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, Laser brain and Ealdgyth—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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:

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  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.

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.

Nominations

Nominator(s): Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

In 1996, Sega and Red Company, now Red Entertainment, released Sakura Wars, a cross-genre video game that included tactical role-playing, dating sim and visual novel elements. It became the highest-selling title for the Sega Saturn and spawned a popular franchise that continues in Japan to this day, with a sixth installment released this past year.

Although this game was localized in Russia and China, American/European role-playing video game fans had to wait until Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love was released in 2010 since Sega release the game into the then-niche Western JRPG field. Since this article was promoted to GA back in 2018, ProtoDrake and I have extensively polished it up; I think it can go all the way to FA.

This is the first part of my efforts to get all of the main Sakura Wars series articles up to GA+. It had an FAC nomination in 2019, but it was closed due to inactivity. Over nine months later, I think it may be worth trying again. Hopefully, the second time is the charm. Thanks for reviewing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Ganesha811 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Mary van Kleeck, an American social scientist and feminist of the 20th century. It is currently a Good Article (since November), and as a first time FA-nominator, I sought the mentorship of Coemgenus before nominating the article. Van Kleeck was a fascinating figure but there is not a great deal of scholarship on her, so the article is comprehensive but still relatively short. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from 100cellsman

There are no length requirements for Featured Articles, so I wouldn't worry about it being short.🧍‍♂️⭕⭕ (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Support. As noted above, I've agreed to mentor Ganesha811 in this nomination and I wish to add my support for the article after she made the few changes I suggested before nominating it. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Dhio-270599 10:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a type of tropical home garden developed in Indonesia. Currently a GA, there is no significant additional edit/information to the article since. I think it's enough for FA standards, and it's probably good to go for nomination. Dhio-270599 10:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a relatively minor Interstate highway that took over 30 years to build because of inter-city disputes on where it should go. This highway passes through one of the most productive agricultural areas in the U.S., especially when it comes to hops and wine. It was promoted as a GA over a year ago and went through a project A-Class Review that only got one review. SounderBruce 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Rcsprinter123 (sermonise) 03:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys. This is the first time I have entered the FAC process, so please be compassionate with your review. I’ve been working for a while on this article for Leeds Town Hall, one of the largest in the UK and a major heritage building in the city. I’ve expanded it considerably from the state I found it in to start with, just adding information from sources (mostly print books) as and when I have had time. It turns out that doing this is incredibly educational and interesting, at least for me, and so with those sources I eventually plan to create a featured topic named “Architecture of Leeds”, encompassing that article, the Town Hall, and local buildings and architects. The only start I have on that was taking Elinor Lupton Centre to GA last year.

Anyway, I’m fairly pleased with the article as it stands today. One thing I probably want to change is the title of the “Appraisal” section, to a word which means “things people said to demonstrate how important it is”, but the right word hasn’t occurred to me yet. Suggestions on general formatting, sentence structures, refs etc are welcomed. Rcsprinter123 (sermonise) 03:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks very interesting and, though Neo-Classical, it is indeed a fine Victorian building. I shall certainly come back to review. Two immediate thoughts: would Appreciation do as a replacement for Appraisal; and, in my experience of FAs about buildings, reviewers prefer the History to come first, followed by the Description and Appraisal. I originally had Chartwell in exactly the order you have here, but two very experienced reviewers preferred it flipped, and I think they were right. KJP1 (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Two other things struck me on first read-through. James Rhodes, On this Day in Leeds - Lulu publishing is a bit of a red flag, and I can’t make the ISBN work. Nor can I find it on Worldcat. Is it self-published? If it is, that may cause a Wikipedia:Reliable sources concern. Do you actually use it? I’m not seeing it in the refs. But I may have missed it. Second; while you’ve used Wrathmell’s Leeds PAG, I suspect the Leach/Pevsner revised Yorkshire West Riding: Leeds, Bradford and The North, will have some additional material. I can go through it to see what it has or, alternatively, I can email you photos of the relevant pages. Let me know. KJP1 (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response, KJP1. I'll give you a few replies now. On the section naming, Appreciation might sound like it's only about positivity rather than significance and influence too. But what I can't understand so well is the History/Description order. Surely the reader (who we should assume knows next to nothing about the topic when beginning to read) would like to know what the building looks like and consists of before getting into the detailed whats and whys of how it came to be. I don't want to disagree with architectural FA precedent, but it seems illogical to me. Then on the Rhodes source, it's true that the self-published book isn't a very strong one and shouldn't really be allowed to stay, but it was the only thing I could find about the lions being modelled at London Zoo which I seem to remember was always in there unsourced and apparently true. I guess we can just remove the statement and leave only the Topham source to ref the lions moving (20th C section). Finally on Pevsner, I must say that it wasn't very useful in finding things that weren't already said in other sources, and that's including in the original 1967 Pevsner West Riding copy I found at the library. However, if you think there's possibly more to be got, there's no harm in taking a look if you have the book. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) 15:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


John M Wolfson

Welcome to the FAC process! I'll be looking around this article, and intend to take WikiCup points for this review.

  • a design by architect Cuthbert Brodrick I have absolutely no issue with false titles, but I thought they weren't as common in British English.
  • It was planned to include law courts, ... This seems a bit clunky, IMO. Perhaps "designed" could be used in its place?
  • The hatnote in the "Description" section should perhaps be replaced with {{Commons cat}} in the External Links section.
  • Until 1813, the Moot Hall, on Briggate was the seat of the Leeds Corporation and was used for judicial purposes from 1615. Should be reworded.
  • Perhaps inflation figures could be included for historical figures with {{Inflation}}, but this is hardly fatal to the FAC.
  • ending the potential situation where a public concert may happen simultaneously while prisoners are being held. That this would be brought up seems a bit like original research to me, a reliable source that explicitly says this should be cited.
  • The "Present usage" section should be renamed "Present use".
  • There are many articles that are linked multiple times within the article, such as Woodhouse Moor, Potts of Leeds, etc. This is not best practice on Wikipedia, and this tool helps you remove them.

Overall this looks rather nice, and I'll look more into it later. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 01:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Welcome to FAC! I've no particular interest in municipal architecture, but I'm local (York) and have visited the building for a vegan fayre, so there's a (minimal) personal connection! Only a few minutes, but I'll start reading through. (I am participating in the WikiCup, but I'll only claim points if I "finish" the review.)

  • I wonder if you jump in with the history a little too quick? Maybe say what it is before jumping in to when it was built. See WP:FIRSTSENTENCE.
  • You mention the Grade I listing in the lead, infobox, and categories, but not in the article proper.
  • I'm surprised to see the see also to Wikimedia Commons. I thought external links like that were discouraged... Is there something in the MOS supporting this use?
  • Paragraph 1 of the "description" section feels too rhetorical/superlative. It doesn't really read as Wikipedia's "neutral" voice. Third paragraph too, to a lesser extent. And paragraph 1 of the sculpture subsection.
  • What does "pilaster" mean? Wikilink? rosso antico? capitals? tympanum? Beware jargon!
  • "originally the 'Great Hall'" Why single quotes? Also "or 'central charge office',"
  • False titles are non-standard in British English, and beware MOS:LQ; I've fixed them when I've seen them.
  • SLightly tricky writing in the sculpture section: "Catherine Mawer who lived in Oxford Place close by", "were being worked on by her husband Robert Mawer,[1] between 1853 and 1854, when he died".
  • "It was a new status symbol, and ever wishing to compete with Bradford, calls grew within Leeds for a new town hall." Grammar; "calls" are were not "ever wishing". "...ever wishing to compete with Bradford, the people of Leeds..." or something may be better.
  • "in the midle of their hitherto" Typo? Or [sic]? I'm not sure if this passage meets the expectations of MOS:LQ. Is the "if" at the start of the quote the start of a sentence in the original source?
  • Do we have a picture of Moot Hall? That'd add some nice visual interest to the "background" section. This would be great, if it's the right thing!

Ok, stopping there. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Nominator(s): JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the well-known film director Akira Kurosawa. The article was previously nominated 2 years ago with requests to review it with further editors and update the images which was done. Grapple X has agreed to act as mentor since I have only done GA articles and not a completed FA. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support A great article about one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Overdue for appreciation. Article reads well and greatly improved imagery...
    Nominator(s): Slate Weasel, Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

    The possibly largest known dinosaur. Argentinosaurus was described in 1993 by the important paleontologist José Bonaparte, who sadly passed away this week. The article is a GA, got a GOCE copy edit, and a thorough peer-review. We are looking forward to any comments. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

    I probably should add that this is also my first time at FAC. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Support - I did a pre-FAC peer review on the talk page with the FAC criteria in mind, and it looks good to me now. As one additional point, the life restorations and size diagrams should probably have citations in the Commons descriptions, stating that they match published reconstructions and size estimates. FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

    Image review

    • Suggest scaling up several of the images, particularly the diagrams
    How wide should they be? (I assume that you mean adding something along the lines of adding "|500px|" to the wikitext) --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    No, this shouldn't be done using a fixed px size, but rather |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    Done; hope this looks good now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Suggest adding alt text
    Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    • File:Argentinosaurus_BW.jpg would benefit from sourcing
    I'm not sure what the author originally used for proportional references, but perhaps Steveoc 86 can tell us what he used as a guide for updating it? --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    I'm doing a minor update to that image and will update the description to include reference info.Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    Looks great, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    • File:Argentinosaurus.jpg: link in the description is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    Not sure what to do here. Pinging FunkMonk for advice. --Slate WeaselT - C - S⟩ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    Done; I just repaired the link. --
    Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

    This article is about Alfred the Great's elder brother, who led the resistance to the Viking attempt to conquer Wessex until his early death allowed Alfred to become king. Æthelred's reign is also important numismatically. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

    Comments by Mike Christie

    I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you don't like.

    • I see there are many references listed that are not used in a citation -- normally these get separated into a "Further reading" section. I don't think that's a FAC requirement but as a reader I'd prefer that.
    • I have checked the references and I can only find one which is not used, the PASE entry for Wulfthryth, which I have deleted. I use harv referencing partly because it flags unused refs, but for some reason in this case it did not work. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
      That was the one I noticed; I thought there were others but I guess not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Wessex and Mercia were close allies when he became king, and he carried the alliance further by adopting the Mercian Lunettes design: I know what you mean, but I think "carried the alliance further" isn't the right way to put this.
    • Yes I had difficulty finding the right wording. How about: "Wessex and Mercia were allies when he became king, and the alliance became closer when he adopted the Mercian Lunettes design"?
      I had a look in Grierson and Blackburn and they just say "There seems to have been a political motive underlying the adoption", which "established a common coinage in Wessex and Mercia". That speaks to Aethelred's motives, but not to the state of any alliance. However, the quote you give in the body of the article from Lyons and Mackay supports what you have, so I'm going to strike it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    • he was believed to be a paternal descendant of Cerdic: I seem to recall Yorke at least, and perhaps Kirby, saying that the genealogies back to Cerdic were likely to have been deliberately constructed to include Cerdic, as a political requirement for a candidate for the throne of Wessex. In other words it's not at all clear anyone "believed" this. If I'm remembering this correctly, some softening of the statement would be good, even if just in a footnote.
    • There are two issues here: whether the genealogies were fabricated, and whether they were widely believed. I don't think that there is any question that they were widely believed and I am not aware of anyone querying the point. There are doubts about Cerdic in general and Ecberht's descent in particular, and I have added a note on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
      That does it. If I can find the bit I'm thinking of in Kirby I may post a note to the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

    -- More later, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

    • Thanks Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
      Have fixed a couple of minor formatting issues. I think you're missing a location on the Keynes/Lapidge Alfred the Great citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    • You describe the Kingdom of Kent as including Essex. Kirby (p. 190 in my 1992 un-revised edition) says Sigered was independent of Kent in 825, and Ecgberht may not have taken control until 829. Perhaps it's a digression to define Kent inline? Maybe a footnote could be used, which would make it easier to cover the unknowns. Abels, p. 31, describes the inclusion of Essex in "Greater Kent" as an effort of Wessex's after the conquest of Kent.
    • This is a difficult one. I think it is important to make clear to readers that when the article mentions Kent it is not just the modern county. Historians disagree about the details of the conquest - Edwards in DNB mentions Sussex not Kent as conquered later. I have deliberately been vague about the timing and I think it is beyond the scope of the article to go into further details. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
      If your sources support what you have, that's fine -- personally I would make it the uncertainty a bit clearer to the reader, but perhaps you're right that that takes us too far afield. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Mike I have had another look at this and I think you are right that most historians think that the other SE territories were direct dependents of Mercia in 825, not part of Kent. I have revised to reflect this. Does it look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
      That looks fine -- thanks for checking further on that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    • The alliance between Wessex and Mercia was sealed with the marriage of Æthelwulf's daughter, Æthelswith, to King Burgred of Mercia. I think you can cut this. Abels doesn't really support "sealed", which implies the finalization or completion of a process, but in any case you don't need the sentence -- we've already discussed the alliance between the kingdoms and this doesn't add much to our understanding of Æthelred. If you do keep it, I would either move it up in the paragraph to be adjacent to the other mentions of the alliance, or (perhaps better) down to where you mention Æthelred attesting a charter issued by Æthelswith, as context for that sentence.
    • I have moved it up and also mentioned Æthelwulf's assistance against the Welsh. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Wulfthryth had two known sons, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. She may have been Mercian or a daughter of Ealdorman Wulfhere of Wiltshire, who forfeited his lands charged with deserting King Alfred for the Danes in about 878, perhaps because he attempted to secure Viking support for his elder nephew Æthelhelm's claim to the throne against Alfred. This needs rewording -- Æthelhelm was Alfred's nephew, not Wulfhere's.
    • Aah my brain was not working. Of course, Æthelhelm may have been Wulfhere's grandson, not nephew. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    • The town was between the Thames and Kennet rivers: a minor point, but Reading is still between those rivers. If you could find a smooth way to eliminate the past tense that would be good. Perhaps something like "They occupied Reading on around 28 December, and set about building a ditch and rampart on the southern side of the town, between the Thames and Kennet rivers"?
    • I think it is simpler to change "was" to "is" Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I've never really tried to use the Fitzwilliam coin database, but I had a go just now to see if I could improve on your "152 coins by 2007". Either they don't include everything or I don't know how to query it properly. This search seems to find at least a couple post-2007, assuming the EMC number starts with the year of the find. No need to do anything about this, unless you can figure out how to make the query find all 152 your source mentions.
    • That is a basic stub. History of the English penny (c. 600 – 1066) is a much better article. It was created by a Cambridge graduate student in 2006, but is dated so far as Æthelred is concerned and does not mention him by name. Perhaps have a "main" link at the head of the coinage section? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
      Up to you, but I never mind linking to bad articles -- to me it's the same principle as redlinks, which are encouraged, after all. It might prompt someone to improve the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I think it is better to link to a good article when one is available. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

    That's it for a first pass; looks very good, as usual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

    Many thanks Mike. Replies on sources to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

    Support. The unstruck points above are just personal opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

    Source review.

    • All sources are reliable. Peddie isn't a professional historian, but Keynes supports using him for military matters so I think that's OK.
    • He is cited by Abels, p. 129, n. 15, which is how I found him. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    • You have locations for all publishers except for Keynes/Lapidge Alfred the Great.
    • Whitelock (1955) has an ISBN so you probably should add an orig-year parameter.
    • This is a mistake. The isbn is for the second edition, but my source is a 1961 reprint of the first edition. I have changed to the oclc and assume it is correct to give the original publication date. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Yorke is linked twice in the bibliography; it's usual to only link the first occurrence.
    • There are stray closing braces at the end of the Beaven citation.

    Otherwise sources are fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

    Image review

    • Don't use fixed px size
    • Changed to upright=.
      Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

      This article is about one of the Medway Megaliths, a series of Early Neolithic long barrows in southeast England. Three of the articles in this series, Coldrum Long Barrow, Smythe's Megalith, and Coffin Stone, are already FAs. Hopefully this article, which has been a GA since 2016, can now join them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

      Support Comments from Jim

      An excellent article. Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

      • witnessed inhabitation—"habitation" seems more natural
      • link "iconoclastic" at first occurrence
      • silica sand—Is "silica" necessary? Sand is usually assumed to be mainly silicon dioxide unless otherwise stated
      • This isn't my strong point but I certainly have no objection to removing "silica" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
      • You mention acidic soils but there isn't much to suggest why it's acidic. Your source mentions the local geology, perhaps add a sentence
      • That could be a good idea, but frankly I have no idea why the soil is acidic; I don't think the source cited gives any explanation, at least not at the cited page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
      • I fixed the capitalisation of "Amygdaloideae", but perhaps pipe as "plum family", "stone-fruit trees" or similar
      • Prior to the adoption of this name—no indication whether this was last year or 200 years ago
      • Ah, a fair point. Although we don't have an exact date I will try to make the time frame clearer in the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Göbekli Tepe was also built by non-farming hunter-gatherers/foragers, worth mentioning?
      • I'm not sure if that would be particularly necessary here; it might read as being a bit off-topic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
      • 2300 but 3,500
      • I have added the comma to the former here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
      • two hones—perhaps link to sharpening stone. I don't think the noun sense is much used now
      • All clear on duplinks and headbomb/unreliable tools

      @Jimfbleak: - Many thanks for taking the time to read through this article and for offering your thoughts. Hope that you found it interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 20 ::February 2020 (UTC)

      With regard to the acidity, although Alexander mentions the geology on p. 2., it's not necessarily the case that sands are acidic, although here they clearly are, so best left as is. Happy to ignore Göbekli Tepe, just happened to read it a bit about a couple of days ago. All looks good, and Josh doesn't appear to be finding major issues either, so changed to support above
      • I do not know why this was switched from the established unit order of imperial first.
        • "The Chestnuts Long Barrow, also known as Stony or Long Warren" Stony Warren, presumably? Worth spelling out.
        • I'm really not sure here. I'd actually assumed that it was "Stony", not "Stony Warren", but your comment has got me thinking. The source (Alexander 1961, p. 1) says only "its earlier name was Stony or Long Warren", which could permit either interpretation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
        • "Archaeologists have established that the monument was built by pastoralist communities" That this monument was built by several communities?
        • No, sorry, I was asking about the claim you were making rather than making a suggestion. Is it really the case that archaeologists have determined that this particular monument was built by multiple communities? I assumed that what you wanted to say was that monuments of this type were built by pastoralist communities, without making any claim about precisely who (i.e., how many communities) built this one. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I suppose the text should specify that it is monuments of this type that were built at this time, as there isn't any specific absolute dating evidence for this particular monument. I've amended the sentence accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
        • "Three further surviving long barrows, Kit's Coty House, the Little Kit's Coty House, and the Coffin Stone," It's disputed whether the Coffin Stone is a long barrow, isn't it?
        • "by medieval robbers" Earlier you suggested that they may have been robbers; why the certainty now?
        • I've changed this to "due to damage caused in the medieval period," Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
        • "He suggested that these megaliths were covered with sand until the capstones were placed atop the chamber, at which the sand was then cleared" At which time? This doesn't read right to me.
        • I've changed this sentence to the following: "He suggested that the long barrow's builders kept the megaliths in place by filling the chamber with sand. Once the capstone was placed atop and the chamber was stable, he thought, the builders would have removed the supporting sand." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
        • "in the drystone wall" What drystone wall? Also, isn't it dry stone rather than drystone?
          The wall is introduced at the end of the previous paragraph; do you think we need to expand on this in the article? The source itself used "drystone" as one word rather than two, although our Wikipedia article is titled "Dry stone". I've changed it to the two-word option (although have no particular preference either way) and have also added a Wikilink to our article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
          So you did; apologies. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

        Back later. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

        • "Many archaeologists have suggested that the construction of these monuments reflects an attempt to mark control and ownership over the land, thus reflecting a change in mindset brought about by the transition from the hunter-gatherer Mesolithic to the pastoralist Early Neolithic." You claim many but cite one; does Hutton claim/cite many? If I was being critical, I'd say this subsection was a little heavy on weasel words.
        • Hutton specifically cites Richard Bradley here, so we can probably do the same. I've played around with the prose to amend this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I think sherd and daub are jargon. I'd recommend a link or explanation at first mention.
        • "The existence of Chestnuts Long Barrow has been known since the 18th century." Known to antiquarians, maybe? It was clearly known in the middle ages...
        • Very true! I've changed this sentence to reflect that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
        • "During the late 19th century, the field in which the barrow is located was used as a paddock.[2]" Does this not belong in the "subsequent use" section? This may not be the only example of this in that section.
        • Yes, I think it certainly does. I've moved it. There are also some sentences which could be moved ("In 1953, the archaeologist Leslie Grinsell reported that several small trees and bushes had grown up within the megaliths.[102] That year, the field was prepared for horticultural use, being levelled and ploughed, although the area around the megaliths was left undisturbed.") but which chronologically slot in better in their current location. I'm not completely averse to moving these too, if you think it advisable? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Colebrooke source - technically, I don't think you need archive or access information as the link is a courtesy link. Your citation would be fine without it - you're citing the journal, not the archived web page.
        • I see your point. I've removed the links here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Your Killick reference seems to be in a different format to the others?
        • I don't really like the inclusion of publishers for journals, but I suppose it's doing no harm. If I was being really picky, I might note that a lot of them are published by university presses, rather than solely by scholarly societies.
        • I'm very happy to remove these; it does not particularly bother me either way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

        I think this is a great article - with a comparatively full bibliography! I am taking part in the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

        Also, per WP:LEADLENGTH, your lead is too long! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

        • I had actually expanded it from it's GA rated version in anticipation of the FAC, but I see your point so I have trimmed it back again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

        Also also, I wonder if, compositionally, the Geograph photo might be the best of the lead? It gives perhaps the best impression of the whole structure. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

        • I think you're right; it would work better in the lede. I've swapped the two images around. It's a shame we don't have any better quality photographs of the site. The fact that it is on private land and (at least at present) does not appear to be open to visitors obviously makes this more difficult. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

        Thanks for your time and attention, Josh. I'll respond to your other two points soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

        Comments from Red King

        • Dimensions: abbreviate or don't abbreviate, 'X kilometres (Y mi)' looks amateurish (and I don't understand why it is default behaviour of template:convert!). So use either {{convert|10|km|abbr=on}} or {{convert|10|km|abbr=off}} (which produce 10 km (6.2 mi) or 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) ).
        • Ah, I don't really mind either way, but I've added "|abbr=off" throughout, just to ensure consistency. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
        If anyone is interested, there is an explanation of why template:convert behaves as it does, at Template talk:Convert#Inconsistent abbreviation. It is intended behaviour. --Red King (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Passive voice is best avoided unless it is utterly unimportant who did it "an MRI scan was taken of the suspected area" is ok but "In 1961, it was noted" is certainly not (tagged). Whenever I see passive voice, I expect wp:WEASEL.
        • A very fair point. I've amended the sentence in question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
        • 'The chambers were constructed from sarsen,' tagged as needing citation.
        • Ah, that's a case where the next citation along covers the information. I'll duplicate the citation to make things clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

        My only other thought has been said already: the lead is disproportionately large. Otherwise, a well-written piece. --Red King (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

        Many thanks for taking the time to read through this, Red King. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

        Image review

        • File:Distribution_of_long_barrows.png is of fairly poor quality - possible to get a new version with a different base map?
          Nominator(s): Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

          Please note this is actually the second nomination for this article; the title has been moved around a few times over the years (and I wouldn't be surprised if another move is suggested here again). The previous nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laborintus II (2012 recording)/archive1. The main concern, aside from questions of titling and an odd interlude on whether this article constitutes commercial prejudicing, seemed to be whether I had accurately mirrored the sources used--between that review and a few subsequent re-readings of everything used I am confident that there should be no misunderstandings of the source material now; however a source review would be a good way to start this off. I'm also well out of the loop as regards FAC and haven't nominated an article here in a number of years, but hopefully it's like eating a bicycle. Bear with me if I'm rusty. Thanks in advance to anyone who participates in this one. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

          Image review

          • File:Dante-alighieri.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
            I've added {{
            • The first sentence identifies that the album is by three different groups (Ictus Ensemble, Nederlands Kamerkoor and Mike Patton), but only two are named in the top line of the infobox. Is there any reason why Nederlands Kamerkoor is excluded?
            • Would it be beneficial to add links for music genres like jazz, electronic music, pop, and folk music?
            • I am uncertain about the placement of the "which..." dependent clauses in these two parts, (Luciano Berio, which featured lyrics taken from) and (Members of the Dutch choir Nederlands Kamerkoor, which performed in the recording,), since they are directly after a person and not an object. I think the second example should be "who" instead of "which". I could be overthinking it, but it was something that caught my attention while reading through the article.
            • I would recommend adding alternative text for the infobox image.
            • The word "avant-garde" is linked twice in the article. AllMusic is also linked twice.
            • I think PopMatters should be put in italics in this part: (Max Feldman of PopMatters awarded Laborintus II). Same for Consequence of Sound in this part: (Consequence of Sound's Carson O'Shoney rated the album three stars out of five). I think both should be linked in the box in the same section.
            • This is more of a clarification question, but I was wondering if there is a set structure for the "Release and reception" section? I was just curious because the last two paragraphs seem a little random in terms of critics and quotes. I am not saying there is anything wrong, but I would like to know more about the organization.

