ping me when you've addressed CPA-5's comments, and I'll take a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm just working on a very complex GAN at present, but this will be first cab off the rank once I'm done there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Okazay, sorry about the delay. My comments:

Lead and infobox
  • the first sentence doesn't establish his notability, which I understand to be based on the issue of whether he should have been awarded the VC rather than the DCM. Suggest something like:

    Haane Te Rauawa Manahi, DCM (28 September 1913 – 29 March 1986) was a New Zealand Māori soldier during the Second World War whose gallantry during the Tunisian campaign resulted in a recommendation that he be awarded the Victoria Cross (VC); the subsequent award of the Distinguished Conduct Medal (DCM) disappointed his fellow soldiers who, after his death, advocated greater recognition of his valour. This eventually resulted in the presentation of several items to his family by Queen Elizabeth II in 2007.

  • the tribal, place and year of birth information really doesn't belong in the lead
  • having dropped Maori Battalion from the first sentence, link it when he joins it
  • "After recovering from his wounds he returned to the Māori Battalionhis unit"
  • "which he was nominatedrecommended for a VC"
  • "Despite the support of four generals, his VC nomination was downgraded to an award of a DCM, possibly by the British Chief of the General Staff, General Alan Brooke."
  • explain why he didn't return to duty
  • describe what the special award included
  • in the infobox, not sure what "public works" he is known for? This could be dropped.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I have actioned most of the above and also made a few changes to the following paragraphs of the lead to avoid undue repetition. The place of birth was left in and I felt adding a description of the special award would add undue detail to the lead. Zawed (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the latter. I was left wondering what the award was, and I think it needs to be summarised as the DCM/VC issue and the Queen's eventual response is key to his notability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I have revised, both the f