            I hope these comments are helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

            Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

            This article is about an Eastern Roman Emperor named Marcian, who ruled from 450 to 457; the article was previously nominated, with many suggesting it be run through by a GOCE copyeditor before renomination, which has been done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

            Image review—pass

            All images are free, correctly licensed, and relevant. buidhe 03:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

            Nominator(s): NoahTalk 21:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

            This article is about Tropical Storm Ileana during the 2018 Pacific hurricane season. While quite small in word count, I believe it incorporates virtually every detail out there on the storm. Please feel free to leave comments below. NoahTalk 21:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

            Image review—pass

            Both images are relevant, correctly arranged, and available under free licenses. buidhe 22:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

            @

            An article, much less an FA, cannot be tacked together with primary sources. NOAA discussion numbers such as this and advisory numbers are irredeemably primary. Sorry but this is a nogo. Wikipedia has to decide that this is legal. Until then, my hands are tied. The FAC community also needs to decide whether there is a lower bound on the page size. This article has 1,000 words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

            So these weren't legal? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
            It's a problem with a lot of hurricane articles. I have registed my oppose. The coords can decide what weight to assign to it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
            As for your size comment, many past FAs have been significantly smaller than this. A list may be viewed here (hasn't been updated in a few years). One of the smallest (at least as far as I know) is Miss Meyers with a mere 686 words today. That is over 30% smaller than Ileana is right now. If I recall correctly, SchroCat either worked on or knows someone who worked on a bunch of smaller FAs. I believe they were smaller than this. NoahTalk 16:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
            @WP:FAC coordinators: Also pinging the coordinators for their thoughts. NoahTalk 17:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
            Primary sources are not disallowed, per WP:PRIMARY. What is disallowed is original research from primary sources. Nor is there anything in the FAC criteria that require a certain number of words in a candidate article - all that is required is that an article be comprehensive and cover all the information covered in the sources. I haven't read the article to tell if either of these situations apply - and the oppose does not touch on that either. If this article does original research from primary sources or neglects some area that's covered by sources - the reviewer needs to substantiate that. If reviewers want to change the criteria to exclude any use of primary sources or to require some minimum size, that's a discussion for another location, not on an individual nomination. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
            OK, Thanks Ealdgyth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
            I am no longer opposing the article. Thanks for the clarification.
            Nominator(s): Aviator423 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

            Mangalore was a Featured Article in Wikipedia from 2008 to 2018. It was de-listed from FAC in 2018. In January 2020, a Featured Article review was done and the article didn't get promoted. Thereafter, it has been nominated and listed as a Good Article. FAC copyediting by GOCE is also done for this article.

            I have listed the article as a Featured Article Candidate. Aviator423 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

            Suggest withdrawal Comment by Fowler&fowler

            The latter two-thirds of the article is a sea of blue links, lacking both descriptive and narrative prose. It is a list. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is a nonstarter. I don't need to cite chapter and verse. I recommend withdrawing the article, examining its history, examining what it looked like in 2008 when it became an FA, and removing at least half the links, maybe two thirds. Only then will you be able to create room for prose, for its phrases, clauses, and adjuncts. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

            If the link exists for that particular page, then it is added. It is the crux of the World Wide Web. Then why do Wikipedia and Google take the number of links into consideration? For your information, I am a PhD in Computer Science with summa cum laude. The latter two-thirds of the article comprise the comprehensive prose for Economy, Education, Transport, Culture, Sports and pastimes, Media and Tourism.
            There is years of effort in composing the prose and narrative of this article. Are you are only interested in the colour "blue"? The 2008 version of the article had many blue links and even red links too? Now will you say that broken links were added to that 2008 Featured Article?
            If Wikipedia doesn't encourage adding links to a page, then why are WP:Building the web and WP:Orphan very important?
            I am very sorry Mr. Fowler&fowler, but your analysis is very shallow, and is demeaning the efforts made by all the Editors including the Copy-Editors to this page.
            The review hasn't even started, and Mr. Fowler&fowler is suggesting withdrawal. Here is the page version he is talking about:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mangalore&oldid=941315961
            Aviator423 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
            Thank you for your input. I am no longer opposing the article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

            Oppose, suggest withdrawal - I appreciate the effort that has gone into this article. However, unfortunately I do not feel it meets the current iteration of the featured article criteria. Specifically:

            • 1a (prose): particularly in the later sections the prose is very listy, and at times repetitive. There are some grammatical errors and also inconsistency in what variety of English is used - for example the article contains both "program" and "programme".
            There was 1 occurrence of inconsistency. It is resolved. I don't think that the latter sections are listy. For the Education section, the earliest institutes are mentioned. As far as repetitive is concerned, Pilikula is mentioned in both Sports and Tourism sections, since it has a Golf course in addition to being a tourism destination. I don't agree with the terms 'listy' and 'repetitive'. Aviator423 (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
            I provided one example, but it's not the only occurrence. Here's another example showing both inconsistency and repetitiveness: "In 2006, a Tulu film festival was organised in Mangalore.[290] Tulu Cinemotsava 2015 was organized in January 2015". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
            That statement is rewritten as Mangalore hosted the Tulu film festivals in 2006 and 2015.[288][289]. Please confirm if it's fine, or any changes are needed. Aviator423 (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
            • 1b (comprehensiveness): the article is missing discussion of healthcare, and the contemporary history section is quite abbreviated.
            Contemporary history section has been updated. It is already a lengthy article. Is a healthcare section really needed? Do you need another point to mention the healthcare section also as listy? Aviator423 (talk)
            It should be possible to write such a section without being listy, and I do think it's needed, particularly given that the lead identifies the city as a healthcare "hub" without any corresponding content in the body. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
            I've added some statements related to Healthcare in the Economy section. Will create a section for Healthcare, when more statements are included. I will be working on adding more statements. Kindly let me know about any changes or suggestions. Please provide me some time to further enhance the Healthcare content. Aviator423 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
            Done - A section for Healthcare is created within the Government and public services section. Please let me know your suggestions. Aviator423 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
            • 1c (sourcing): some of the sources used are of questionable reliability, such as bharathautos.com. There are also theses that do not have sufficient information provided to assess whether they meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
            There is no such source - bharathautos.com. I don't know what you are talking about. Also those theses sources have been removed from the article. Aviator423 (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
            That source is footnote 208 - it is difficult to identify at a glance since the citation is incomplete. As to the theses, the guidelines around sourcing have changed significantly since 2008. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
            Replaced bharathautos.com with a new reliable source. I am working on the addition of authors. Authors have been added to the first 270 news citations. Will try to complete them soon. Aviator423 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
            Done The changes have been made. Please confirm if any modifications are necessary. Aviator423 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
            • 2 (style): the article is not consistent with the Manual of Style, for example in repeating wikilinks.
            The repeating links are removed. Aviator423 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
            They haven't been - for example Pandyan Kingdom is linked twice from the same paragraph in Etymology. And again, that was an example only. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
            Pandyan Kingdom update is done. Aviator423 (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
            Done - Kindly confirm if it's fine. I'll make further changes based on your suggestions. Aviator423 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
            • 2c (citation formatting): citations are inconsistently and often incorrectly formatted, and some do not have sufficient information to accurately identify the source.
            If you are referring to the formatting of newspaper citations, then that issue is resolved. Be specific about the statement "citations do not have sufficient information to accurately identify the source". Aviator423 (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
            Sources that have a named author should include the author's name in the citation - for example FNs 6, 14, 34, etc. Web sources should include website or publisher name - missing for example in FN17. Publication location for books is optional but if it's to be included it should be done consistently - for example you include it in FN22 but not in FN23. Etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
            There are around 250 to 300 newspaper citations in the article. Adding an author to almost each one of them will take some time. I request you to please co-operate with the time. Aviator423 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
            Done - The citation changes have been made. Please verify and suggest if further changes are needed. Aviator423 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

            Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

            Note: There is absolutely no yardstick involved in the Featured Article reviews. Any editor on any given day can come and say 'suggest withdrawal', 'oppose', 'support' or 'comment'. Articles with 100 odd corrections can be supported in FA review, but articles with 5-6 corrections can be withdrawn ! PR tactics matter a lot in FA reviews !
            Aviator423 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
            I base my commentary in FACs on my own assessment with regards to WP:WIAFA, which is the yardstick against which articles are meant to be assessed - not the specific number of corrections needed nor how good the article's "PR". If you feel my assessment is incorrect, state your case and allow the @WP:FAC coordinators: to gauge whether my comments constitute an actionable oppose or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
            Note for others looking at this discussion: please be aware that some of the nominator's comments were changed after I had replied to them, please refer to history for the state of the page at the time of my responses.

            I apologize greatly for this and I know it's not fun to have your FAC opposed like this, but I had a bit of a hard time reading this article. I don't think the prose is to FA standards and think that a thorough copyedit is in order. Here are some more comments; none of these would be fatal to an FAC on their own but this is not exhaustive and dealing with them is not enough for me to strike my oppose. I also respectfully suggest withdrawal for this and refer you to the Guild of Copyediting.

            • officially known as Mangaluru, I assume this was officially changed at some point like Mumbai, Chennai, and Bengaluru, but the article makes no mention of it.
            • Ptolemy's and Pliny the Elder's Just say "These".
            • Why is it at times the full "kilometres" but the abbreviated "mi"?
            • Mphasis BPO. What does "BPO" stand for?
            • The New Mangalore Port Is it officially called the "New Mangalore Port"? Otherwise it shouldn't be capitalized.
            • The city generates 175 tons per day of waste I assume this means the metric tonnes, but several imperial units are also called "tons" and this doesn't describe which unit is meant.
            • As said above by Nikkimaria, DUPLINKs are bad form.

            I intend to take WikiCup points for this review. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 03:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

            Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

            Relatively little attention has been given in the sources to the subject of George Washington and Slavery in comparison to other aspects of the life of a founding father and first president of the US. This article draws primarily on the three books and four papers that focus specifically on the subject, supplemented with information from general histories that cover the subject in varying degrees. Factotem (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

            Image review

            • Suggest scaling up the estate map and ad
            • Some images are missing alt text
            • File:GW-painting.jpg: source link is dead
            • File:List_of_George_Washington's_taxable_property_in_Truro_Parish_Virginia_including_slaves_1788.jpg needs a US PD tag
            • File:Slave_Memorial_-_Mt._Vernon,_Virginia_-_Stierch.jpg should include the date of the original memorial. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
            Estate map doubled in size, alt text added, dead source link resurrected and date of original memorial added to image info on Commons. Factotem (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
            I'm not quite sure how to correctly address the PD tag issue for the list of taxable property. As effectively a tax return, I would assume this is part of the Federal Govt and therefore in the public domain. I have, however, added a PD-USGov-Congress tag to the licensing info on Commons, based on the fact that the document is held by the Library of Congress. Is that acceptable? Factotem (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
            That tag is intended for works created by LOC, not held by them. Is the authorship of the list known? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
            OK. There's no specific attribution, but logically it can only have been Washington himself, or possibly an agent of his. I also cannot find anything that would suggest a publication date. Grateful for any advice you might be able to give, otherwise I'll just remove it from the article. Factotem (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
            After a little more digging, I have found the following:
            • The list is part of the collection of Washington's papers (source: Library of Congress, on whose website it is published). As such, can we make the assumption that the author is Washington, in which case PD-old-70 would apply?
            • The papers had all come into government possession by 1849, and the Library of Congress released microfilm reproductions in 1964 and digitised images on its website in 1998 (source:

              I will start with just a few comments, and maybe later will comment more.

              • Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Opening_paragraph, the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is, and should be in plain English. Here, the lead sentence says, "The relationship between George Washington and slavery was complex, contradictory and evolved over time." The vocabulary is in plain English, but I'm not so sure the gist is plain English. The lead sentence basically says it's all a muddy mess, and does not even hint about whether he owned slaves, whether that was unusual in his social context, and whether he evolved from opposing slavery to supporting it or vice versa. I would suggest something like "George Washington and slavery coexisted in the Virginia culture where he grew up, and his Mount Vernon plantation relied heavily upon slave labor, but in the 1780s he privately advocated the abolition of slavery, and later commanded in his will that his slaves be set free." Tons of info is packed into a lead sentence like that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              Fair point. I will work on this. Leads are always difficult to get right, and it will take some time. Can you bear with me please? Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              Sure, take your time, there’s no deadline. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              I've recast the lead to better introduce the topic. It means losing the bolded title usually included in that sentence, but per MOS:FIRST and MOS:BOLDAVOID, this requirement is not set in stone. How does that look to you now? Factotem (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              Looks much better to me, I made a few minor tweaks. Regarding a bolded part of the lead sentence, the guidance is as follows: “If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.[3] However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text.” I don’t care a lot one way or the other, but am not sure it’s impossible to use the article title. Keep in mind that we’re just getting started here, so it would not be out of the question to modify the article title if that would facilitate its use in the opening sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              I can suggest this, without any title change: “George Washington and slavery coexisted; he was a slaveowner his entire adult life, but became uneasy with an institution that was ingrained in the economic and social fabric of his native Virginia, and ultimately provided for the emancipation of his slaves in his will.” Then bold the first four words. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              That GW & slavery co-existed is self-evident and doesn't need stating. I think we should avoid trying to shoe-horn the title in just so that there's something to bold. That's how I ended up with the now rejected first sentence, and anyway MOS:BOLDAVOID advises against that. Factotem (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              Okay, I agree. The rule says, “If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it.“ Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              I gave this another try. Feel free to revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
              That's still stating the obvious in the first sentence, and "apprehensive" in the second is not at all an accurate way of describing it. The only way I can see of getting the bolded title into the first sentence is with "The relationship between George Washington and Slavery was complex, contradictory and evolved over time. He was a slaveowner..." This is basically the same construction as your now reverted edit. The advantages are that it allows the bolded title in a naturally flowing, accurate sentence. The disadvantage is that it does not state off the bat that GW was a slaveowner, per your original objection, but the few people in the world who don't know that quickly learn it in the very next sentence. Factotem (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
              It’s kind of tedious to dwell on the first couple sentences, but it usually turns out to be worth it. We can come back to it, maybe others will be able to cut the knot. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
              Agreed Factotem (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
              Food for thought: “George Washington and slavery paired a man known for advancing human freedom with its antithesis....”. This is the central contradiction of this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
              Washington owned slaves from age eleven until his death at sixty-seven. Over that lifetime he set not one single slave free, nor did he ever publicly lend his weight, either in terms of his considerable personal reputation or the high office he held, to the abolitionist cause. I don't think it's appropriate to state in the very first sentence of an article on this topic that GW was known for advancing human freedom. Factotem (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
              • As for the rest of the opening paragraph, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Opening_paragraph says it should be written "without being too specific." If that guidance were more closely followed, I think the opening paragraph would be quite a bit shorter. Therefore, I would suggest moving this stuff out of the lead: "He put his slaves to work on his Mount Vernon estate, which in time grew to some 8,000 acres (3,200 ha) encompassing five separate farms, initially planting tobacco but diversifying into grain crops in the mid 1760s. Washington's early attitudes to slavery reflected the prevailing Virginia planter views of the day; he demonstrated no moral qualms about the institution and referred to his slaves as 'a Species of Property.'" The size and structure of Mount Vernon gets into the weeds, and naming the specific crops does not obviously illuminate his relationship to slavery, so consider moving it out of the opening paragraph. I would remove the quote about "a Species of property" entirely from the lead, because that is merely how slavery was defined, and it also seems kind of unbalanced to use this as the sole GW quote about slavery in the lead when he said so much else about it during his life. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              Fair enough. I will cut some of the detail about Mount Vernon's development, but the transition from planter to farmer was a significant point in the evolution of Washington's attitude to slavery and warrants a mention in the lead. You make a good point about the quote - I'll cut that. Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              Looks good. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              • Having three or four paragraphs in the lead is fine, but they are presently too long, and ought to be cut approximately in half, IMHO. Overly long paragraphs are hard to read. Much of this material could be moved out of the lead, and perhaps out of the article entirely to the extent that it merely describes the typical condition of slaves during the History of slavery in Virginia. I recall reading that James Madison equipped his slaves with umbrellas, and if Washington did anything unusual like that, then it would be more suitable for this article's lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              I'll see what I can do about reducing the length, but the narrative about the slaves' condition at Mount Vernon is every bit a part of the subject as the evolution of Washington's attitudes to the institution. That slave narrative, as it relates specifically to Washington, is covered at length in the sources, most notably Thompson's work and the Mount Vernon website. To exclude that aspect from this article would be a failure to meet the FAC criteria (1b. comprehensive), and the coverage in the main body of the article is significant enough to warrant coverage in the lead, per MOS:LEAD.Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              At this point, I won’t suggest excluding any of it from the article body, it’s just a question of how much to put in the lead. Covering it in the lead is fine, if it’s not too long. A lot of generic material about slavery can go in this article body, and you can also link to it in the lead using “History of slavery in Virginia”. The lead should summarize the article’s main points in a nutshell. So the issue is whether you can convey how horrible slavery was without going into so much detail. Consider this material: “Field slaves were provided with a set of clothes each year which, due to the nature of their work, were quickly worn out. Domestic slaves who attended the Washingtons and came into regular contact with visitors were better clothed.“ Wouldn’t all of that have been just as true of paid workers? Keep it in the article body if you like, but for the lead it seems like too much. At most, it would seem sufficient to say in the lead that the slaves were often poorly clothed, if that was the case, and then all the detail can go in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              Not quite sure what you're getting at with linking History of slavery in Virginia in the lead, which you've mentioned twice now. Everything in this article about the slave condition is specific to Washington's slaves, and I'm not sure what value linking to a generic article, which is anyway linked to as a hatnote at the beginning of the Background section, will bring. I do see what you mean about the second para in the lead though - I was never quite happy with that myself. I will look into reworking it to be a little more summary and a little less detail. Factotem (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              I've trimmed the detail from the sentences you've cited. Any better? Factotem (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              You’ve said in the lead that his views reflected prevailing Virginia planter views of the day. Did his practices, that you describe in the lead’s second paragraph, likewise reflect prevailing practices at comparable Virginia plantations of the day, or were there substantial differences? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              That's a good question and similar to the point raised by JohnWickTwo below. From memory, the only distinctions that spring to mind is Washington's recognition of slave marriages, which weren't recognised in Virginian law, and his later reluctance to sell slaves at a public venue or separate families by sale. Those are already covered in the article. I'll check through the sources tomorrow to see if there's anything that can be added on that subject. Factotem (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              Okay, if stuff in the second paragraph of the lead reflected general practice, then I think that ought to be briefly mentioned at the start of the second paragraph. My preference, though, would be to start the second paragraph by saying his practices matched general Virginia practice, but with limited exceptions such as X, Y, and Z (i.e. remove run-of-the-mill stuff from the second paragraph and only include the stuff Washington did differently). Both the run-of-the-mill stuff and the aberrations could go in the article body. Anythingyouwant (talk)
              I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at here. The narrative in the main body about the slave condition, in the "Slavery at Mount Vernon" section, represents approximately one third of the article. Per MOS:LEAD and WP:WIAFA 2a, it is a requirement to summarise that in the lead. Factotem (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
              Whatever you put in the lead about the practice of slavery at Mt. Vernon, the reader should be told whether it’s typical or atypical. Same for the article body. I personally find the atypical stuff more interesting, more revealing about Washington, and therefore more useful to put into this article. That’s all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
              Done, insofar as the sources identify this info. Factotem (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
              Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
              I have scanned through the main source on that aspect and added information in the main body about how Washington's practices compared with general practice. I've also recast the 2nd para of the lead to better summarise the key points of the "Slavery at Mount Vernon" section, including a mention about general practice. Factotem (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
              • The external links give only one link to mountvernon.org but it might be very useful to list and briefly describe the relevant web pages at mountvernon.org. For example, this description of his changing views should definitely be in the external links, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              Yep. Added. Factotem (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
              Thanks.

              A short comment about the narrative style and your general approach. Its currently an interesting theme article which might use a general reading with an eye to tighten the narrative in places. For example, the phrase "Any hopes Washington may have had that his example...", could be simplified to "Washington's concern that his example...". Also, there has been a 6-hr biographical miniseries about Washington on the History Channel that just aired which dealt in part with his relationship to antebellum slaveholding. It might be of interest to readers if a section were added to the article which dealt with Washington's viewpoint in comparison to the other Virginia slaveholders, like Jefferson and other Founding Fathers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

              Happy to address any issues with the prose, but the example you provided is written that way specifically to reflect what the sources say. Wiencek writes, "Washington may have believed that, given his immense prestige, his will would have some lasting influence on the debate over slavery." Hirschfeld writes, "Perhaps it had been hoped that Washington's example of benevolence toward his slaves would carry over to other members of his family." Neither definitively state that Washington actually intended his act to set an example, which is why I have phrased it in the same speculative way the sources have rather than the simpler version you suggest.
              To address your other points:
              • As much as I enjoy dramatised documentaries designed for popular consumption, I don't think they're the kind of high quality, scholarly source expected at FAC;
              • I will have another scan through the sources I have, but from memory, very little mention is made in the secondary sources of any comparison between Washington and other Virginia/Founding-Father slaveholders.
                Nominator(s): L293D ( • ) 01:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                A strange incident in which a helicopter mechanic, Robert Preston, stole a helicopter and flew around Washington D.C., then back to Maryland, being pursued by police in helis and cars. He turned back towards D.C. and actually landed on the south lawn of the White House while under fire from the secret service. I got interested in this when reading about it in a monthly Air & Space magazine, then forgot about it for a while, until I saw it again on WP's Main Page in the OTD section. After a complete rewrite from Start-class, a good article review, and an A-class review, I think it is ready for FA. Thanks! L293D ( • ) 01:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                Source review—pass

                • Daily Collegian — this is a student newspaper, what makes it an RS?
                • Other sources look good. Formatting OK. Source checks not done due to nominator's history. buidhe 01:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
                • I've removed the Daily Collegian and cited the text to the Air & Space magazine. Thanks. L293D ( • ) 02:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
                • I'm satisfied that the article is sufficiently complete to merit A-class, but the following sources (which I have access to and can send you if you like) have additional information:
                  • "Soldier Lands a Stolen Copier on White House Lawn". The New York Times. Richard L. Madden Special to The New York Times. 18 February 1974. Retrieved 29 December 2019.
                  • "Soldier Gets Year Term For Helicopter Incident". The New York Times. 30 August 1974.
                • Great finds, I was able to use them to add some extra details as well as given another reference to a lot of existing content. L293D ( • ) 15:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
                • This review also counts as a pass at FAC source review. buidhe 05:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

                Image review

                • Suggest adding alt text
                  • Done.
                • File:Preston_helicopter.jpg: possible to say something more useful than "dunno" for date? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                  • I really wish I could have a date, but I've done a lot of digging and the image has no exif data. If you feel it's really important I think the only thing I can do is email Air & Space and ask them. L293D ( • ) 03:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                    • Welp, I looked for about an hour and all I found was that 160219 is in the URL, so if I had to guess it would be February 19, 2016, but I really have no idea. You could always try to email Air and Space and see if they have any more information.
                      • To my eye the lead seems unduly long relative to the length of the article. Optional: consider trimming it.
                      • "On February 17, 1974, Army Private Robert K. Preston" As this is introducing the topic, it would be helpful to specify which army.
                        • Says "US Army" now.
                      • "Preston was returning to Tipton Field on leave south of Fort Meade where 30 Hueys were fueled and ready to fly" This doesn't really work to my eye. Perhaps two sentences? One describing Tipton Field's location and the aircraft there, and a second describibg Prestons actions?
                        • Sounds better like this? "Shortly after midnight, Preston, on leave, was returning to Tipton Field, south of Fort Meade. Thirty helicopters at the base were fueled and ready to fly; he took off in one".
                      • "This amounted to a six-month sentence, since he had already been in prison for six months at the time." This does not seem to be factually correct. Do you mean something like 'This meant that Preston had to serve an additional six months, since he... '?
                        • Clearer like this: "The duration of his court-martial was given to him as time served; this resulted in a further six months in prison"?
                      • The source you cite does not seem to support "downhearted due to ... his lack of success in his military career".
                        • The source, Air & Space, says: "the 20-year-old private, despondent over his muddied future and a failed relationship, was on his way back..."
                      Yes, I did check it. The quote mentions "a failed relationship" - fine - and "his muddied future". The article addresses his past "lack of success in his military career".
                      • Replaced with "unclear future in his military career".
                      Hmm. OK. Close enough I suppose.
                      • "He caused one police car to crash with a head-on pass just a few inches above its roof" Suggest 'He caused one police car to crash by executing a head-on pass just a few inches above its roof'.
                        • Good idea.
                      • "then followed the Baltimore–Washington Parkway once again towards Washington, planning to surrender personally to U.S. President Richard Nixon. Preston flew back towards Washington" The second phrase in italics seems redundant.
                        • Cut that part out.
                      • "Shots hit Preston's foot, but he was able to regain control" "regain control" - it hasn't been stated nor suggested that he lost control.
                        • Expanded on this.
                      • "for overnight treatment" I am not sure about "overnight". Perhaps delete, or perhaps 'for treatment, and stayed there overnight'?
                        • Removed.
                      • "his resulted in a further six months in prison. He eventually served two months of hard labor at Fort Riley, Kansas before being granted a general discharge" I am confused. Was the two months in addition to or instead of the 6/12 months previously mentioned?
                        • That was instead; I've replace "eventually" with "instead".
                      • "The Secret Service increased the restricted airspace around the White House." It may be clearer to say 'The Secret Service increased the size of the restricted airspace around the White House.', if that is what is meant.
                        • Done.

                      Overall, a nice piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

                      • Thanks. See if my changes are satisfactory. L293D ( • ) 21:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

                      That all looks good. Just the query over the interpretation of the source left. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

                      • See my reply. L293D ( • ) 02:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Thanks. Looks good to me. Supporting.
                      Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.
                      Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

                      The article failed its first FAC, despite overwhelming support, because I was not able to address the co-ord's closing comments during a brief period of block. Now that I have, and the article has gone through great copyediting, I feel it is more than ready. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Oppose from Laser brain

                      I don't think this is ready, sorry. It's evident from the article history that someone went through it, but I still see lots of awkward writing and what looks to be clumsy paraphrasing from sources. Examples:

                      • "Sathi Leelavathi was launched in 1935." The word "launched" isn't standard English for when a film is released. Did someone choose that word to paraphrase "released"?
                      Yes, it was Baffle. It was filming that began in 1935 and is implied to have ended in the same year, yet the release was delayed due to the lawsuit. So can I write, "Principal photography began in 1935"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Okay, now I've written "Principal photography for Sathi Leelavathi began in 1935". Hope it is good because that's fact. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "the film was made primarily at Vel Pictures Studio" Meaning principal photography was done at that studio? Or it was edited there?
                      I guess everything; filming and post-production. So should I say shot or filmed? It seems post also happened at the studio as Dungan said, "the Vel Pictures studio manager, Mr. Ramamurthi, used to clean all the exposed negatives by hand – inch by inch, frame by frame" and narrated another incident involving him and the editor, happening at the same studio. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Okay, now I've written "the film was shot primarily at Vel Pictures Studio, Madras". Hope it is good because that's fact. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "In a 1994 interview with Ananda Vikatan, Dungan said during the first few days of filming" Not even grammatically correct.
                      • "Dungan corrected this and advised Ramachandran to deliver his lines naturally" This section constructs a narrative suggesting that a stage actor was able to be coached in "understanding the nuances of film acting" in the span of a few days?
                      I got the translation from a book I won't use: "During the first few days of the shooting, MGR did not understand the nuances of film acting and was delivering the dialogues aggressively even his acting appeared to be overacting. I corrected and advised him to deliver dialogues with natural acting. He changed his way of acting after that." What do I do? But I do believe "a stage actor was able to be coached in "understanding the nuances of film acting" in the span of a few days" simply by dropping exaggeration and overacting, and acting naturally like he would in real life. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "Dungan wrote in A Guide to Adventure, his 2001 autobiography, most of the cast were theatre actors..." Not grammatically correct, again.
                      Blame it on Baffle, don't blame it on me. My original writing before Miniapolis' c/e was, Dungan wrote in his 2001 autobiography A Guide to Adventure that, since the majority of cast members were theatre actors, he was tasked with "subduing [their] voices and facial expressions". The source reads, "As was the case with Sathi Leelavathi, the cast came from the stage. So again I had to take on the task of subduing the actors’ voices and facial expressions." Can I restore this writing? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                      These are just pot-shots from one section. I'd reject this for GA status. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Quite surprising to see the co-ord making comments when the FAC just opened, and not when it is about to close. Anyway, please don't swiftly archive this. I agree with your comments and will try resolving them, provided you give more. And I expected better from Baffle gab 1978, who did the c/e. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
                      I'm commenting here as a reviewer, not a coordinator. I'm recusing. I'm making comments now because I was surprised to see the nomination appear so soon after I commented on the poor quality of writing last time. The article needs a complete overhaul from someone who has access to the sources and can create a more cohesive and well-written narrative. This is not best done during an open FAC nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Okay Laser, sorry for the misassumption. In the previous FAC, you gave comments only about "Music" and I solved them. You also said the whole article needed rewriting, but not how some sentences needed to be rephrased. That is why I listed it at the GOCE. But if you have issues with the rewritten prose, please don't blame me but Baffle, for it is his edits that you find appalling. And the second FAC did not appear "so soon after I commented on the poor quality of writing last time", but almost a month later, and that too only after the GOCE editing was complete, and when I believed Baffle solved the issues raised by you. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Could you possibly ease up on the hyperbole? It makes working with you fairly unpleasant. --Laser brain (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Yes and apologies Laser, I will no longer make hyperboles as the comments are easily solvable and I have enough time to do so. I do not want us to be enemies, so you please take your own time to reply to my questions above. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Thank you. To the matter at hand: It is not GOCE or a copyeditor's job to understand your sources and create a cohesive narrative, nor to recognize awkward paraphrasing. They will go through a polish the text and correct obvious grammatical errors (maybe). I've given examples only, but I believe this article should be withdrawn as it requires a substantial revision from someone working from the sources. You may have to partner with a stronger writer. Fixing my examples does not address my opposition. --Laser brain (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      To emphasize a point, I am very disappointed that you continue to drag a good-faith editor's name through the mud (Baffle gab) during this process. Very poor form. --

                      I participated in the previous FAC, and I will do a thorough read-through of the article to hopefully help as much as possible. I can understand Laser brain's comments, and I agree with the parts that they have pointed out above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Resolved comments
                      Lead
                      • For this sentence (It is based on S. S. Vasan's eponymous novel that was serialised in 1934 in the magazine Ananda Vikatan), I would link "serialised" to the Serial (literature) article as some readers may be unfamiliar with the concept. I would also flip the last part to have the magazine title first and the year last.
                      • I do not think the phrase "eponymous novel" is used correctly because the novel is not named S. S. Vasan after the author. I would just say "novel" instead to avoid this.
                      Right now it reads, "It is based on S. S. Vasan's novel of the same name, which had been serialised in 1934". Outriggr did some c/e. And serial is linked to what you said. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For the lead's first paragraph, would it be beneficial to put the plot summary before the listing of the ensemble cast? Since the list is quite dense with information, it may be helpful to inform the reader about the plot first before identifying each actor. I do not believe there is a policy or standard for this as I have seen some FAs on films put the plot summary first and others put the actors first so it is up to you. Just thought it was worth asking.
                      Your suggestion is good and worth discussing at WP:FILMLEAD, but I'm following the example used in most MCU articles: "Para 1: introduce the film, its cast and premise"; "Para 2: Behind the scenes"; "Para 3: The film's premiere/release and reception". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Understandable. There is not a set standard/policy so it is really up to you. Either way would work for me so the current wording is good. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I am uncertain about the first sentence in the lead's plot summary. The "man named" is a little clunky to me. I would instead go with something like: (Sathi Leelavathi focuses on Krishnamurthy, a wealthy Madras-based man who is lured into drinking alcohol by his friend Ramanthan.). Also, is "friend' the best descriptive phrase for this character?
                      The current phrasing is, "In the film, the wealthy Krishnamurthy, a man from Madras, is lured into drinking alcohol by his acquaintance. Believing he murdered his friend in a drunken stupor, Krishnamurthy flees to Ceylon while his daughter and wife, Leelavathi, are reduced to poverty." Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For the second sentence in the lead's plot summary, I would just say "his friend Parasuraman" as "other" seems rather unnecessary to me as it is common for people to have more than one friend. Also, based on my understanding of the story, this is his real friend as opposed to Ramanthan.
                      Ramanathan is now written as "an acquaintance". Still accurate? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Seems better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I have a suggestion for this sentence (Chettiar initially wanted to produce a film version of the theatrical play Pathi Bhakthi but an adaptation was already being made). I think putting a verb like "realized" before the "an adaption" part would pull the sentence together more.
                      Done: Since this is an Indian film (despite being directed by an American), I've gone with "realised". To avoid ambiguity, can I write, "A. N. Marudachalam Chettiar initially wanted to produce a film version of the Madurai Original Boys Company (MOBC) play Pathi Bhakthi but realised an adaptation was already being made". --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this sentence (Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, who wrote the play, later told Chettiar about Vasan's novel, which had the same storyline), I am wondering if the "who wrote the play" part could be removed as it is somewhat cumbersome. Maybe something like (The playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar...). Also, it may be better remove the comma phrases altogether to say something like (The playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar suggested Vasan's novel to Chettiar since it had the same story.) instead.
                      Technically, the play was written by Pavalar, but Mudaliar simply rewrote it. So I've gone with you phrasing. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this sentence (Chettiar obtained the rights to make a film version of the novel and Mudaliar began writing a screenplay.), I would add a comma between "novel" and "and". I believe the rule for commas is that if there are two independent clauses joined by "and", then a comma should go before "and". Another example of this is (D. T. Telang and V. J. Shave were the cinematographers and the film was co-edited by Dungan and Sircar.). I am quite bad with commas and punctuation in general so I would encourage you to research this further.
                      Done: It was originally like that, but changed by Baffle. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I would reduce this part (the film-acting debuts of Radha, Balaiah, Ramachandran—both of whom were stage actors—and K. A. Thangavelu) to something like the following (the film debut of K. A. Thangavelu and stage actors Radha, Balaiah and Ramachandran) to be more concise.
                      All of them were stage actors. Even Thangavelu was, but with another theatre troupe: Rajambal Company. So can I simply say, "the film-acting debuts of Radha, Balaiah, Ramachandran—both of whom were stage actors—and K. A. Thangavelu"? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      I was honestly trying to avoid the dashes so I think it awkwardly cuts off the sentence. But I would be alright with the current wording, but you would need to change "both of whom were stage actors" to "all of whom are stage actors" since you are referencing more than two people. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I was a little confused by this sentence (Sathi Leelavathi was the first film on which Krishnan worked and his second release.) when I read it at first. Maybe a revision to the following (Although Sathi Leelavath was Krishnan's first film, it was his second release after Menaka in 1935.) would make the meaning clearer.
                      The current phrasing is "It was Krishnan's first film appearance and his second release". Accurate? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I would say "but his second release" to emphasize the difference further. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this sentence (Sathi Leelavathi explores temperance, social reform, selfless service and the plight of labourers), I would link "temperance" to the Temperance movement in India article to give readers a greater context to the word.
                      Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I have a few comments for this part (It was one of the earliest Tamil films to become the subject of a court case involving copyright violation; the plaintiffs accused the filmmakers of plagiarising the play Pathi Bhakthi.):
                        • I would link "copyright violation" to help any reader unfamiliar with the concept.
                      As I said before, "copyright violation" is the writing of Sodabottle, who seems to have retired. I would prefer to say, "It was one of the earliest Tamil films to involved in a plagiarism controversy" (matching Category:Films involved in plagiarism controversies), what saith thou? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      I agree it seems more like a plagiarism suit so I would go with that wording. Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                        • I would clarify what is meant by "the plaintiffs" as it is not immediately clear in the sentence who is suing the filmmakers.
                      According to Wiktionary, a plaintiff is "a party bringing a suit in civil law against a defendant; accusers". So it's clear MOBC are the plaintiffs. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      I am well aware of what the word plaintiff means. Both of my parents work in criminal law. It is not clear that MOBC are the plaintiffs because the MOBC is not even introduced in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                        • I am uncertain who is being referenced by the phrase "the filmmakers". Is it the director, producers, screenwriter, some combination? I would clarify this point.
                      Can I write, "MOBC accused the filmmakers of plagiarising the play"? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      The MOBC need to be properly introduced in the lead first to provide an explanation for the acronym. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I would include the title of the Ellen Wood novel in the lead as you have done in the body of the article.
                      Done: It's Danesbury House, dunno why it was removed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

                      These are my suggestions for the lead. I will review the article section-by-section so I can read through each sentence thoroughly and help as much as possible. I am certainly not a great reviewer, but I hope my comments are at least somewhat helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Plot
                      • I am a little confused by this sentence (Ramanathan's collaborator is Rangiah Naidu, a corrupt police inspector.). It is not made immediately clear (at least at this point in the story) what Rangiah Naidu is doing to help Ramanthan, and without this clear connection, this sentence seems rather random. Is Rangiah Naidu present at the tea party and helping to persuade Krishnamurthy to drink alcohol? I think a better transition or strong connection with the rest of the paragraph would be helpful here.
                      It seems so. The plot in English reads, "Krishnamurthy, a rich man of Madras is taught drinking by his friend Ramanathan. He is lured into bad ways... made to indulge in harmful pursuits. A mock tea party is arranged to achieve this end and Ramanathan's collaborator in this is Rangiah, a base individual who disgraced the power entrusted to him." Rangiah is not mentioned again until the end. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Thank you for the explanation. I was curious about this part because Rangiah Naidu seems to come out of nowhere here, but if there is not further information about this part, then this should be good. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I would condense this part (Krishnamurthy is captivated by Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman with whom he becomes infatuated,) down to (Krishnamurthy becomes infatuated by Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman,).
                      • I have a clarification question about this part (and promises to pay her 50,000 (about US$18,700 in 1936). Is he just giving her money or is he paying for her to do something in particularly (i.e. sex)? I would clarify this in the prose if the information is available.
                      The plot in English reads, "Krishnamurthi [sic] is made to fall by the wiles of a loose woman named Mohanangi... Infatuated he promises to pay her a sum of Rs 50,000." After this Mohanangi is never mentioned again. But from the looks of it she is indeed a prostitute. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • Thank you for the explanation. I was curious if they did anything together or if there was a clearer reason for the payment, but since the source leaves it rather vague, then it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I have a clarification question about this sentence (Parasuraman, Krishnamurthy's true friend, tries but fails to reform him.). I am assuming that Parasuraman is trying to stop Krishnamurthy from drinking alcohol? The later parts of this paragraph make it clear that alcohol has become a habitual behavior for Krishnamurthy, but I am uncertain if that is clear at this point so it may be worthwhile to clarify in this sentence exactly what Parasuraman is trying to help his friend with to avoid any confusion.
                      Yes, the pressbook says, "Parasuram [sic], a family friend of Krishnamurthy tries to reform him. His methods prove to be useless." I think it's already clear that Krishnamurthy has become alcoholic. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • If it is clear that Krishnamurthy has become alcoholic, then I would be more direct and state that in the sentence as I initially misread the mock tea party as being a one time thing until later realizing in the second paragraph that Krishnamurthy had other experiences with alcohol and developed this problem. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this part (Krishnamurthy comes home drunk, sees Parasuraman's umbrella, assaults Leelavathi and goes out to shoot Parasuraman.), I would replace the second instance of "Parasuraman" with "him" as it is clear from the context of the rest of the sentence.
                      To avoid repetition of Parasuraman's name, how about I write, sees the umbrella? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      That sounds good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Done exactly as suggested. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I am uncertain about this part (a shot is heard and a man lies dead) as it is very dramatic. I think it may be better to be clearer and say something like (a shot is heard, and the servant is killed) or something along those lines. Something about the tone of the original wording does not really fit with a Wikipedia/encyclopedia article.
                      • Just wanted to point out that this has not be addressed. You do not need to use my wording, but the "and a man lies dead" part seems inappropriate for a Wikipedia plot summary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      See what I've written now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this sentence (When Krishnamurthy comes to his senses, thinks he has murdered Parasuraman and decides to escape, leaving Leelavathi and Lakshmi in the custody of his servant Govindan.), I would revise the start to (After coming to his sense, Krishnamurth thinks...). The current phrasing is not grammatically correct, specifically the "sense, thinks he has" part.
                      • Link Ceylon here to be consistent with the lead. Also a link to tea estate may be helpful.
                      Already linked. And doesn't tea estate fall under MOS:COMMONWORDS? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • That's strange. It was not linked last time I looked at it, but maybe I missed the link somehow. The tea estate link is up to you. I would not consider it a super common word/phrase but I can also understand why the other side of the coin so it does not have to be linked. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      I've even linked tea estate to tea processing as the former redirects to it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this part (and replaced it in Krishnamurthy's hand), I would use "placed" instead of "replaced". The word "replaced" does not really work in this context.
                      Yeah, done. Blame it on Baffle. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • Not to pile on this, but I have to agree with Laser that it is not a good idea to criticize another editor who was only trying to help. We are all just volunteers and trying our best to contribute and improve the website. Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Apologies Aoba47, my bad. Now that I have addressed your comments (please check if I really have), what next? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Cast
                      • Is there a reason why Rangiah Naidu's full name is not used here?
                      Because of WP:FILMCAST, which says to use the character's name as seen in the credits ("All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source"). And in the pressbook, he is referred to as "Inspector Rangiah".
                      • Thank you for the explanation. I would go by the credits and keep the current wording. Aoba47 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • Since Rangiah is identified as an inspector, I would identify Sreenivasan as a detective.
                      Again, WP:FILMCAST. But am I allowed to avoid the "Master" and "Miss" prefixes that appear in the pressbook?
                      The current phrasing should be fine. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I understand since this is a partially lost film, you may not have the answer for this, but is there any information on Balu and Sesha Iyengar's roles in the film? Later in the article, it is mentioned that there is a "comic subplot", but I do not see it represented in the plot summary. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
                      I cannot even remotely identify what the comedy subplot may have been about. And I would not say the film is partially lost, but predominantly. Those scenes that you see here appear to be behind-the-scenes footage, although the opening credits are also part of it. So how do I solve this dilemma?
                      • If the comic subplot is unavailable, then nothing really can be done since we can only work from the sources that are available to us. Aoba47 (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Apologies for the amount of comments as a lot of good work has been put into the article. A lot of these points are minor and more nitpicky than anything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Aoba47, your comments are not as disturbing as Laser brain's (hereafter Laser); I fully agree with them as well as Laser's. I only fear the FAC will be swiftly archived because of his comments. Since Laser was not detailed during the last FAC, I could not identify what to rewrite. Hence I submitted it to the GOCE. Seeing how Baffle gab 1978's edits appear to have worsened the article, I'm baffled (pun intended) since he is among the most experienced editors of the GOCE (no offense, but Miniapolis often does a far better job than him). But if you are going to give further comments, they should be in line with Laser's existing comments and not contradict them. I still haven't lost hope, and believe I can please Laser brain without sacrificing quality. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Once my above comments are addressed, I will collapse them and move onto the rest of the article. I do not think I am contradicting any of Laser's points though? Aoba47 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
                      I will wait to add further comments until the lead suggestions are resolved. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Production
                      • The first two sentences of the "Development" subsection are in passive voice. It may be helpful to rewrite the second sentence (Pavalar's play was rewritten for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe by playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, and was staged over 150 times.) in a more active voice to keep the reader engaged. Something like the following could be helpful: (Playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar rewrote Pavalar's play for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe, and this production was staged over 150 times.)
                      Now the para goes, "Pathi Bhakthi, a Tamil play dealing with alcohol abuse and its effects on family life, was written by Te. Po. Krishnaswamy Pavalar during the early 1930s[2] and was successful throughout the Madras Presidency. Pavalar's play was rewritten for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe by playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, and this production was staged over 150 times". However, I'm beginning to doubt the accuracy of this article as it says, "Balaiah joined Rajambal Company, where he met the famous M. Kandaswamy Mudaliar, father of M.K. Radha. They staged Pathi Bhakthi over 150 times and Balaiah’s performance was greatly acclaimed. Sadly, this company too folded up but Kandaswamy Mudaliar roped him in for a film he was writing and where his son was the hero. This was Sathi Leelavathi". Do you think the source is best removed? Because Rajambal Company was evidently not involved, and MOBC did not dissolve as they sued the makers of the Sathi Leelavathi film. Also, I think the "150 times" applies to how many times the play was staged in its lifetime, even before it was rewritten by Mudaliar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this part (Mudaliar told him a novel titled Sathi Leelavathi,), I would just say "the novel Sathi Leelavathi" to avoid the "titled" part.
                      Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For the last sentence in the first paragraph of the "Development" subsection, I would move Reference 10 to the end of the sentence before Reference 11. The current placement awkwardly cuts off the sentence and hinders readability.
                      Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I think this sentence (Tandon introduced Chettiar to his American friend Ellis R. Dungan and suggested Dungan direct it instead.) could be cut down to be more concise. Something like the following could be helpful: (Tandon suggested that his American friend Ellis R. Dungan could direct it instead.)
                      Done. Is this a better alternative to show coherence? Chettiar wanted Manik Lal Tandon to direct the film but he declined;[c] Tandon instead suggested his American friend Ellis R. Dungan Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I think that is a better alternative. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Went ahead. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this part (but Chettiar was persuaded to hire Dungan because he had worked in Hollywood), I would replace "Dungan" with "him" as it is clear from the context of the sentence who is being referenced here.
                      Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • If directorial debut is linked here, then I would do the same for the lead for consistency.
                      Delinked, because it should never have been linked in the first place; Baffle linked it. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      The current phrasing reads, "Sathi Leelavathi was one of the earliest Tamil films to be involved in a plagiarism controversy", matching the lead.
                      • I wonder if there is a way to revise this sentence (Balaiah, who is credited as Baliah, played the antagonist Ramanathan while Krishnan played the comic character Balu) to avoid repeating "played" twice.
                      Now I've written "appeared as the antagonist Ramanathan". --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I am confused by this part "because of production delays caused by the lawsuit, Menaka (1935)" since "the lawsuit" part could be read as a descriptive phrase to describe Menaka and it seems rather abrupt. I think the wording is off here.
                      • Could you provide a little more detail on the Menaka lawsuit? I think this sentence as a whole could use a little more work for readability and to help inform an unfamiliar reader like myself of the full background with this situation.
                      I think you got it wrong; Sathi Leelavathi was to have been NSK's debut film. Because the Pathi Bhakthi v Sathi Leelavathi lawsuit caused production delays (the trouble with casting Leelavathi happened after the lawsuit), Menaka became NSK's first release. It's common in South Indian cinema that an actor's first film project is not always their first release; Mohanlal, Sathya and Arya are victims like NSK here. So what phrasing do you suggest? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • The current wording seems good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I believe "detective" in this part (Chettiar gave the role of the detective Sreenivasan) should be capitalized as it is done that way in the "Plot" section.
                      • This has not been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      How is this what I have written? Chettiar gave the role of Sreenivasan to M. V. Mani without Mudaliar's knowledge. I have amended an earlier sentence to According to Ramachandran, he was told he would play Detective Sreenivasan and later Krishnamurthy's friend Parasuraman. It appears Detective with a capital D is indeed a formal prefix (as mentioned in Criminal investigation department), similar to Justice, Doctor and Inspector. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
                      I was asking about capitalizing detective in detective Sreenivasan, which you have now done. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this part (Gnanambal, who had retired from acting after her marriage to Radha,), I would remove "to Radha" as it was already clarified in the previous sentence that she is Radha's wife.
                      Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this part (Other comic actors were M. S. Murugesan as a Marvadi moneylender), unlink "Marvadi" since it was already linked in the "Plot" section.
                      Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I would move References 20 and 21 in this part (K. A. Thangavelu, a theatre artist associated with the Rajambal Company troupe, also made his film-acting debut) to the end of the sentence alongside Reference 22 as the current placement awkwardly cuts off the sentence into a long and a small part.
                      Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I am uncertain about the placement of "uncredited" in this sentence (J. Susheela Devi played an uncredited cabaret dancer.) as the role not the dancer is uncredited.
                      Is this a better sentence? J. Susheela Devi appeared uncredited as a cabaret dancer. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I think that is much better. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Done. Followed the same type of phrasing in "Cast". --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I am uncertain about this sentence (however, he watched the filming and absorbed "the new art form that was cinema"). It seems a little too close to the source's phrasing (But he hung around watching the shooting in Madras and absorbing the new art form that was cinema). I think it may also be better to somehow incorporate information from this part of the source's sentence (which had begun to talk Tamil in 1931) as it adds more context to why he considered cinema a new art form.
                      • This still needs to be addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      The source reads, "While MGR took his bow in it, Chakrapani did not because of lack of a proper role. But he hung around watching the shooting in Madras and absorbing the new art form that was cinema, which had begun to talk Tamil in 1931." That's referencing the first Tamil sound film Kalidas. Since it does not seem to add much (or may be bordering on WP:COATRACK), can I remove the "new art form" sentence and write, "...but was not cast because there was no proper role available. However, he watched the filming"? This is to avoid WP:COPYVIO, a charge I do not want to be blocked again for. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Apologies for the delay in my response. I would remove the "new art form" part. It does not really add much to that part so I agree with your suggestion. Once this is addressed, I will read through the article again to see if I missed anything. Thank you for your patience with this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this part (Sathi Leelavathi was launched in 1935.), I would say "released" instead of "launched". I will not repeat other parts of Laser's comments, but I do agree that the parts that were pointed out need further work.
                      The current phrasing says that "principal photography" began in 1935. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this part (According to film historian Film News Anandan in the book Saadhanaigal Padaitha Thamizh Thiraipada Varalaru, filming was also done in Ceylon), I am uncertain if the book title is necessary since the film historian seems notable enough (since he has a Wikipedia article) to stand on his own.
                      Done, removed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Themes
                      Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I like this part (the Gandhian concept of selfless service) since you clarify what is meant by "selfless service". I think adding the "the Gandhian concept" part to the lead could be helpful.
                      Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Music
                      • For the first paragraph, I would put Reference 63 at the end of the sentence with Reference 64 to avoid cutting off the sentence awkwardly.
                      • I am uncertain about the "with new lyrics" part and I would suggest removing it. A poem really does not have lyrics so it is an odd comparison to make, and since the sentence emphasizes that the melody was based on the poem, I do not think this part adds anything to the sentence.
                      The source says, "It modified a song of Bharati’s! The poet had composed ‘Karumbu Thottathile’ which was on the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji. This was changed to ‘Theyilai Thottatile,’ depicting the problems of the tea plantation workers in Ceylon." So I've removed the "with new lyrics" part since it is understood that he retained the melody and added new lyrics. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this part (The original poem is about the plight), I would just say "The poem" since you are not referencing multiple poems here.
                      Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this part (the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji and the song explores the problems of tea-plantation workers in Ceylon), I would use "while" instead of "and" to emphasize the contrast in subject matters and add a comma after "Fiji".
                      Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this part (The song, which is set in the Carnatic raga known as Chenchurutt), I would remove "known as".
                      Done. Though many Carnatic ragas have Wiki articles, Chenchurutti does not. If it did, at least a section redirect, would this sentence do? {{set in Chenchurutti, a Carnatic raga}}? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • That sentence seems good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Release and reception
                      • Is it possible to add a link to "independence-era" in this part (and support by independence-era politicians) to help unfamiliar readers like myself?
                      I guess the author actually means "pre-independence era" since India got independence only in 1947. Would it be better to link to British Raj? Because that's the era he's referring to. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      It would be helpful to somehow incorporate the link into the sentence, but if you are having too much trouble with it, then I would not worry about it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I am uncertain about the repetition of "film's" in this sentence (In its January 1937 issue, the art magazine Aadal Paadal praised the film's social setting and acting.) as it was done in a similar way in the previous sentence. I think you can drop "film's" and just say "the social setting and acting" without losing any meaning.
                      Done that way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this part (, a critic of cinema in general,), I do not think "in general" is necessary.
                      Done as suggested. I do not want there to be a mix-up; belief that he was a film critic, but that he did not generally like films. But "a critic of cinema" gives the same impression doesn't it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • @Kailash29792: Apologies for just seeing this now. I see your point. I would say "a frequent critic of cinema" as that would convey that he often criticizes film in a negative way and not in a journalistic or academic manner. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this part (and in another he indicated his fear by depicting his twitching fingers and feet. ), I would add a comma between "another" and "his".
                      Done, the comma removal was Baffle's doing. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I am uncertain about the word "unsophisticated" in this sentence (however, an unsophisticated audience thought the lighting in the first scene was poor and that the film was stuck in the second) as it seems too much judgmental toward the audience. Since these filmmaking techniques were new, it makes sense that an audience may not understand it so I think a better word choice could be used here.
                      Previously, it had been two separate sentence (Sundararajan claimed these techniques not only helped the actors to emote their characters better but also showcased Dungan's talent, yet the audience believed that the lighting was not clear in the first case and the film was stuck in the second. He opined that this reflected the ignorance of the audience), before Miniapolis made them into what you see now. Do I restore this last sentence? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      I think the previous wording was much better as it clearly defines the "ignorance" part as Sundararajan's opinion rather than an objective fact. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Legacy
                      • For this part (It was the first Tamil film the be successful in overseas markets), I think you mean "to be successful".
                      Yep. Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • For this part (a documentary about Dungan's career in India that was directed by Karan Bali), I am not sure if the director is important enough to be included here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Yep, removed and kept the paragraph in balance. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • Thank you for addressing my comments. I have responded to your questions and pointed out a few areas that appear to be missed. I will do a full read-through of the article again sometime tomorrow. Thank you for your patience with this review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Thank you for your patience and for addressing all of my comments. I support this for promotion based on the prose. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC. Either way, have a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Thank you very much
                      Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 19:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

                      This article is about the 2018 album by the English rock band Field Music. It is currently a good article. I had previously nominated it for FA, and some changes/improvements were made to the article as part of that review, but it ultimately did not pass in part due to a lack of reviewers in the FAC process itself. I was given little actionable feedback on ways to improve upon the article in the future, except for general remarks that the prose could use some improvement, so I sought out a peer review and a copy edit request with the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, which was conducted by Thatoneweirdwikier. I'm hopeful that the article is ready for the FAC process this time around. — Hunter Kahn 19:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

                      CommentsSupport by Thatoneweirdwikier

                      I felt that this was an interesting read during my copyedit, so I'll add suggestions over the next few days. (Note: This is the first time I've ever been involved in FAC.) Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Lede
                      • The first paragraph of the lede has many short sentences, similar to the writing of the Simple English Wikipedia.
                        • I just combined two of the sentences in this paragraph, if you think that's an improvement? — Hunter Kahn 16:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                          • Green tickY Thanks,
                            • "Open Here was the sixth studio album..." It still is the sixth studio album.
                            • Field Music is linked again (per WP:REPEATLINK).
                            • Memphis Industries is also linked again.
                              • With regard to both the links to Field Music and Memphis Industries here, I've always been under the assumption wikilinks are usually included in the first reference of both the lead and the body of the article, as I've done in this case? I know a literal reading of WP:REPEATLINK doesn't necessarily say that, but that's always been the practice I've sort of observed here. For example, if you look at Apollo 13 (which I choose as an example only because it's one of the more recent articles promoted to FA), topics like Kennedy Space Center and Apollo program are wikilinked in the first reference of both the lead and the body of the article... — Hunter Kahn 16:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                                • Fair enough. Thanks,
                                  • "the centenary of World War I..." Here, WWI should not be linked, as the centenary page links to WWI.
                                  • "The opening track, "Time in Joy" begins with..." Quite unclear. Is "The opening track" the subordinate clause, or is it "'Time in Joy'"?
                                    • Oops, sorry, I think that's a stray comma on my part. lol I removed the comma, which I think clears it up, but let me know if not. — Hunter Kahn 16:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  • "'Goodbye to the Country' includes what Steven Johnson of musicOMH described as..." Wording seems a bit awkward in my opinion.
                                  Lyrics and themes
                                  Brexit and social privilege
                                  • "about the erosion of faith in people, in institutions, and in shared experiences..." The two "in"s after "institutions" and "shared experiences" should be removed.
                                    • Done. — Hunter Kahn 22:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  • "They are from Sunderland, which was noted for being..." Who noted it?
                                    • Looking back on this sentence, I think the phrasing "which was noted for being" is actually altogether unnecessary. I've removed it. — Hunter Kahn 22:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  • "Peter Brewis has said of the two brothers, David felt the most strongly..." Missing a comma after "said".
                                    • Added. —

                                      No problems that I could find.

                                      Joy and optimism
                                      • "'Its 12/8 swagger admirably refuses..." Here, 12/8 is written as 12
                                        8
                                        . Is this correct? Only checking as I'm not sure myself.
                                        • Yes, that is correct. — Hunter Kahn 22:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                      • "'I've been through dark times (and) I find.." I believe the brackets around "and" should be square.
                                        • Changed the parentheses to square brackets here, as well as a couple other spots elsewhere in the article. —
                                          • "Liz Corney of The Cornshed Sisters, a band with Memphis Industries, the same label as Field Music." After "The Cornshed Sisters", the wording feels awkward. Removing it entirely may be better.
                                            • Removed it. —
                                              • "they had considered shooting in parts of Sunderland either especially affluent or poor..." Change to "they had considered shooting in parts of Sunderland that were affluent or poor..." (or any other better versions of that).
                                                • Implemented your suggested wording. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                              • "Sarah Hayes and saxophonist Pete Fraser..." Pete Fraser has already been introduced. The word "saxophonist" can be removed.
                                                • Done. —
                                                  • "John Freeman of The Quietus called the Open House Field Music's most expansive..." Why "Open House"? I'm assuming it's meant to be "Open Here" (without the extra "the").
                                                    • Oops, yes. LOL Fixed that. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                  That's everything I could find. Once it's all sorted I'll change my vote. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 03:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                  Nice. Changing my vote to a Support. Well done! Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 16:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                  Image review

                                                  • The fair-use rationales for all three sound clips need to be completed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                    • Nominator(s): Brianboulton, Yomanganitalk 16:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                      This was Brianboulton's last big almost finished project, so it would be nice to get it to FA as a tribute. I've made a few corrections, added and subtracted some tiny bits and cut down the mentions of "harrowing" (Brian's favourite word), but it is basically the same article that he left us with and I don't think it is too far short (in my ten-year out of date opinion). Tiny parts of it are quite harrowing, but mostly its polar exploration done properly. Yomanganitalk 16:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Support from From Tim riley

                                                      Just booking my place (the first of many, I suspect, and quite right too). More over the weekend. Tim riley talk 20:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                      First batch of comments

                                                      First, thank you so much, Yomangani, for taking this up. I can't think of a better tribute to BB than your navigating this article through FAC. As to the review, it need hardly be said that sentiment can play no part: the review must be as rigorous as any FAC. Brian would not have countenanced anything else. (I have recorded elsewhere how on one occasion he ticked me off, very gently, for suggesting that FAC criteria could be less rigorously applied to certain non-academic articles, and on another he consulted me with some urgency when he thought a WP luminary was getting too easy a ride at FAC.) These are my comments. They are from someone with negligible knowledge of Antarctic exploration, and are therefore mostly on prose. It will take me two or more goes to get through the text, and this batch of comments goes down to the end of the Cape Denison section:

                                                      • Lead
                                                      • I'd lose mention of George V at the end. I doubt if he played any part in nominating Mawson for the accolade.
                                                      • Done.
                                                      • Background
                                                      • "to both brief Shackleton and check that he was still committed" – though the notion of a split infinitive is, as Fowler says, a superstition, nonetheless I think I'd lose the "both" here, which is a split and a half and, more to the point, impedes the flow of the prose.
                                                      • Done.
                                                      • "he received confirmation from Shackleton that he would not be going" – a confusing pair of "he"s. Perhaps better just as "Shackleton confirmed that he would not be going"
                                                      • Done.
                                                      • Aims
                                                      • "As a consequence, decided" – missing a "he"?
                                                      • Done.
                                                      • "none of these was available" – "none was" is not wrong, but the OED and Fowler prefer "none were"
                                                      • Done (but, as my brother always says, Fowler died in 1933 so he's not going to care.)
                                                      • My compliments to your bro, together with a plug for the fourth edition of Fowler, revised by Jeremy Butterfield and issued by the Oxford University Press in 2015: well worth reading. Not, perhaps, quite as much fun as the old buzzard's quirky original, but full of sound advice. Tim riley talk 22:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • Ship and equipment
                                                      • "I might link Tasmania.
                                                      • Done.
                                                      • Personnel
                                                      • "resident of Antarctica, polar veteran Frank Wild" – this must have been an early BB draft. I nagged him out of using false titles years ago. A definite article before "polar" will do what's necessary.
                                                      • "Swiss ski-jumping champion – ditto
                                                      • Done both; I just missed that when rearranging.
                                                      • Finance
                                                      • "in the Daily Mail" – Not making a point of this, but I think capitalising and italicising the definite article and including it in the piping was BB's preferred style. I may be wrong.
                                                      • Not in the expedition articles I've checked, so not done.
                                                      • Voyage south
                                                      • "half-drowning the dogs – it's a vivid image, but can any animal be half-drowned?
                                                      • I had exactly the same reaction and was thinking of changing it to "soaking the men and dogs", but as an image it is spot-on even if it is strictly impossible; soaking is a bit feeble by comparison.
                                                      • "The weather finally abated" – there is always weather: perhaps "the bad weather finally abated"? (Or just "the weather finally improved"?)
                                                      • Done.
                                                      • First season: winter 1912
                                                      • I'm wondering why the wind speeds are given in metric with imperial equivalents in brackets, but the distances – feet and miles - are the other way about. To me it would seem natural, given the date and the nationalities involved, to standardise on imperial with metric in brackets, but I don't press the point.
                                                      • This was something else I noticed - I assume it was because Borchgrenvink, being mostly Norwegian, used metric. But I'll go back and check the source.
                                                      • Borchgrevink, like a proper explorer, used miles per hour; the were converted to km/h in Turney's book.
                                                      • "centred around various scientific activities" – there are some (not me) who get very exercised about "centred around" and insist – logically but slightly unnecessarily perhaps – that it should be "centred on".
                                                      • Doesn't have the same rhythm but harmless, so done.
                                                      • "with extraordinary eclat" – just checking that the source omits the acute accent in éclat.
                                                      • It does.
                                                      • Sledging, 1912–1913
                                                      • "Eastern Coastal party" – and many others in the same format: are we sure about the capital letters? I'm sure the participants capitalised the parties but should we?
                                                      • Checking that, but I've gone lowercase on the only uppercase one for the moment.
                                                      • Changed to uppercase where Mawson generally does the same. He's not very consistent, but where he's referring to the planning of the parties he does capitalise.
                                                      • "which fortunately had not fallen" – amen to "fortunately", but it's nevertheless WP:EDITORIAL, and likewise "frustratingly" two sentences later.
                                                      • I reckon these are so evidently true that we can dodge the cosh. I think Wikipedia's culture of beating the adjectives out of articles in the name of policy doesn't mesh well with engaging prose (and I think Brian was at least somewhat of the same mind).
                                                      • Hmm. If they're that evidently true then they don't need saying. But I don't press the point, though don't be surprised if other reviewers do. Tim riley talk 22:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • They don't need saying but I think they give the prose a bit of a lift; I'll fight the other reviewers when the time comes.

                                                      More later this weekend, I hope. – Tim riley talk 18:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Quite right on maintaining standards; any attempt to wave it through will have me haunted by Brian leaning over my shoulder, tutting and shaking his head. Yomanganitalk 22:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Second and concluding batch from Tim
                                                      • Macquarie Island
                                                      • "By mid-February, the station had made contact with Australia, and by 12 May, was transmitting daily weather reports to Wellington" – Looks slightly odd, to my eye anyway, to have one country and one city. It would seem more natural to have "Australia … New Zealand" or "Cityname … Wellington" if Cityname is available.
                                                      • Done. Sydney was first.
                                                      • Oceanographic work
                                                      • "had been searched for without success on numerous previous occasions" – we could do without "previous" here, I think.
                                                      • Done.
                                                      • Aftermath
                                                      • It looks a little strange to include "Dowager Empress" in the blue link but to exclude "King" from the one in the next sentence.
                                                      • Done.
                                                      • "Bage–already an officer in the Royal Australian Engineers–was…" – if my ageing eyes don't deceive me we have unspaced en-dashes here. The MoS bids us have spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes.
                                                      • If somebody could sort that out I'd be grateful - never got my head round this - they are just all dashes to me.
                                                      • Notes
                                                      • Note 3: "gifts of supplies, equipment, whisky and tobacco" – as whisky and tobacco are surely "supplies", it might be worth turning the order round: "gifts of equipment and supplies, including whisky and tobacco" or "gifts of equipment, whisky, tobacco and other supplies"
                                                      • Done.
                                                      • "Worth linking "New South Wales" – its only mention in the article?
                                                      • Done. Victoria too as that was only mentioned as part of another link.
                                                      • Further reading
                                                      • Some tidying up of capitalisation wanted for the first two books.
                                                      • Done.
                                                      • Lead
                                                      I've just spotted a couple of points on rereading the lead (apologies!)
                                                      • "at the end of the second paragraph "utility" does not strike me as an improvement on a plain "use".
                                                      • Done.
                                                      • "I think it might be better to trim the links to Ninnis and Mertz down to just "Belgrave Ninnis" and "Xavier Mertz". We don't give Jeffryes's middle name, and, to judge from their articles, Ninnis and Mertz didn't use theirs.
                                                      • Done Mertz. Ninnis' dad, Belgrave Ninnis, was an explorer too and couldn't oblige us by giving his son a different name, so I've left his Edward in (just in case a fan of the Ninnis family reads the lead and can't believe we think Belgrave Ninnis went on the expedition? Not very likely, but it doesn't do any harm to show we know our onions).

                                                      That's all I can find to quibble about. Tim riley talk 09:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                      • I've adopted most of your suggestions as they all seemed sensible to me, but please note my inability to understand the different use of these: –—−. Help. They are all just lines. Yomanganitalk 23:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • Noted, and tweaked. I'll be back during Sunday after a final read-through. Tim riley talk 01:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Happy to add my support. What a sad pleasure it has been to review a Boulton article for the last time. This one seems to me comprehensive, well illustrated, thoroughly referenced, balanced and a first-class read. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Thank you, once again, Yomangani, for bringing the article to FAC. We are in your debt. – Tim riley talk 14:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Source review—pass

                                                      • All the sources are reliable for what they're cited for.
                                                      • Checked a few sources and they supported the content.
                                                      • Verifiability issues: Some citations were moved to the ends of lines, but did editors check to make sure that the source covers all the information?
                                                      • Further reading sources: these also look like reliable sources (especially Hall and Roberts look like they would be useful). Could any of them be used to expand the article? At just 33kb of readable prose, it seems likely that there's more to say about this historic expedition. buidhe 05:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        Thanks for looking it over. The two books you mentioned from further reading are more concerned with the exciting (dare I say harrowing?) Far Eastern Party and most or all of the other pertinent information is available from the sources used. There is more to say on the expedition, but I think it is best handled in sub-articles as it would unbalanced this article or swell it to unmanageable size - if you look back in the history to before Brian copied his sandbox version over, you can see there is an article approaching a similar size just on the wireless work. (And just 33kb? That's War and Peace for the Twitter generation.) Yomanganitalk 23:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        I can see the argument for using summary style, especially if there is more coverage of

                                                        Very pleased to see this here; my support is unconditional.

                                                        • "General plan" section, first paragraph ends without a cite.
                                                          Done. (Though I need to tie down the date).
                                                          Date done too (though Riffenburgh doesn't say where he got it from).
                                                        • In the "Aftermath" section, we close with "He was the recipient of many further honours". As he had just received a knighthood, this reads that he had received "many further honours" that day, after the knighthood. Is this the case? If not, "future honours" may be better.
                                                          I'll look at that. "Future honours" sounds a bit strange to me (that's just me, probably). I don't even know if AusEng - which this is supposed to be written in - uses honour or honor.
                                                        • The Australian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed, 2004) gives "honour" as the default, with "honor" admitted as a variant. Tim riley talk 23:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • Thanks, Tim. Now reworded with an example.
                                                        • I've just put the full text through an AusEng spell-checker, and the only thing other than names that it flagged up was "programme". I checked this in the Australian Oxford Dictionary which gives "program" for all uses of the word but adds "also programme, except in computing contexts". But before we're done we might seek guidance from a user of AusEng: Ian Rose leaps to mind. Tim riley talk 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • Tks Tim. Yeah I think the AOD puts it well... I always use "program", although that might be influenced by having worked in the IT field, including as a -- ahem -- program manager. So I see "programme" as more BritEng but I wouldn't go round overriding it willy nilly in an Aus-related article.
                                                        • I have changed it anyway. Yomanganitalk 23:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • If I can find the time I'll recuse and review in detail but this will have to do for now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        Aftermath
                                                        • "... was killed during the Gallipoli campaign in 1915,and Leslie Blake, the cartographer and geologist of the Macquarie Island party, was killed..." was killed/was killed.
                                                          Yeah, I didn't like that which is why I pushed them as far apart as possible. If you can think of a workable synonym...
                                                          I managed to fudge it a bit.
                                                        • "Two days after arriving in Adelaide, Jeffryes took a train heading to his home in Toowoomba, but he never arrived there" -- Do we need "there"?
                                                          No; gone.
                                                        • "Appraisal" section, first para, finishes without a cite; and the second para appears not to finish at all, closing with a conjunction?
                                                          Second one was just me being useless. First one might be difficult to cite; I'll have a look but it might just be accepted by everyone without them having to say. Do we still have "likely to be challenged" as a get out?
                                                          Found a source that said it.

                                                        Reading this has made me reflect on what a wonderful editor Brian was. I shall miss him and his articles terribly. You have done him a great service with this, Yomangani. Thank you. CassiantoTalk 22:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                        Image review

                                                        • Suggest adding alt text
                                                        • File:Mawson_main_base.jpg is claimed as source and author unknown, but the source link provided does specify - is there a reason not to trust it? Also, what is the status of this image in the US?
                                                        • File:Douglas_Mawson_1914_1.jpeg needs publication info and a tag for US status. Same with File:Antarctica_wind_Mawson_Hurley.jpg, File:Return_of_the_Night-watchman._Hodgeman_pushing_his_way_through_the_snow_into_the_Hut_after_a_visit_to_the_Meteorological_screen_Aae_36697h.jpg
                                                        • File:A_voyage_to_the_arctic_in_the_whaler_Aurora_(1911)_(14783726242).jpg: as per the Flickr tag, can more specific tagging be added? Same with File:Unloading_supplies_at_Cape_Denison,_1911-1914_(6438929857).jpg, File:Wild_and_Watson_in_sleeping_bag_tent_on_sledge_journey.jpg
                                                        • File:Mertz_and_Ninnis_arrive_at_Aladdin's_Cave.jpg needs a tag for US status
                                                        • File:Air-tractor1.jpg: source link is dead, needs publication info and a tag for US status. Same with File:Memorial_cross_for_Mertz_and_Ninnis.jpg
                                                        • File:Wireless_Hill_from_the_south.JPG: source provided is a red link, and needs a tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          Nikkimaria, can you tell me what the requirement is for US status? Most of the images seem to be only tagged with PD-Australia - both the ones you've mentioned as needing US status and the others. It's quite possible I'm missing something - I haven't done this for years and the PD rules change every five minutes (well, they don't, but the interpretation of them does). Thanks Yomanganitalk 00:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        Everything needs to be either free or PD in the US to be "free" for our purposes. Broadly, anything where we can confirm publication before 1925 will be PD in the US; same with any Australian works PD in Australia before 1996. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        So I just need to add {{PD-US}} to everything? (Everything that qualifies that I can confirm the publication date, I mean). Yomanganitalk 00:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        If you take a look at the documentation for {{PD-US}}, it actually breaks down pretty nicely which tag to add based on when and where the image was first published (where that can be determined). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        All sorted (the Wireless Hill pic has been swapped and the Antarctica_wind_Mawson_Hurley.jpg dropped)

                                                        Hello. I'll be making comments later, but for now, I'm trying to make sense of the first sentence.

                                                        • "Australian continental landmass" means mainland Australia, Tasmania, and Papua New Guinea. You could say "mainland Australia" here, but it is also south of the other two constituent parts so it is a bit odd to exclude Tasmania at least, or you could say "the Australian continent" but that gets you more involved with "which do we count as a continent nowadays, Oceania, Australasia, or Australia/Sahul?", you could even just say "Australia" but "due south from Australia" feels a bit like it should still be Tasmania. I've linked so anybody who doesn't get it can check. It was Brian's choice of wording not mine, but I don't see any reason to change it unless there is a particular objection.
                                                        • Entirely concur with Yomangani. The existing wording is clearer and more precise than the mooted alternative. "Trying to make sense" forsooth! Tim riley talk 18:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • Does "due South" have a special meaning here? The longitudinal spread of Australia is 40 degrees (from 113 E to 153 E). The coastal arc running east from Gaussberg to Port Adare is 80 degrees (90 E to 170 E) Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          "due south" here means if you head due south from anywhere on the Australian continental landmass you will end up in the area he wanted to explore. Though he might have moved the extents beyond the bounding longitudes of the Australian continent, that describes the area he was interested in; the Weddell Sea or Ross Ice Shelf for example, you wouldn't describe like that. Yomanganitalk 02:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        Lead
                                                        • OK, I'll be moving on. I'm noting for others that Gaussberg is due south of Dhaka, Bangladesh. From west to east, there is Burma, Indonesia lying due north of this coastal region before one reaches the Australian continent. On the east, the segment of the coast lying between 165E and 170E is immediately south of New Zealand, not the Australian continent. In my view, it would be better to describe it more generally, probably by not using direction at all, but maybe distance.) Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC) PS I have some support in Britannica whose video on the Mawson and the AAE says between 00:26 and 00:34, "to map the coastal area of Antarctica closest to Australia." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          Quite aside from inaccuracy of "map" as the expedition's aim, the Britannica phrasing has the same problem with a lack of precision that you seem to think "due south" has. The current wording is fine as a shorthand for telling the reader where to look, and is further defined by giving the eastern and western limits - anybody reading it as "completely and only the area contained within the bounding longitudes of the Australian continent" is going to be very much in the minority.
                                                          I was typing up replies to all the latest points but lost power in a storm just as I was finishing and being too lazy to type it all out again, I'm just going to give short answers to the points I disagree on; don't take it as rudeness; I might disagree with a lot of your points, but I do think you are picking up some things that need looking at again.
                                                        • "the expedition was organized into three bases." Does "base" have the meaning of "sub-expedition?" Or do you mean "the expedition was organized from three bases," or "the expedition established three bases," or "the expedition had three bases?"
                                                          All of these; this is a summary, it doesn't need any great level of detail.
                                                        • "outside work" Is "open-air work" meant?
                                                          Yes, as a synonym.
                                                        • "sledging parties" Should "sledging" be wikilinked to sled dog? Given the poor performance of the air tractor mentioned later, I'm assuming motorized sleds were not used, or were they?
                                                          I prefer to link that later when it is more closely related; there is man-hauling too.
                                                        • "full oceanographic program" Do you mean "physical oceanography measurements" (pressure, temp, salinity, surface currents, underwater currents, ...) given that the collection of biological samples (plankton, krill) and geological samples is mentioned separately? Even experts today might be hardpressed to define what a "full program" meant in the Southern Ocean in 1911.
                                                          You are reading that wrongly after "full oceanographic program" and, having looked at it again, I think that misreading will be rare, so I haven't re-ordered it.
                                                          PS Very sorry to hear about the power outage. My general concern is that the "full oceanographic program" is probably a dated term. I don't hear it much these days, with the ocean being so instrumented. So, even if I have misread the bit after, a better explanation of the full program might be in order, especially in the lead where the reader has a lot to process all at once. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          I think readers will be able to get the gist - they aren't generally going to be analysing every word in the lead, as if they want to know more they are are going to read the article or the bit of the article that interests them. At some point there's an article to be written on the oceanographic programme which we can just link.
                                                        • "on his return to civilization?" This, besides being an ideological can of worms, is not the common contrast to a land uninhabited by humans (Antarctica). What he was leaving behind, in any case, was in 1914 a defining expression of civilization. I am not sure what is meant, but I suggest rephrasing precisely. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          Changed.
                                                        • A definition of "civilization": (esp.) advanced stage or system of social development, all civilized States". Whose definition? Fowler and Fowler's. – Tim riley talk 08:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • It is a term somewhat loaded with Imperialistic baggage though, Tim, and the change was painless.
                                                        Background
                                                        • "In January 1909, a three-man party from Ernest Shackleton's Nimrod expedition reached the location of the South Magnetic Pole" This is considered a claim today, see South Magnetic Pole, or here, or "Follow the needle: seeking the magnetic poles," Gregory A. Good Earth Sciences History, Vol. 10, No. 2, SPECIAL ARCTIC ISSUE (1991), pp. 154-167; p 163) You could say, "... calculated they had reached ..." (Riffenburgh's language in Encyclopedia of Antarctica article on the 1909 expedition)
                                                          It does take the wind out of its sails a bit, but you are right.
                                                        • His particular interest lay not in the South Pole, but in investigating the lands west of Cape Adare, immediately to the south of Australia, ... visited since." (Nice; also more accurate).
                                                        • As the scheme looked doubtful, ("Scheme" already has a meaning of an underhand venture; would "project" or "enterprise" be overall more neutral?)
                                                          It was fairly dodgy and I was trying to differentiate it from the "project" or "enterprise" of the expedition. Gone for "proposition".
                                                        • quickly crossed the Atlantic (What did "quickly crossed" mean in 1910, disambiguated from "quick crossings?" Is "promptly/without delay" meant?
                                                          • I.e. would "As Dawson found the project doubtful, he promptly sailed to America to brief ..." be better? It is also Riffenburgh's description.
                                                            It really needs to convey the worry on Mawson's part; gone for "hurried across" which gives a sense of urgency without committing to a speed and avoids parroting the source.
                                                        • With this assurance, Mawson returned to Australia. (Nice)
                                                        Preparations/Aims
                                                        • A full scientific and geographical investigation of these lands would be accompanied by a ship-based oceanographic program. (This is the generic language of proposals; it should be qualified a la: A full scientific ... oceanographic program, he claimed (or he proposed); the source says that as well.
                                                          I think that is implied by the section titles and the preceding sentences: "...revealed his plans...","He intended...","Mawson said...". Constant qualifying makes for laborious reading.
                                                        • Could a map similar to the one in File:Dumont d'Urville 1837-1840.svg be added to this section? It would only need to be of the right half, i.e. the world above Eastern Antarctica. I think it would be immensely helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          (EC) Not sure what benefit that sort of voyage tracking map would have in this section. It might be possible to do something like File:Antarctic expedition map (Amundsen - Scott)-en.svg or File:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.png (without the plotting of routes), showing the proposed (and actual) base locations and pertinent features (and perhaps the bottom of Australia to give it some geographical context). Is that the sort of thing you were thinking of?
                                                          • Yes, the Shackleton-Endurance map is a good one too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                            See my edit conflicted comment, obviously the answer was yes.
                                                            What do you think of this: File:Australasian Antarctic Expedition English.png? I realise the labels are huge, but that's so they can be seen in the thumbnail. Yomanganitalk 11:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                            Looks great. I especially like the finer divisions of longitude. (I'm assuming you have the longitude of the Far Western Base, which in the article, at least what I have read thus far, is only generally identified as being on the SIS, 95 to 105E. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                            Yes, you'll see it later in the article, and it is also marked on the expedition map (which I would have liked to have included but is pointless at thumbnail size).
                                                            Oh. I didn't realize there was an expedition map. Thumbnail or no thumbnail, it is an absolute must in the Oceanography section. It could have a caption: The expedition map showing the research cruises of the Aurora. But don't respond yet. Let me get to that section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        Ship and equipment
                                                        • "The specialist equipment required for the oceanographic program included two sounding machines: a No. 1 Lucas ... shallower depths. ("Sounding machines" in the age of ROVs and sonar is confusing. Many will assume it is some form of early echo sounding (patented 1913) which it was not. I would link it to: Depth_sounding#Mechanisation, maybe even have a "Mechanised sounding line" instead of "sounding machine" (although the latter is what they were commonly called).
                                                        Personnel, Finance
                                                        Expedition history/Voyage south
                                                        • On 28 July 1911, heavily laden with sledges, dogs and more than 3,000 cases of stores, Aurora left London for Cardiff, where she loaded 500 tons of coal briquettes.
                                                          • As you probably know, there were 48 dogs, all on the decks, (although 50 had been ordered from Greenland). They have been written about: 1) Dogs, Meat, and Douglas Mawson, Australian Humanities Review, 52, 2012 (for DOI) (Elizabeth Leanne works in the English and Antarctic Studies departments of the University of Tasmania) 2) Riffenburgh in Polar Studies 50:2 (2014) (I would recommend removing "heavily," especially when employed just before a mention of 500 tons of coal. Also, "laden with dogs?" )
                                                            • . i.e. What do you think about: "On 28 July 1911, carrying 48 dogs on its deck, and laden with sledges and more than 3,000 cases of stores, Aurora left, ..." (this will also make the reference to "half-drowning" later more comprehensible)
                                                              I'll look at this; I think we want to get across the impression that the decks are crowded.
                                                              • "her deck teeming with the 48 dogs that had survived the trip from Greenland," (A beauty!) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                I still think the "and" was my best work
                                                        • The rest of the section is nicely written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        Cape Dennison

                                                        Nicely done. I especially note: " ... made their daily readings, regardless of conditions. In rare lulls, efforts were made ..." and "When there was a dearth of birthdays, other occasions were eulogised;" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                        Much as I'd like to take credit for that bit, it was untouched from Brian's original.
                                                        Sledging, 1912 .../General plan
                                                        • "bring them away" (I hear this in conversation all the time, not to mention in Shakespeare's. But just double checking that you want "bring" and not take.") :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        Take is more natural to me, but I think bring is preferred for Australian English. I might change round to avoid the need to choose.
                                                        • Another couple of days and I should be done. (Flat out of extra time these days.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                           :) I'm sure that last edit summary is over-modest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        Far Eastern Party
                                                        • and made good distances when weather allowed (made good distance when the weather allowed)
                                                          I think distances is fine. It feels more disjointed, stop and start.
                                                        • were forced make frequents stops (^to^)
                                                          Ta.
                                                        • which fortunately had not fallen (it is perfectly comprehensible, but in the encyclopedic register, would you want, "which fortunately did not fall?" the past perfect is a bit of contradiction in terms)
                                                          Done
                                                        • As he drew nearer to safety, (as he drew nearer to Camp Denison; safety here makes an assumption)
                                                          Thanks to being in the future (relatively) we know it was to safety, but changed anyway.
                                                        • Well those are the nitpicks. The rest of the article—and I've read through to the end—is very well-written of course, but the descriptions seem very general. I wish they had a little more on the science. I am aware, of course, of how difficult it is to describe science in high-level heuristics. So I empathize with the enormity of the task. But please don't respond yet, I will reread this section, the FA Far Eastern Party, and the remaining sections tomorrow, and again the day after, and come up with something constructive and concrete. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • I have reread the article a third time. I left some notes with references for the future in case the need is felt to expand the science. I have self-reverted as it does not need to be done now. I am happy to support this article for promotion to a Featured Article.

                                                          Yomangani, you must try harder. No instances of "the the", "a a" or "and and". But "Island and" did trick me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                          Yo-man, continuing to work through the little MOS stuff: Wikipedia MOS allows either unspaced WP:EMDASHes or spaced WP:ENDASHes. The article had four sets of emdashes, but oddly, one set of endashes, so I changed the one set of endashes to emdashes for consistency. [1] But then I checked several of Brian's recent FAs, and he seemed to always use endashes. I'm not sure where the emdashes came from; do you want me to switch them all to what seems to have been Brian's preferred style? MOS-wise, it doesn't matter, but since we are trying to preserve Brian's style here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          And, Brian's last edited version used endashes rather than emdashes, so unless someone objects, I will switch them all back to his style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          That's fine - a a dash is a a dash as far as I'm concerned, so if the the MOS demands consistency we should use Brian's preferred style. Yomanganitalk 09:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          OK, I will switch all the the dashes to the the endash which seems to have been preferred by Brainy Brian. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                          I am secretly (well, not anymore) hoping the Coords will leave this FAC open for months, just to give us all such uplifting and joyous distractions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                          Co-ords, please ignore the above comment. "Nominator being a smartarse" is NOT one of the FA criteria. Yomanganitalk 15:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          Well, now they know why I'm not supporting.

                                                          This in the Lead "sledging parties covered around 2,600 miles (4,180 km) of unexplored territory" suggests an area because of the word "covered". Perhaps "traversed" would be better? (We have "travelled for a total of" in the Body). Graham Beards (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                          I'm not sure about that - "covered" seems like a fairly commonplace synonym for "travelled/travelled across" to me ("we covered 30 miles yesterday", "he quickly covered the ground") and the numbers are a distance not an area. I will change it though if you feel strongly that it is likely to mislead.

                                                          Comments and support from Gerda

                                                          I miss Brian greatly, and am thankful for the endeveaour to bring his last work here up to FA, thankful to all involved. My 2ct to follow.

                                                          Lead

                                                          • First sentence: I'd prefer to have mentioned - before "brainchild" - that this was an expedition by whom and when, setting places (on top of time), for readers who don't already know that.
                                                            Trying to avoid anything close to "The Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911–1914 was an expedition to the Antarctic by an Australasian party that took place between 1911 and 1914". I think it is fine (basically untouched from Brian's first draft)
                                                          • End: it ends now at the single achievement of one person, while I could imagine an additional concluding summary of the achievements of the expedition.
                                                            Good point, I'll look at this.
                                                          • I could imagine the map - now next to Preparations - to follow the lead image, to help us understand where the places mentioned in the lead are.
                                                            Do you not think that is better handled in the body of the article? - the lead is meant to give "the basics in a nutshell and cultivate interest in reading on"
                                                            No, or would not have mentioned it ;) - I was impressed by the enormous distances between camps, and on land, which shows better - for me - on a map. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                          Images

                                                          • I could imagine to have the lead image from List of members of the Australasian Antarctic expedition also in this article.
                                                            I've replaced the Aurora image with a contemporary Hurley photo and there is a image of unloading and another of netting from the ship, so I think Aurora is well represented.
                                                          • I could imagine some more pics of people involved, perhaps in a gallery, for a closer look at them. Ninnis and Mertz, and others mentioned by name, perhaps.
                                                            This is meant to be a high level article on the expedition - there are already sub articles for the personnel (some of whom have their own articles), Far Eastern Party, and Western Base Party and there is copious material for articles on other facets of the expedition - so I think the bulk of the photos belong there. This is just to give a flavour.
                                                            While I understand, and agree with the bulk there: seeing more faces would add a personal touch, for me. By some, I mean perhaps the two victims, and camp commanders. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                          Ship ...

                                                          • I'd like a bit more caption for the Aurora pic, time and place.
                                                            Hopefully this request is rendered moot by the new image
                                                          • What is a "No. 1 Lucas sounder"?
                                                          • What is a "Kelvin machine"?
                                                            Sounding machines - "...the oceanographic program included two sounding machines: a No. 1 Lucas sounder for work in depths up to 6,000 fathoms ... and a lighter Kelvin machine for use in shallower depths". I'm not sure there is anything else relevant outside a specific article for the models mentioned.

                                                          Voyage south

                                                          • "the trip from Greenland" - I had forgotten the Greenland dogs, and don't recall a trip being mentioned, - I may be the only one missing some explanation or link.
                                                            I can't help your forgetfulness, but I've tried to make the trip more obvious.

                                                          Denison

                                                          • The little image below the header remains abstract to me at that size.
                                                            Made bigger, but image size and placement relies a lot on how and where you are reading from. It might be tiny for you, doesn't mean it is tiny for everyone.

                                                          And here we sit comfortably and warm. What a story! ... told in admirable prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                          Thank you for looking, explaining and acting. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                          Support Comments from JennyOz

                                                          Hello Yomangani, thank you sincerely for this. I've added my comments but please defer to Brian's style if anything I've noted is contrary.

                                                          • motor-sledge v motorised sledge - make consistent where appropriate?
                                                            I think they are serviceable synonyms
                                                          • base v Base consistencies eg Far Western base v Far Western Base and Main Base v Main base v main base
                                                            These arose because they are general descriptions as well as titles. I've sorted it by dropping the capitalised versions and removing "Far" as the literature calls it the "Western base" as least as often as the "Far Western base"
                                                          • There are some members with only surname, (leftover from when Brian separated the personnel list to own article in Oct 2019). I've checked every member and included ones that need first name below.
                                                            Sorted those that needed sorting
                                                          • and a lighter Kelvin machine - wlink to Kelvin Hughes? ("The firm manufactured binnacle compasses and deep sea sounding machines, many of which were installed on the great ships built on Clyde side.")
                                                            That is covered better in the preceding link to Depth_sounding#Mechanization but you have tempted me to a redlink for Lucas (which Brian would have probably hated)
                                                          • Eric Webb, a 22-year-old New Zealander who became chief magnetician - wlink magnetician?
                                                            That's bit of an Easter Egg link as you end up at Magnetism - not that helpful
                                                          • state governments together provided £18,500.[44] Together with private - tweak to avoid 2 x "together"? combined?
                                                            Fixed
                                                          • On 8 January, they found a wide - should we add the year when moving to a new one?
                                                          • She left Cardiff on 4 August, and arrived at Queens Wharf, Hobart, on 4 November, after a three-month voyage - "after a three-month voyage" not necessary? (I'm guessing that maybe when Brian added this departure date, he did not mean to leave in the "after a three-month voyage"?)
                                                            I'm inclined to leave it - it eases the staccato rhythm as bit
                                                          • the land reported by Wilkes in 1839 appeared to be non-existent - that was Jan 1840? His article has "reported the discovery "of an Antarctic continent west of the Balleny Islands" of which it sighted the coast on January 25, 1840." and Brian has in Background section "That coast had been indeterminately explored in the 1840s by the French under Dumont D'Urville and by the American Charles Wilkes, but had not been visited since."
                                                            Just a quick fill that I didn't correct later - the voyage started in 1839
                                                          • which they named Cape Denison, after Sir Hugh Denison - not knighted until 1923, remove "Sir"?
                                                            Fixed
                                                          • return to base by 15 January, when - add year?
                                                          • support parties for the main journeys.[90][89] - ref order
                                                            Fixed
                                                          • but early in the New Year there - are caps necessary (usually only used for Jan 1st)?
                                                            Substituted
                                                          • they resumed their journey on 4 January - add year?
                                                          • and, in particular, the condition of his feet - frostbitten?
                                                            Generally poor condition: skin flaking off, raw, probably a bit of trench foot and frostbite.
                                                          • Three days later, Mawson reached the cave, but bad weather - was he able to find stores here, esp nutrition?
                                                            Yes, added (also there was food at the first cairn he found)
                                                          • Bickerton, Bage, McLean, Madigan and Hodgeman - Hodgeman needs first name Alfred here. Ditto for Archibald McLean (others okay)
                                                            Hodgeman was already named and linked further up in an image.
                                                            Perhaps name and link him in prose then use as a MOS:REPEATLINK in the caption (just in case the image is removed at some time?)
                                                          • but a severe gale prevented the ship from anchoring - do we know how long Davis waited to see if gales would abate, hours, days?
                                                            One day. Added
                                                          • The East Coast Party under Madigan left the base - previously written as Eastern Coastal Party
                                                            Fixed
                                                            another tweak ie "Eastern Coastal Party" v. "East Coastal Party"?
                                                          • named Horn Bluff, after one of the expedition's sponsors - wlink William Horn (per ref 2 his article)
                                                            Yep. Done
                                                          • Their most important geological find was a meteorite, the first discovered in Antarctica - wlink to Adelie Land meteorite
                                                            Done
                                                          • produce and edit a magazine, the "Adelie Blizzard" - italics for a mag?
                                                            Apparently so (though I tried it in bold first)
                                                          • when strong winds brought down the wireless masts - insert "again" brought down?
                                                            Added "once again" as it gives a more exasperating feel
                                                          • Bickerton began practising operating the wireless - insert 'to learn morse code'?
                                                            Probably more to it than that, I don't think the sources restrict it to that or mention whether Bickerton already knew morse.
                                                            Ah, I'd read that in Sidney Jeffryes' article. Ref 1 "Bickerton stepped into the breach, teaching himself Morse code in the process." Also here but no prob if not added.
                                                          • instructed Ainsworth to censor - maybe insert "on Macquarie Island" after Ainsworth
                                                            Done
                                                          • They finally left Cape Denison on 26 December - I'd add year here
                                                          • though he signed a letter to indemnify Davis from responsibility should a disaster occur. - add a ref? was this at Davis's request?
                                                            Can't find any mention of that in the sources, so removed it.
                                                          • establish wireless contact with Camp Denison failed - this is the only time Main Base is called Camp Denison
                                                            Fixed
                                                          • Sawyer, who had fallen ill, was taken off the island - add Arthur (and wlink to List of Personnel?)
                                                            Done
                                                          • replaced by members of the Commonwealth Meteorological Service - swap "Service" to Bureau per previous (doesn't seem to have changed name in that period
                                                            Done
                                                          • Macquarie Island and further south towards the Auckland Islands - Auckland Islands not further south than Macquarie? further east? p68 of ref has "A course was then set (N. 46 degrees East. true) for the Auckland Islands."
                                                            Northeast. Done.
                                                          • Mawson noted as much in his diary: "I hope the strain won't tell any more of him" - do you have access to Riffenburgh, should that be on him?
                                                            No, it's "of him" - I had thought that was probably a typo too, so I've already checked.
                                                          • through the profits from Hurley's film - add Frank, add 'official photographer', add wlink
                                                            He should be mentioned in the personnel section really. I'll sort that. (I have sorted it)
                                                          • The outbreak of war later in 1914 delayed - seems obvious but we should change "war" to World War I (or, the First World War)?
                                                            I've just linked it
                                                          • loss of public interest as a result of the war.[174] As a result, the scientific reports - reword to avoid 2 x "as a result"?
                                                            Reworded
                                                          • Royal Australian Engineers - wlink
                                                            Done
                                                          • died after being badly wounded by - badly not needed?
                                                            Not essential but does suggests he died of his wounds directly rather than complications. Also, adverbs are nice to have around.
                                                          • Hurley joined the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition - use ITAE here?
                                                            I was breaking it up, to avoid two ITAEs or two Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expeditions within a few words
                                                          • Hurley's photographs and films provided a comprehensive pictorial record - ref mentions film singular (though prob many reels?). Also is singular when mentioned in Aftermath.
                                                            That was just my typo.
                                                          • including Cape Mawson, Mawson Coast, Mawson Peninsula,[187] Madigan Nunatak,[188] Mertz Glacier,[189] Ninnis Glacier - needs 'and' before "Ninnis" (and if so, remove Oxford comma)?
                                                            Done
                                                          • claims on the Antarctic continent,[184]and was - space after ref
                                                          • note 7 vitamin A poisoning - wlink to Hypervitaminosis A per Mertz article?
                                                          • note 8 New York Globe -wlink?
                                                          • Smith 2014, pp. 239. - one p
                                                          • Fitzsimons, P. (2012). Mawson - Cap S in name (throughout) and authorlink to Peter FitzSimons
                                                          • Cansdale - move to Websites. Change wlink from the US ABC to ABC News (Australia)
                                                          • Gorman, M.L. - spaced initials per others?
                                                          • Gorman - "Aberdeen University’s penguin egg" - straighten curly apostrophe
                                                            All the above ref changes are done
                                                          • image Australasian_Antarctic_Expedition_English.png - something odd here, Sydney appears too far north on coastline.
                                                            I've moved it (Sydney, not the marker in the image. If you are in Sydney and you look out the window now you'll see you are now in what used to be Coff's Harbour.)
                                                          • misc - in Air-tractor sledge and in Cape Denison, Boat Harbour is mentioned but not in this Expedition page (which would be expected?)
                                                            The name is more a modern tourist thing, but it does crop up in some of the literature, so I've crowbarred it in.
                                                          • misc - winds, a number of linked articles (eg Mawson's, Commonwealth Bay, Cape Denison) name and wlink katabatic wind. Should this, if in sources?
                                                            Added another sentence about different ways they got blown around

                                                          That's me for now. Thanks again. As Mr Riley says, "a sad pleasure" to review. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                          In case the need is felt for citing Mawson and Katabatic, here is a reference (which I had noted at the time of my review, but not included). It is page 116 of: Cassano, John J. (2013), "Climate of Extremes", in D. W. H. Walton (ed.), Antarctica: Global Science from a Frozen Continent, Cambridge University Press, pp. 116, 102–136, ISBN 978-1-107-00392-7 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          • I think all your points have been addressed now in one way or another. Thanks for the forensics (single curly apostrophe; how did you find that?).
                                                            nothing special, simply by sight.

                                                          Thanks Yomangani, I have added a few replies above and have two new minor questions...

                                                          • What happened to the H on verandah? I've seen both spellings (verandah and veranda) in the sources but the H is more usual here in Oz.
                                                            I saw some Australian source using the h-free version so I removed it.
                                                          • At Sources / Books, is it intentional that the link to the Davis book at Internet Archive does not open in new window (or is this "a thing" I've not noticed before)?
                                                            I think that is because the titlelink is a pseudo-interwiki link.

                                                          As none of the extras above are of much concern, I am happy to add my support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                          Comments from 7&6=thirteen

                                                          The very first sentence is unreadable. It has fifty words. If you can't figure out this is poor writing, see my user page for supporting studies. Joyceian excess is no way to start off an article. 'tis true that it is nowhere near Longest English sentence.
                                                          We honor Brian's memory by furthering and improving the project, not by casting a perpetual memorial to editorial misjudgment. It is way over anybody's ability to understand intelligibly. There was no need for this mountain. It is not up to the standards of a WP:FA IMO. 15:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                          I disagree that it was even remotely difficult to parse and I certainly disagree with the hyperbolic criticism of it here and on my talk page, but I have lightly edited it. Yomanganitalk 19:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          Bit more of a philosophical discussion on the process than directly related
                                                          On the one hand, the sentence does wind a bit, and we expect the lead to be digestible to the average reader, not just the Antarctic aficionados. On the other hand, I can't see a way to do it better that I like. Stopping at the first comma seems too choppy, but my prose stinks. Here are both options, for others to opine.
                                                          Original Shortened
                                                          The Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911–1914 was the brainchild of Douglas Mawson, who was inspired by his role in Ernest Shackleton's Nimrod expedition in 1907–1909 to spearhead an investigation of the largely unexplored coast due south of the Australian continental landmass, between Cape Adare in the east and Gaussberg in the west. The Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911–1914 was the brainchild of Douglas Mawson. Inspired by his role in Ernest Shackleton's Nimrod expedition in 1907–1909 he spearheaded an investigation of the largely unexplored coast due south of the Australian continental landmass, between Cape Adare in the east and Gaussberg in the west.
                                                          The first sentence in a lead matters. A lot. We should discuss and come to consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          • One solution might be to lose the final clause, "between Cape Adare in the east and Gaussberg in the west", which may be more detail than the lead needs, and would help reduce the length without having to chop at the first comma. The average layreader might not need to know those specifics in the lead, while the aficionado probably already does know this, so doesn't need it spelled out either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          I reedited the first sentence once. That was my proposal. And it was found wanting. I called attention to the problem, but won't edit war. I will leave it to you all to develop consensus. I want the article to be promoted to WP:FA. But I want this to be a lasting and fitting tribute to an esteemed editor. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen () 16:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          I, for one, really appreciate your intent, 7+6. This matters a lot to me because almost every single medical FA has been destroyed by a misguided application of guideline by a small group of editors to restrict sentence length in leads to 12 words, and only so that these articles can be dumbed down for translation to other languages. Tell me that reading the lead of Asperger syndrome, an FA, doesn't give you a staccato headache. Partly for this reason (and others related to same), production of FAs in the medical realm has ceased. I understand your concern, but resist overly short sentences as well. I felt your first sentence was too short, but agree the original sentence was too long. What we do in FAs matters, as they become examples that other editors follow. I leave it to others to solve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                          WP:FA ought to be an attainable goal, not a mythical Chimera. I claim no pride of authorship, so I am not affronted by being overwritten. The strength and virtue of wikipedia is our multiple viewpoints and skills. And there is no such thing as good writing. There is only good rewriting. Everything is subject to editing recrafting and rehabilitation. WE should concentrate on fixing the problem, building an encyclopedi; not fixing the blame. But throwing a Sabot into the FA works is neither helpful nor constructive. 7&6=thirteen () 17:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                          I found the opening sentence a bit tangled too, like I should know what Mawson already did. It's a paragraph that feels like it's not the start of something.I'm sure there are a number of options that would decompress the information in that sentence a bit. Not often do we see "brainchild" as the first noun on a page (other than the article subject). A more literal approach couldn't hurt; I find the first paragraph of Nimrod Expedition, which is also a(n) FA, sets the stage much better. In this first paragraph, it's talking about bases before it's talking about the background/preparation, the ship or any slightly detailed purpose of the expedition. Outriggr (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                          Here is my sample lede: [3]. Also, there isn't a link to Antarctica in the whole article. Outriggr (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                          I've adopted a modified version of Outrigger's lead. I find it sad that we are writing for people who don't appreciate "brainchild" or "spearhead". Thog hit mammoth with rock.
                                                          Oh, I enjoy a brainchild in the right time and place. Some of my best friends are brainchildren.
                                                          Lead sentences and paragraph look good to me. 7&6=thirteen ()</spa 13:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


Older nominations

Nominator(s): Micro (Talk) 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 2017 Uplifting Trance song "Saving Light". After numerous featured article nominations, two peer reviews, and help from PresN as a mentor, I am certain that this article is finally ready to become a featured article. The article was also significantly improved and expanded upon compared to its last FAN, including a composition section, more photos, an audio sample and even an entire section on live performances. All in all, the article should be ready to become a featured article. Micro (Talk) 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Removed. Is there anything I can replace them with or are they fine as they are now?
You can use |upright= to set a size that respects the user's preference settings. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added one to the photo in "Writing and production", it seems to be a good size now.
  • Is there a reason to use FilePath for images here?
  • Not entirely sure myself, I think they were put in during a peer review or I just copied them over from a FA. I've removed them.
  • File:HALIENE_performing_at_EDC_2017_live_(cropped).jpg: source should include a link to the source file
  • I can't seem to find the source image, not from the authors or singer's website or social media. To avoid any problems, I've simply replaced it.
  • File:Gareth_Emery_Standerwick_-_Saving_Light.ogg needs a more expansive FUR. Same with File:Saving_Light_music_video_screenshot.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Done, borrowed from two FA articles so it should be good now. Micro (Talk) 00:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I think you copied a piece that doesn't apply here for File:Saving_Light_music_video_screenshot.jpg - I don't see any mention of copyright infringement in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Can't believe I missed that. Fixed.
Nominator(s): isento (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a 1966 album by the Rolling Stones, an artistic breakthrough that advanced the band's musical legacy, a critical and commercial hit that rivalled the Beatles, one of the most critically acclaimed albums in history, a cultural milestone connected to 1960s Swinging London. And now a complete article, thanks in large part to the major contributions of JG66. isento (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from John M Wolfson

  • I have no further issues with this and support it. I hope you go through the other reviewers' concerns as well. –

    Leaning Oppose: This is a nicely done article, and the research that has gone into it is commendable. The main editors deserve a lot of congratulations. However, I don't think we're quite there yet. I've skimmed through, checked a few sources and dipped into it here and there. I've found quite a few issues that make me question if it's quite ready for FAC. The main issues are use of quotations, the reception section and prose in general. I'm just listing samples; correcting these points would not be enough as there are other examples throughout the article. I'm not going to just dump a shopping list of prose issues as that rarely helps anyone. This isn't a full oppose as I think that we could reach FA standard during the course of this FAC, but the article needs work fairly quickly. A copy-editor familiar with FAC standards would be invaluable right now, but they're like gold dust. Sarastro (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

    • Procedural point: As the nominator says above, JG66 has contributed extensively to this article. Are they happy it is ready for FAC? Additionally, is there any reason that they are not listed as a co-nominator? It appears that this user and the nominator have contributed similar amounts to the article.
    • Nice of you to ask, but I'm really not fussed (I've never bothered to nominate articles I've taken to GA on to FAC, anyway). As you noticed, Isento was kind enough to mention my contributions above, and that's in keeping with his generosity throughout. We gave each other plenty of space and it's surprised me how much I enjoyed the collaboration. As for whether the article's ready for FAC, I've not read it in a while and Isento's been very busy in my absence. I saw him introducing some style points that I know he prefers, and thought it best to look away. No criticism: he's the one putting in the work, after all. Only lingering concern I have is the introduction of serial commas and spaced em dashes just recently, because British English usage does generally favour a) not using serial commas and b) setting dashes as spaced ens, which is what we had before. JG66 (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Serial commas removed, dashes unspaced as well. isento (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes, I know the dashes are all unspaced now – that's what I'm saying. We had spaced ens before you recently changed them all to unspaced ems. Not only is the former style much more common in British English – and this is an album by a very English band and a key work of '60s Swinging London – but it's the style that still appears in titles in the citations and sources. It's also the style universally adopted for Personnel lists, and it's the style hardcoded into via= in cite web. If there was a concern that the source/attribution in quote boxes is preceded by unspaced em, we could always lose those dashes altogether; it's hardly as if readers would miss that the attribution is a separate element from the quoted text (given the juicy quote marks) and as I remember mentioning, not one of the examples in the Template:Quote box documentation includes an introductory dash anyway. JG66 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
          • My mistake; I misread your comment. The dashes are now spaced again. isento (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
            • Very kind, thanks. As you've seen, I went ahead and changed the (long) ems back to the shorter ens. JG66 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
              • Yikes. Now I have to undo what I did to my other FAs lol. isento (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Sources: This seems fine. I checked a few sources (as far as Google previews would let me) and didn't find any issues apart from one very minor one. In terms of a full source check, it may be worth looking at one or two more a little later in the review, but there is nothing that concerns me in terms of accurate usage or close paraphrasing. Also, while I'm not especially knowledgable about the Rolling Stones, the list of sources is impressive, and looks to contain most of what I would expect in an article like this. (However, there might be a huge standard work missing, and I'd be none the wiser!)
    • The one minor issue: "Pop historian Richard Havens attributed the US LP's chart success in part to its inclusion of "Paint It Black", which had topped the Billboard Hot 100 for two weeks in June.": The source is a little more cautious than indicated here, describing the success of "Paint it Black" as "the perfect springboard to launch the album into the US charts". Not a big deal, but subtly different from what we are saying here.
      • I've revised it to be closer to the source. isento (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Quotations: Glancing through, we make extensive use of quotations. I wonder if these could be paraphrased in at least some places? It becomes wearing to read long strings of quotations giving opinions.
      • Yes, I have paraphrased several now. isento (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Reception section: This is a bit of an issue; at the moment, linked to the above point, this is just a list of quotations. There is no attempt at organising this section into something more coherent. The best way to see how this could be done would be to read WP:RECEPTION; at the moment, I think this falls some way short of the ideal, and for some reviewers, this would be grounds for an oppose.
      • I have revised it, including moving back a paragraph on discussion of lyrics that had been moved elsewhere. Should cohere more now. isento (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Prose: Quite a few issues here. For example, we need to sort out WP:ENGVAR. I think it is safe to say that, according to MOS:TIES, an article on the Rolling Stones should use British English. While not a huge issue, there are several phrasings here that are not comfortable in British English. For example: "Through 1965", "the attention of American businessman Allen Klein" (in British English it is better to avoid the use of False titles, and this should be "the American businessman. There are numerous examples of this, such as "According to American musicologist David Malvinni"); "after Jagger met with the potential director" (no need for "with" in British English). This should be checked thoroughly. Also, just looking at the lead throws up a few prose concerns: "The album is considered" (begs the question "who is it considered by?" and is best avoided if possible, unless we want to keep using "critics considered"); "Aftermath saw the Stones incorporating" (the use of "saw" like this makes my eyes bleed. Why not just something like "The Stones incorporated..."); "Brian Jones emerged as a talented multi-instrumentalist, playing a variety of instruments" (close repetition of "instrumentalist... instruments" and saying that Jones was talented introduces an opinion using Wikipedia's voice). I would recommend that this article is copy-edited by an uninvolved editor who could iron out some of these glitches: I can't find evidence that anyone has copy-edited it before its nomination.
      • I have checked thoroughly and copy-edited, addressing the specific points you outlined as well as others. isento (talk)`
    • At the risk of overstaying my welcome ... I'd say the nationality of a musicologist can go, whereas Allen Klein's is important as an American manager to an English band becoming an increasingly international brand in 1965–66. With regard to false titles, I have seen this brought up in the past as a consideration of British English. But, as I've had others quote to me in the past, WP:TERSE – is the inclusion of "the" each time a necessary word? While I'm continually pushing Brit English where it's due, I'm just mindful that articles such as this – which mention various band members, additional musicians, studio staff, photographers and "scenesters", biographers and music critics, etc. – can soon become filled with the likes of "the drummer Charlie Watts", "the engineer Dave Hassinger", and how, to some readers, that can start to grate somewhat. JG66 (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Sentence structure: A quick glance suggests that we are overusing was/is constructions and the passive voice. While neither of these are huge crimes, I think some variety would make for a more comfortable read. "Was" is obviously unavoidable, but doing a Ctrl-F shows that perhaps some rewriting would be beneficial. Sarastro (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes. I've revised for variety. isento (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

    Note: I've seen these changes, which look good and have addressed my concerns. I've struck my leaning oppose and I hope to do a full read-through at some point in the next few days. Sarastro (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

    @

    Although never my favourite Stones' album, "Aftermath's" central contribution to the group's canon is well-established. It is a long album, which only just fitted on the vinyl (at least in the UK and with a significant resultant loss of volume). I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article and thank the nominator and fellow editors for all their work. My issue is with all those quotations! They break the flow, contain numerous grammatical errors that would require [sic] to be added all over the place. Can't we paraphrase? The other issue with so many quotes is compliance with WP:ENGVAR. Logically, the article should use British English but some many quotes use American English. Paraphrasing would help resolve this. Lastly, I saw spaced em-dashes. Please check with WP:DASH for compliance. I am looking forward to seeing improvements to an otherwise excellent article.Graham Beards (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

    I have since copy-edited, consolidated and paraphrased significantly, in accordance with the above reviewer's comments and my own findings. If you still find issues, please specify them for my attention. Thank you!
    Do all the images check out now? isento (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


    Support from AppleWormBoy

    @Isento: It looks like every worry that I would've potentially had with the article has been resolved from other Wikipedians' comments. Nice job. — AppleWormBoy (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

    Support from Aoba47

    • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion.

      Although I don't have much experience reviewing FACs, I've been periodically observing you and JG66's expansions and I definitely it's much better off than it was a year ago. Since you asked, I thought I'd give a few comments or concerns I have. I also have not read any of the comments above so my apologies if I ask things that have already been resolved above:

      • Should you change "UK version" and "US release" in the infobox to the same word for consistency? Like "UK cover" and "US cover" or something like that?
      • Per Template:Infobox song#Parameters, the word "Studios" should not be in the infobox (shorten to just RCA)
      • I think release dates should be mentioned befroe recording dates in the lead (as the second sentence). It feels off to me knowing when it was recorded before its release date
      • AllMusic should not be italicized
      • I think refs in the chart table would look better by the charts themselves and not the positions; seems crowded being in the position col

      Rest looks great. Fantastic job on this! – zmbro (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

      @
      Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 00:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

      I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it's finally ready for review. I've been working on this on-and-off for years and was content with it at GA status, but a movie about the song was released in 2018 and that helped flesh out a lot of elements that had been unclear before, and the promotion of Almost There to FA helped give it a push. For those unfamiliar, this is the best-selling and most-played contemporary Christian song of all time and the signature song of the band MercyMe, one of the most successful Christian bands of all time. Oddly enough, it's had three distinct chart runs since its release in 2001: in 2001-02 it was on Christian radio, peaking at #1 on the Christian charts, then it crossed over to mainstream radio in 2003-04, becoming a big hit on AC stations, and finally, in 2018, it re-entered again, peaking at #1 on the Billboard Christian Songs chart and #10 on the Digital Songs chart. Along the way it has briefly charted in France, been adapted into a film that was the highest-grossing independent movie of 2018, and has been covered by other artists, with several versions charting on their own. It's an unusually long-lasting song and I think it would be a really excellent and unique addition to our FAs. Toa Nidhiki05 00:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

      Support from John M Wolfson

      • the band's independent album should perhaps be linked to the article independent music to clarify it; as such, per WP:DUPLINKS, the link in the body should thus be removed.
        Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
      • it would be like to be before God in heaven should be "in front of" to avoid confusion with the temporal sense of that word.
        Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
      • with just a piano before building to include perhaps the "just" should be removed, though I'll see how other reviewers respond to it.
        My justification here is to clarify that the song begins with only piano and vocals. Saying just "piano and vocals" might imply there are other instruments there; the "just" is to clarify that the song opens only with them. Toa Nidhiki05 00:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Chart positions should be written as "number one", "number 71", etc., per MOS:NUMBER, rather than "No. 71", if I'm not mistaken.
        Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
      • The second linked instance of 33rd GMA Dove Awards should be removed per DUPLINKS.

      That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

      NOTE: I must mention that I intend to claim WikiCup points for this review. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

      • Independent dates, such as October 12, 2001, are followed by a comma per the MOS (unless followed by other punctuation) even when one is not otherwise warranted.
        This should be fixed now. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
      • There should be more citations in the second paragraph of the "Background and recording" section; while it's not a dealbreaker as it currently is, it'd be better to have such citations.
        I added an additional citation in one of the more lengthy sections. To my recollection, longer sections drawn from the same source don’t require multiple citations unless there’s a direct quote, however. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        It is standard practice in FAs, although by no means mandatory, for a citation to follow every sentence.

      That's all I can think of, otherwise I'd be inclined to support. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

      • I’ve addressed both of these now, I think, John M WolfsonToa Nidhiki05 14:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        Looks good, support. –
        Addressed comments
        • I would avoid repeating "written" twice in this part: (Written and composed by lead singer Bart Millard, the song was originally written for the band's 1999 independent album The Worship Project).
          Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I am uncertain about the second and third sentences of the lead's first paragraph because they both have a similar structure with "the song...". It may be helpful to change it up to keep the reader engaged in the prose.
          Changed one of them. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I agree with John M Wolfson's comment about that chart positions should be written out in full rather than "No. 71". I also agree with their comments that "just" in this part "it opens with just a piano before building to include guitar and drums." is unnecessary.
          This was fixed but got reverted. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I have a comment about this sentence: ("I Can Only Imagine" received positive reviews from critics, with some calling it the best song on Almost There). I have often see the sentence structure, "with X verb-ing", discouraged in FACs so it may be beneficial to revise this. I personally do not have a strong opinion either way, but just something worth noting.
          I've modified this; let me know if you like it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • For this part (and as of April 2018 it has sold over 2.5 million copies.), I would add a comma between "2018" and "it".
          Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Link MercyMe the first time they are mentioned in the body of the article.
          Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • For this sentence (In the last phases of the album's production, MercyMe needed one more song to include on the album.), I would avoid repeating "the album" twice in the same sentence.
          Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • For this sentence (Millard began to write a song, basing it off on his personal feelings about his father Arthur's death.), I think you can replace "Millard" with "He" since it is clear from the context of the previous sentence.
          Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • For this part (but after several failed attempts Millard talked with), I would add a comma between "attempts" and "Millard".
          Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • There are instances where heaven is capitalized (In the song, the narrator wonders what it would be like to stand before God in Heaven.) and not capitalized (Lyrically, it imagines what it would be like to be before God in heaven). I honestly do not know which way is "correct", but I would be consistent with one way or the other.
          I’ve changed the first usage; all other usages are now in lowercase with one exception, which was part of a quote so we probably don’t want to modify that one. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • For this part ("I Can Only Imagine" was named the official inspirational song for the state of Oklahoma in 2018), I am uncertain if state needs to be linked.
          Unlinked for now. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • This part (the movie was released to theaters on March 16, 2018) is missing a period.
          Corrected now. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • For this part (It received mixed to positive reviews from critics), I would add a comma after "critics".
          Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • There are instances where the Oxford/serial comma is used (behind only The Passion of the Christ, Son of God, and Heaven Is for Real) and is not used (behind Bohemian Rhapsody, Straight Outta Compton and Walk the Line) so I would make sure to consistent with one way or the other.
          Corrected to use the serial comma consistently here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • For this part (And was also the highest-grossing independent film of 2018), I do not believe "and" should be capitalized.
          Good catch, fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • The citation used for this sentence "It ranks as the fourth-highest grossing music biopic of all-time in the United States (behind Bohemian Rhapsody, Straight Outta Compton and Walk the Line)." redirects to the Box Office Mojo homepage so I would mark the reference as dead so the citation defaults to the archived version.
          Good catch, corrected it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I am confused by the Box Office Mojo ranking. For instance, the archive version used in the article (here) places I Can Only Imagine as the fifth-highest grossing after Coal Miner's Daughter, but later versions of the list (like this one) place it as the fifth-highest grossing after Rocketman. I am not sure how to address this though.
          I’m not sure about this either. It’s also hard to get clarity since Box Office Mojo redesigned and nerfed the site. I’ve gone ahead and updated to the most current version. Toa Nidhiki05 14:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
          I would add something like "As of (insert date of the archived version of the website)" as this ranking is liable to change in the future as more and more music biopics are released in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
          Good idea, done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
        • For this part (After consulting with his pastor, who felt Millard should accept the opportunity, Millard began to reconsider), I would replace the second instance of "Millard" with "he" to avoid repetition.
          Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I do not think "finally" is necessary in this part (and finally agreed to let her cover it after talking with Grant over the phone).
          Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I have a question about this part (Grant had planned to release her version of the song as the first single from her upcoming album). Do we know what this upcoming album was? Considering the timing, I am assuming it is Legacy... Hymns and Faith, but it would be nice to get clarification in the prose.
          I would assume so but I don’t think it’s explicitly stated in the book. I can go back and check. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
          If it is not explicitly stated either in the book or in other sources, then it would be better to keep the current wording. Aoba47 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • For this sentence (Grant had planned to release her version of the song as the first single from her upcoming album and MercyMe would release a different song as their first single, hoping to capitalize on having written what would presumably become a major hit for Grant.), is there a way to avoid repeating "first single"?
          Changed one use to “lead single”. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Would there be a way to avoid repeating "second single" in this sentence (Grant gave MercyMe her blessing to release the song as their second single and signed the rights back to the band; "I Can Only Imagine" was released on October 12, 2001 as the album's second single.)?
          Modified slightly. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I would move the link to the movie from this part (In March 2018, following the release of the film I Can Only Imagine,) to here (The story behind "I Can Only Imagine" was adapted into a film.) since it is the first time the film is mentioned in the article.
          Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I will leave this up to whoever does the image review, but I am uncertain of the necessity of the music video screenshot. I have also been told to keep non-free media usage to a minimal unless it illustrates a point that cannot be conveyed with text alone or is something that was the subject of critical commentary. The screenshot does not fit either to me. I am not saying you have to remove it as again, I will leave that up to the image review, but it is something to think about it.
          The main function of this image is to demonstrate what it means by picture frames. The picture clearly shows a person holding a picture frame, one of the main motifs of the video. I can understand if it needs to go, however. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
          Thank you for the explanation. That makes more sense to me then. Since the picture frame concept was an important part of not only the music video, but also of the concert performances, then I can see a stronger reason for inclusion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
        • In the "Other versions" section, the first paragraph includes several instances of "version"/"versions", particularly in the first paragraph. Would there be a way to avoid this?
          I've changed several usages to "recording" to try and vary things. Does this work? Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I would simplify this (in promotion of the upcoming film release) to (to promote the film).
          Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Is this part (Millard was also interviewed after the performance) necessary as it does not really add any information about the song?
          This is a good point; I've removed it. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

        I hope that my comments are helpful. Apologies for the length of the review, as I am just trying to be thorough and help as much as possible. You have done an excellent job with the article. Let me know if you need any clarification about anything. Hope you have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

        No, I appreciate it! I'll try and dig through this shortly. Toa Nidhiki05 02:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I would recommend adding alternative text to the infobox image and for all of the other images in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
        • All images should have alt text now. Toa Nidhiki05 03:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
        • It seems like the ALT text has been removed. I will leave this point up to the editor who conducts the image review. Aoba47 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

        Thank you for addressing everything. I will look through the article again tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

        • Thank you for your patience with the review. I support this for promotion based on the prose. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. Otherwise, I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

        Image review

        • Suggest adding alt text
          Alts have been restored.
          Nominator(s): Harrias talk 20:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

          Another early skirmish of the First English Civil War. In fact, according to some historians, the first action of the war (though the fighting during the first Siege of Hull could also be given the same tagline.) A large group of raw Parliamentarian recruits were marching through Somerset when they were spotted by a Royalist scouting party. Despite being outnumbered in the region of 10 to 1, the Royalist cavalry routed the raw recruits (described as nothing more than farmers by one historian). The skirmish was of little significance, as the overwhelming antipathy towards the Royalists in Somerset forced them to withdraw to Sherborne Castle in neighbouring Dorset.

          The article underwent a GAN and recently passed a MILHIST A-class review. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received. Harrias talk 20:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

          Image review - pass

          • All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted.

            The sources used are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

            CommentsSupport by PM

            Very little to quibble about here. A few comments:

            • link ambush in the lead
            • could you add something like "In preparation for/Given the likelihood of conflict with the Parliamentarians, Charles appointed..." Otherwise the build-up to fighting breaking out is lost
            • suggest linking levying to Conscription#Medieval levies
            • decap Royal assent
            • what is a "a collection of arms"?
              • I've rephrased to "held a meeting to collect arms", how is that? Harrias talk 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
            • suggest The Parliamentarians' superior recruitment→The success of the Parliamentarians' recruiting
            • no first name for Sands?
            • link South Petherton
            • link Street, Somerset
            • drop the comma from "and the experienced soldier, Henry Lunsford"
            • suggest "Among those captured were two of the Parliamentarian officers, Captains Preston and Sands"
              • I've trimmed this down, but not so much as suggested, to "Among those captured were the two officers, Preston and Sands." Harrias talk 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
            • "crossed the Mendips" is this the hills or a stream? If the former, suggest "the Mendip Hills"

            That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

            @Peacemaker67: Thanks for the review; I have adopted each of your points as suggested, other than where I have provided a note above. Harrias talk 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
            Ah, Harrias, I'm not seeing these edits? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
            @Peacemaker67: How bizarre. Tried again. Harrias talk 08:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
            All good, supporting.
            • I'll have a look soon. At first glance, perhaps link Royalists and Parliamentarians in infobox and image caption?
            • " In his book, Somerset in the Civil War, David Underdown" Perhaps say "the historian David Underdown" and add date for book?
              • Adopted as suggested. Harrias talk 10:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
            • "but the general population of the county was more sympathetic towards Parliament than the King" Could we get some reason or context for this?
            • "led by William Strode" Some people mentioned are presented with occupation or title, some are not. perhaps present all?
              • I've added a short descriptor. Harrias talk 10:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
            • Shouldn't the casualties be listed in the infobox?
              • Because there are no figures given for the Royalists, I prefer not to provide uneven data in the infobox; what details we have are present in the lead and the body.
                Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

                This article is about a professional snooker non-ranking tournament from November. The contesting players all won tournaments from the year prior to the tournament. The event featured a record number of century breaks during the best-of-19-frames final and ended with a 10-9 win for Robertson, who had mathematically lost the final two frames earlier. It was one of my most favourite finals, an absolutely high class event. It also featured the champions of the senior and ladies world championships for the first time ever. Both 57 year old Jimmy White a frame away from beating the world number one Ronnie O'Sullivan, and Reanne Evans a frame away from defeating 2005 world champion Shaun Murphy.

                The article has been through the GA process, and I hope to be able to fix any issues that might occur during the FAC process. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

                I added a key for this below the table (should have done so earlier). The one for John denotes that John had won another event, but Maguire had not, but it's the only doubles event on the list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
                In that case Ronnie O'Sullivan and others should be marked. The formatting is inconstant --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 17:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
                I'm not sure I understand. The items in grey are ones that were originally qualification events, but as the person who had won them had already won a tournament; it no longer acted as one. If there had been 16 different winners earlier in the season, some events would no longer be a part of this list. Best Wishes,

                (Note that I intend to take WikiCup points from this review.)

                • It was the ninth Champion of Champions event, which was first held in 1978 strikes me as rather odd.
                I've gone into more detail in the prose. It was played in 1978, then in 1980 and annually since 2013. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                • I meant the prose was odd and choppy, I didn't even realize the mathematics was off until you mentioned it. :P – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                • As a non-invitational event, it carried no world-ranking points is not brought up in the body, nor is it cited.
                Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                • The second paragraph in the lead, between Ronnie O'Sullivan ... Judd Trump in the final. contains a lot of names and is a bit choppy. How about merging the Robertson v. Trump sentences into a single sentence?
                I've merged these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                • This article could stand to have more images in it.
                I've added a second image. I'm not sure if there is much scope for much more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

                That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

                Hi John M Wolfson - thanks for taking a look, I've addressed the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                I'll see what else I can find soon. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                Hi

                Looks like a comprehensive and suitably written account of the event.

                • Is there any reason to not populate defending_champion in the infobox? (Doesn't appear in the articles for earlier championships either.)
                • Some info from Snooker Scene (December 2019 that might be worth adding):
                There were 784,000 viewers for the final on ITV4[1]
                O'Sullivan had an average shot time of only 13 seconds in his match against Higgins.(Same source, page 19.)
                (Re: Evans' comments about the disparity between prize money for men and for women) - the £12,500 that (twelve times womens's champion) Evans won at this event was more than double her previous highest event winnings.(Same source, page 16.)
                • I'm not sure if there is a convention, but in the Prize Fund section, should it be Semi-finalists (plural) rather than semi-finalist etc.?

                Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

                Thanks for taking a look Benny!

                • Sure. Defending champion is a term used for defending champion before the event finishes. The moment they are eliminated from the tournament they are no longer a defending champion. Consensus is that after the event, this should not be populated at all (even if it were to be won by the previous winner).
                • Added. Any more details? I don't have a copy of snooker scene, so who authored the passage?
                • Not sure how I would organically say that. Does the text use anything to compare this too that I could use?
                • I've added this to her mention in the prose.
                • I changed this in line with prior FAs. This should be Semi-final etc. This is the position that the player reached, not the placements for prize money. There are more than one quarter-finalists for example, but the prize is for reaching the quarter-finals. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                Thanks for the clarifications.
                • For the viewing figure (author Clive Everton), the article adds that it was the second-highest figure for a non-terrestrial channel, behind Liverpool v Man City on Sky, but not for what period - maybe for that day?
                • Phil Yates is the author of the other Snooker Scene sections, but they don't really have separate titles.
                • For shot time, World Snooker publishes data at http://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/TourPlayers/Index/14128 for context if you want to use that. (O'Sullivan is quickest with an overall average of 16.65 seconds; Ebdon slowest with a 30.66 second average.) Cheers, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                BennyOnTheLoose - I've done a little work. I still don't think there is enough weight for the AST to get more than a general mention. Hopefully this is all you have for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                BennyOnTheLoose Yes, that's it from me. Thanks for the responses. Best, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

                References

                1. ^ "Robertson triumphs in Champion of Champions". Snooker Scene. Halesowen: Snooker Scene Ltd. December 2019. p. 16.
                Could I get a "support" to help the eventual closer? You also pinged yourself as an FYI. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                Happy to support.

                I've done a bit of copyediting on the article and here are my FA review comments for your attention:

                Lead
                • Might it be better to put the prize fund sentence at the bottom of the lead, at end of 2nd para?
                  • Done.
                • "having required foul shots from his opponent in the 18th frame." - not sure what you're getting at here! Was this an important turning point where Robertson almost lost the match? Is there a better way of saying this? Also, there is no mention of this in the description of the final in the Knockout stages section below, which only mentions foul shots required by Trump in the 17th frame. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                  • Sorry, that should have said Robertson required foul shots (reworded in prose) in frame 18, or we would have lost the match. It was a crucial part of the match, as without foul shots, Trump would have won 10-8. I have reworded this to make this more sensible. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                Tournament format
                • "first held in 1978,[1] and annually since 2013" > "first held in 1978,[1] and held annually since 2013" (or use the word "contested" to avoid repetition of "held"?)
                  • exactly the reason I didn't use a qualifier. I'm not sure this is an improvement Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                • "The 2019 Champion of Champions featured 16 winners of events from the previous 12 months on the World Snooker Tour" - isn't that the case every year and therefore applies to the tournament as a whole, not just the 2019 edition? If so, then it should really be used as a general statement in present tense, i.e. "The tournament features 16 professional snooker players who have won various events over the previous 12 months..."
                  • The early events did not contain 16 players. (The first one had 4) This is why it's written this way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                • Not sure about sentence order at end of 1st para - maybe the date/venue sentence should be higher up?
                • "The event was broadcast on ITV4, and organised by Matchroom Sport." - organising the event comes before broadcasting it chronologically speaking, so I'd prefer "The event was organised by Matchroom Sport and was broadcast on ITV4."
                • "with the semi-finals and final played on 9 and 10 November." - this is important, I think you have the dates wrong - should be "with the semi-finals played on 8 and 9 November and the final on 10 November."?
                • "with those in the opening round being best-of-7-frames" - strictly hyphens shouldn't be used here as the construct is not being used as a predicative compound modifier, but I'm not going to argue the toss over this. Also "group finals and semi-finals best-of-11-frames" shouldn't really have hyphens, but "played as a best-of-19-frames match" is ok because here it's used as a predicative compound modifier!
                  • I have no doubt that you are correct. I'm not 100% on exactly how this should work. I'll see if I can go through the article on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                • "Having defeated Kyren Wilson in the 2018 final 10–9, Ronnie O'Sullivan automatically qualified for the event" - do we really need to mention Wilson and the final score? Why not just say "As the defending champion from the 2018 event, Ronnie O'Sullivan automatically qualified for the 2019 Champion of Champions."
                  • We mention the previous years result in the lede (as we always do), so we also need to do so (and cite) in the body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                Qualification
                • Shouldn't the 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 snooker seasons be in the new format?
                  • I have done this. Realistically, nothing particularly changed with this, but it's good practice. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                • "would take a place in the Champion of Champions" - do they get offered a place that they have to formally accept? If so, this should be "would be offered a place in the Champion of Champions"
                  • If the 2020 Masters is anything to go by; players on the tour are given a place, unless they withdraw. I've never heard that they have to respond to the summons. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                • Is it worth mentioning that Ronnie O'Sullivan automatically qualified because he won the 2018 C of C?
                  • It already says that. I don't think it's important enough to mention twice. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                • In table, "2019 World Championship Runner-up" isn't a tournament, it's just indicating the runner-up of the 2019 World Championship, so the entry should really be "2019 World Championship (runner-up)"
                  • I agree. I hadn't realised we had labelled it as a tourny. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                • The last 2 columns look very odd because they are auto centre aligned and nothing lines up. Would it not be clearer if the cells were reinstated and the players placed next to their respective events as appropriate? Or maybe just use valign=top so the info isn't floating around aimlessly?
                  • I have used this as valign. I'll look into the table idea. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                • Is there a reason the first 16 events are not in chronological order? Is it to do with their importance and the way the qualifiers end up being seeded or grouped? Worth mentioning the relevance of the event order?
                  • That's exactly it. "In the event of any of these players meeting multiple qualification criteria, the winners of subsequent tournaments on the list (in the order shown below) would take a place in the Champion of Champions". So, if the first 16 tournaments had different winners, then the winners of the ones in the list below that did not qualify and so on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                • Suggest using a thick line underneath the 16th event to show the cut-off point?
                  • That did exist. But there was no cutoff (they had to add events in the end due to there being less than 16 different winners). If there was another tournament who's winner didn't qualify, I'd add a cutoff. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                Tournament summary
                • Would it be worth including a simple table at the top of this section showing the four groups so it's clear what we're talking about, rather than expecting the reader to go down to the main draw tree to see the groupings there?
                  • The "groups" were more for scheduling. It wasn't played in a round robin series, just that the quarter-final match was played out of sequence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                • Need to state that each of the four groups competed on its own separate day and the group finals were included on the same day as the group first-round matches - so basically each group was done and dusted on one single day. Or this info could be added to the Tournament format section above?
                Main draw
                • "Numbers in brackets show the four seeded players" - this is the only mention of seeds in the whole article. Should we not bring it up in the Tournament summary section? You have not explained how seeds 1 to 4 are decided.
                  • this is the only thing I could find on this. Not sure if it's the world rankings that chose the top 4 seeds, or what. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                • In the first column, the group headings should be above each pair of matches in the tree, not inbetween them.
                  • This is something built into the template itself. I have no idea how we would go about moving this. I think this is how traditional brackets would be defined. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                • I anticipate some slight confusion over Group semi-finals/finals vs. main semi-finals/final - would it be better to head the first two columns "Last 16 (group first round)" and "Quarter-finals (group finals)"?
                References
                • The Champion of Champions Snooker refs. (e.g. 5, 6, 7, 13, etc.) are dated in the citations but these dates don't show up in the displayed articles, just in the source code, so should we bother to cite the date if it can't be seen?
                I don't see an issue here. It's in the metadata for the item, which is as equivilent to a publishing date that isn't on a book or newspaper. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                • 22. don't need World Snooker at end of title
                • 24. work (or newspaper) = Sporting Life again
                • 25. don't need Champion of Champions Snooker at end of title
                • 31/34. where did you get that author from!? don't need snooker.org at end of title
                  • The author is from metadata. I can remove if you wish. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                • 37. What is the point of this ref? It just says "No matches registered". Do we need to pull up an archive?
                Indeed, fixed it with the list of results, which was the correct ref.

                Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

                Thanks Lee, I'll go through your comments and feed back shortly – there are still a few things I'm not sure about. I'm very embarressed to say that before this I hadn't even heard of the Champion of Champions tournament, so thank you for introducing me to it. Maybe it's a good thing that I came to this article with no prior knowledge of the event! Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
                Outstanding comments...
                • You said the players are "given" a place, but as it's an "invitational" event this would imply that the players are invited, i.e. "offered" a place!? Just a question of semantics but I thought I'd mention it again just to make sure.
                • The last two columns of the Qualification table are better now they are top aligned, but unless you are using a small enough display font, the names and dates don't line up horizontally due to text wrapping. So I still think a "cellular" approach would ultimately be the best solution!
                  • I've gone ahead an deleted this. I couldn't find a single source that actually commented on these dates, so despite being a bit obvious, it's OR. Without this, I don't think additional work needs doing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                • I still don't understand why the first 16 events in the table are not in chronological order. For example, 2019 World Snooker Championship is 4th entry down even though its final was on 6 May 2019, so if the list were chronological it would come 11th in the list, after the 2019 China Open whose final was 7 April 2019. Then it's all chronological again until you get down to 2018 Northern Ireland Open. So I'm wondering: is it because the three Triple Crown events are considered the "most important" events and need to come near the top (after the C of C defending champion)? I thought maybe the top four determined the 4 seeds but that's apparently not the case. Still can't fathom that one...
                  • I'm not 100% sure. It's simply how it's written at the official website. That's the official list of qualification. It was split into 6 sections as per [championofchampionssnooker.co.uk/players/].

                It's 1) Triple Crown + Previous years winner 2) Bigger tournaments 3) Home nations series 4) Some smaller ranking events (and world runner-up) 5) World Cup 6) Additonal.

                There was this article about the 2017 event that went into slightly more detail, but I don't think the same exists for this season. I hope I've made this more clear. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                • I'm still wondering how seeds 1 to 4 are decided and I think it's a fairly important question. Can you look into it?
                  • I found [coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/manbetx-champion-champions-draw-made-17180437 this], which seems to explain it. I'll add. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                And a few more issues remaining in References...
                • 3. Not sure why your script changed ESPN from publisher= to work=
                • 15. missing date=21 October 2019
                • 16. I think you missed this: final version of article has title "Champion of Champions day one results and report: Neil Robertson wins Group 4 after beating Shaun Murphy"
                • 18. No url link included and it's exactly the same citation as ref.37
                • 32/35/38. I wouldn't bother to include an author for these refs - Hermund Årdalen is included in the source code for refs 5 & 7 as well but we're not citing his name for those two refs, so we need to be consistent one way or the other. As the snooker.org sources are just a record of matches/results, I don't see any reason to specify an "author", he's probably just the guy that compiled the data (as opposed to being someone who wrote an article for example) and his name doesn't show up on the webpage anyway.
                • 38. Why does it say this ref. is in Norwegian? It looks English to me, although it does give a translate box when you first open it for some reason. Ref.35 also says it's in Norwegian (even though it isn't) but this one doesn't display a translate box - how curious!

                Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

                  • I never know how this works. I suspect it's stored in Norway, thus the metadata Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                Hi Lee, I'm happy to support this article now. Just a couple of things to point out:

                • Qualification section states that there were 28 tournaments, but that is not the case. There are actually 26 tournaments on the list, with two spots available at the World Cup (two winners) and two at the World Championship (two finalists) giving a total of 28 spots. Check this in the ref. [4]
                • There's no online link to the articles in refs 21 & 29. Is that just because the Snooker Scene magazine has no online presence?

                Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

                Image review

                Regarding the requested image review, everything looks well placed and well licensed to me. There is OK ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

                Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

                This article is about the 1989 film Ghostbusters II. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

                Support from John M Wolfson

                My comments

                (DISCLAIMER:I intend to take WikiCup points from this review.) Unfortunately, I do not believe I can do anything but oppose this nomination at this time. It appears you had a bit of a spat with Laser brain the first time this was at FAC about incorporation of sources regarding the themes of the film; while I wasn't one to comment on the sources as I didn't see any from a cursory GSearch and would have procrastinated a deeper search, I looked further in that FAC and saw that Josh Milburn provided you with sources to that effect, which you appeared to rebuff and have not added. Given that those appear to be high-quality sources, I must oppose and suggest withdrawal of this FAC to work on their incorporation. (I messed that up incredibly, see below.) On an unrelated note, there should be NBSPs between such figures as "$215.4 million", etc. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 06:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

                @John M Wolfson: I'm glad you agree with Laser brain and I that scholarly sources need to be incorporated, but I do note that of the four sources I identified in the previous FAC, three are now cited several times in the article, as is a scholarly book identified by Aoba47. (One of the four sources I identified isn't cited; perhaps Darkwarriorblake couldn't get hold of it, or perhaps the contents weren't useful.) Am I misunderstanding your reason for opposition? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                I went through every source given and included every one that had any relevant information. There's a giant section called "Thematic analysis" now in the article. If a source wasn't used it was mainly because Ghostbusters II was literally only mentioned in regards to the main topic of discussion and otherwise not analysed. I'd suggest reading it before opposing it. Thanks for your review. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                Well, this is extremely embarrassing. I had looked through the sources in the source code and it appears that the one I selected for checking is the one that didn't appear. Consider my oppose suspended for a further look and accept my apologies for any offense you might have taken from the above.John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

                Okay, here's my real review (I still intend to take WikiCup points):

                • As said above, there should be NBSPs for such figures as "$215.4 million", etc.
                • on the Manhattan borough's Second Avenue I believe "on Second Avenue" is sufficient given that we already know that filming was in NYC. If there's doubt to the borough just say "on Manhattan's Second Avenue".
                • "Los Angeles, California" should just be "Los Angeles" per the MoS
                • 100,000 gallons of slime should include a conversion to metric; ditto to any other units that don't currently have one.
                • I agree with TheJoebro64 in not using "contemporary" to mean "present-day"; in art it usually means the opposite, "at the time", and indeed "contemporaneous" is used in the article to that effect. Use "retrospective", "present-day", "modern", or other words as needed. Better yet, consider rewording them to be more temporally specific per MOS:CURRENT, but I don't think that's needed. Any material likely to become dated should, however, be marked with {{As of}} templates.
                • I have to disagree with TheJoebro64 on not including the "many variations" of the script. Even if it is common knowledge that movie scripts change a lot in their lifetimes (which it might not be), the radical changes of the script detailed in the section warrants special note of it.
                • A lot of the images have empty alt texts; this needs to be fixed for accessibility purposes.

                That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

                • Done all of these as far as I can tell. I left the Manhattan part in (as in Manhattan's Second Avenue) because for some people, myself included, I can confuse Manhattan with another name for New York City, like the Big Apple. Might just be I'm bad at geography though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

                This looks okay to me now. Support. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

                Comments from TheJoebro64

                Imma skip the plot, since I've never seen the Ghostbusters movies (beyond the first ten minutes of this one), but I'll try to do a thorough prose review. I might be slow over the weekend because I'm busy but I'll make time. JOEBRO64 20:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

                Whole lotta comments
                • "As with the first film, Aykroyd and Ramis collaborated on the script, which went through many variations." The fact that it went through many variations should be obvious even if it's not stated. It's common knowledge that film scripts go through many drafts.
                • "... large sections of the film were scrapped after poorly received test screenings." I could be incorrect, but should there be a hyphen in "poorly received"? Again, if you don't agree just ignore this, but I think a hyphen could be added since the "-ly" adverb is part of a larger compound adjective.
                • "... family-friendly. The performances of ..." There's nothing in particular wrong here, but I think these two sentences could benefit from a better transition. Maybe something across the lines of "... family-friendly, although the performances of..."
                • "... making it the eighth-highest-grossing film of the year." Link to 1989_in_film#Highest-grossing_films?
                • "Although some contemporary retrospective audiences appreciated the film..." I know you're talking about contemporary as in the present here, but I think "retrospective" is better because it's more clear that you're referring to modern-day audiences.

                More soon. JOEBRO64 20:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

                • Done all except the first. I understand what you're saying but there are script variations and then effectively a completely different film. Some films don't have much script turmoil at all but there are significant differences between what was originally proposed versus what we got. Also watch both films soon Joe, jeez. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                • Don't worry, I haven't forgotten. Just busy—will get to more soon (and this is a promise). JOEBRO64 20:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                • "After the massive success of Ghostbusters, a sequel was considered an inevitability inevitable even though that the film had been developed as a stand-alone project." Just some copyediting that could help
                • "Columbia had experienced a long series of box-office failures since Ghostbusters,[ref] and Ghostbusters II was seen as the best way of reversing their fortunes."
                • "... with filming scheduled for Summer 1988 in anticipation of a mid-1989 release." "Summer" should be replaced per MOS:SEASONS

                More later today JOEBRO64 12:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

                • "He wanted to eschew New York City, set the film overseas, and provide a contrast..." I'm a huge fan of the Oxford comma, but it's fine if you aren't.
                • "He chose to avoid making movies films until he returned for Scrooged." Just for some formality.
                • "... was restricted because of the visit of leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the Soviet Union." I just think this flows nicer
                • "Freezing temperatures combined with the liquid slime made the actors very uncomfortable." "Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very'; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." - Mark Twain
                • "Filming officially concluded on March 7, 1989." I don't think anyone will assume it was unofficial.
                • Link to test screening at the beginning of the post-production section
                • Perhaps link to Independence Day (United States) at "Ghostbusters II had been scheduled for release on the July 4th holiday weekend..."? I know it isn't just celebrated in the US (my parents went to Ireland for their honeymoon and they say that for some inexplicable reason they celebrate it there) but some readers who aren't familiar with America may not recognize its significance.
                • "The film's final battle with Vigo was removed and replaced, and the way that Vigo was to exit the painting to confront the Ghostbusters changed completely." Missing conjunction?

                JOEBRO64 02:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

                Done. I like that Mark Twain quote. I put "July 4th Independence Day holiday weekend", I don't know if that's too unwieldy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
                • "wanted to hire Bobby Brown, who had had a recent..."
                • "Food coloring was added; the colors included green (to match Slimer) and blue." I think this would just read better with parentheses.
                • "The film required approximately 100,000 US gallons (380,000 litres)..." I'm just bolding because I'm pretty sure this article is written in American English (aka a real man's English), but "litres" is British English.
                • "Dane revised the designs of the proton pack weapons, the ghost trap;, and also revised the Ectomobile, which became the Ectomobile 1A."
                • "... makes it the eighth-highest-grossing film worldwide of 1989..." Same as I said before in the lede
                • "Ghostbusters II received generally negative reviews on release." "Upon release" or "on release" is redundant 99% of the time
                • "He noted that MacNicol and Moranis were the highlights of the film..." Incorrect use of "note". "Note" should only be used when stating an objective fact. For example, "He noted it was raining" is OK, but "He noted the film was good" is not.
                • "He also noted that Murray's normally comedic indifference seemed to be lacking commitment." Again with "note".
                • "... genuine human warmth, which he Thomas felt did not work." Clarification
                • "... and the addition of an infant to add novelty..." The two "add"s in such close proximity is a bit distracting, I think you can just chop off the second without losing any meaning
                • "... of the original, and singled out MacNicol's performance."
                • "The reviewer noted that Murray is central to the film because of his ad-libbed dialog." Another "note"

                Almost there. Should be done by the weekend. JOEBRO64 23:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

                Done. Hard to find other words than "said". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!

                Just finished reading and there wasn't really anything significant that stood out to me. Consider this my declaration of support. Now I just need to go watch the movies. JOEBRO64 20:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

                Comments from Indrian

                Support. I did an extensive review of the prose in the last FAC and worked closely with Darkwarriorblake over several weeks to make improvements, so this is not a drive-by support. I am glad to see this back again and that a good compromise appears to have been reached on the disagreements in round one. I am satisfied that my concerns were addressed in the previous FAC, and I am happy to support. Indrian (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

                Thanks Indrian.
                Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

                The first significant clash of the Hundred Years' War was this naval battle. It was a disaster for the French, who lost 90% of their ships captured and 90% of their men killed, including the two senior military officers of the realm. Illustrating why the war was to last so long, it had virtually no operational or strategic effect. I took this through GAN in July 2018, ACR in July 2019, have worked on it since and think that it is ready for the scrutiny of FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

                Source review—pass

                • DeVries — what is the evidence that the website has permission to post the pdf? Most pdfs on sites other than the author's or publisher's are copyvio.
                None. I wasn't aware of any policy or guideline that put an onus on the editor to ensure that an external webpage they link to holds the copyright or a permission for the contents.
                Please see WP:ELNEVER
                Well, well. Always something new to learn on Wikipedia. Thank you. De Re Militari are pretty reliable, but I can find no definitive proof that they have formal permission, other than a catch-all "We thank the authors and publishers for their permission in republishing this material" so I have removed the link.
                • Checked some refs from DeVries.
                  • Where on page 223 does it state that there are "numerous" contemporary accounts? I can see that she says there are accounts from all three involved countries, but I'm not sure that supports "numerous".
                Fair point, I was probably trying to simplify the referencing. He mentions 2 foreign sources on page 225; 12 English sources on pages 225-228; 6 Low Country sources on pages 229-230; 5 French sources on page 231; and the three iterations of Froissart on page 233. There are more, but this seemed sufficient to establish numerous. (And this is without going to other (secondary) sources which mention contemporary sources DeVries doesn't.) Citing "pp. 225-231, 233" seemed unhelpful, but, as I said, I see your point. Should I amend the cite?
                Yes, I think that would be better. buidhe 18:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                Done.
                  • Other checks had no issues. buidhe 00:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                Hi Buidhe, that is an impressive and swift service. Two good if slightly tricky points. See my responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                @Buidhe: both of your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

                Pass. Sources look reliable and most are recent. There is a considerable number of sources cited and it doesn't seem that the nominator missed anything major that could be added to the article. buidhe 20:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

                Comment from Tim riley

                An excellent article, vivid as ever from Gog, and evidently comprehensive and balanced. A few very minor points on the prose:

                • Opposing navies
                • You might give the Channel its full name and link it here – first mention in main text
                Done.
                • "Genoa and Monaco" – better to move the later links to these two places up to these first mentions.

                Done

                • Earlier activities
                • Link Portsmouth?
                Done.
                • "Edward was able … Edward wished" – perhaps "he" the second time?
                Done.
                • Sources
                • "accounts of the battle … after the battle" – perhaps "afterwards" the second time?
                Done.
                • "English; French; or Flemish" – the semicolons look a bit odd here. Commas would suffice, I think, and look more natural.
                Done.
                • "they lack detail; so much so" – the semicolon is definitely wrong here, I think. It deprives "so much so" of a main verb to relate to. A comma or dash is wanted instead.
                I disagree that it is wrong (would a full stop be incorrect?) but have replaced it with a comma.
                • Prelude
                • "On 10 June the Council received news that the Great Army of the Sea had arrived at Sluys, the main port of Flanders, on the 8th with consternation" – as consternation was not a cargo I'd move it forward: "On 10 June the Council received with consternation news that the Great Army of the Sea had arrived at Sluys, the main port of Flanders, on the 8th."
                That made me smile - "Right then guv'nor, where you want this 5 tuns of consternation. In with the panic and alarm?" Done.
                • Aftermath
                • "Philip ordered that Barbavera be arrested for desertion". Not clear if the order was carried out.
                Explanatory footnote added.

                That's all I can find to quibble about. I'll look in again with a view to adding my support. – Tim riley talk 14:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

                Good evening Tim, and thank you as always for your tireless picking up of my flaws and infelicities. All of your points addressed above, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                I'm happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It is balanced, clear, well illustrated, broadly referenced, evidently comprehensive, and a really good read. It meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion. I look forward to further articles in the series.
                • Marking my spot here, I'm usually too late in the game. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                • "A modern model of a galley" Seems like a very specific galley with those crosses? Maybe an image more relevant or more general can be found?
                Done. Actually found an image of a 14th-century Genoese galley.
                Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                • Perhaps the two ship image can state their relevance and context in the captions?
                I am not entirely sure what you are after here. Do you mean add to the galley cation something like 'The ex-corsair Pietro Barbavera commanded six similar vessels during the battle'?
                Yeah, something like that. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                Done.
                Good spot. Done. And in three other FAs where I also missed it
                • "Edward III" Probably good to note when this painting is from, as it might otherwise be thought to be contemporaneous?
                Good point. Done.
                • "use in the Channel" Spell out and link at first mention outside intro?
                Done.
                • "who were normally also drawn from Genoa, Monaco" You link these places at second rather than first mention.
                Done.
                • "When the mutinous sailors arrived back in Genoa they led an uprising which overthrew the ruling patricians" Interesting, anything to link?
                Sadly not, it doesn't even get a line in History of Genoa.
                • "and his Chronicles contain information" Perhaps give a year for this work?
                Ha. Published in installments over half a century. Collected at, at least, three different times for republishing. These three iterations commonly baldly contradict each other. I could add "contemporary"? (He was employed in Edward's court as something like an official historian from 1361-1369.)
                Contemporary could work. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                Done.
                • This very old Commons upload (2006) could need an info template, looks very confusing now:[5]
                I noticed that, and if I had had the faintest idea of how to tidy it I would have done. I've had a go, what do you think?
                Looks better, I think this link should be added to the source field:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                Excellent. Thanks.
                Hi FunkMonk and many thanks for going through this. I have, I think, addressed all of your points above, one of them with a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                Looks good, answered some, and last points are below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                • "Several English noblewomen were killed when their ship was either boarded or sunk." Why were they on these ships?
                Ha. I have just addressed that for Harrias. I wrote: They were part of the King's court, which normally travelled with him. The source says that they wee on their way to join his queen, who was already in Flanders. It is a pretty inconsequential detail, so if you feel that it calls for much explanation I would rather delete than get too far off topic. (Another source states "the ship carrying the King's wardrobe was attacked, captured and all the crew except one woman and two men put to death." This may have been a different ship - the author is concentrating on the loss of the wardrobe records.)
                Could warrant a footnote? I think it would be a shame to remove valid info. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                Hi FunkMonk. Footnote added. See what you think.
                • "with their longbows" links to English longbow while "A London longbowman reported" links to Longbow. Is the second, less specific link needed?
                Double ha. While editing for Harrias I spotted that myself and corrected it.
                • "their Flemish allies" You mention them twice before this, but only link them down here.
                The first mention of "Flemings" is linked to Flemish people; "Flemish allies is linked to [[County of Flanders#The crisis of the 14th century (1278–1384). I am certainly open to changing either or both.
                • "the River Orwell" Only linked in intro.
                It looks linked in the main article to me.
                • "and defeat them in detail" Link and state outside intro too?
                "The English were able to manoeuvre against the French and defeat them in detail" is the summary of the first three paragraphs of the "Battle" section.
                • "The battle gave the English fleet naval supremacy in the English Channel" Only stated in intro.
                Very true. Now corrected.
                Thanks FunkMonk for picking up on my sloppiness. That has definitely improved things. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                Heh, seems like some of my last points were sloppy themselves. I've added one answer, and when that's addressed I'll support.
                • Putting down a marker -
                  • The infobox states that the French had 213 ships, lost 190 and had 166 captured. That doesn't add up.
                  I'm rubbish at maths. Clarified.
                  • "..with most of the French ships being captured.." Avoid Noun plus -ing.
                  OK.
                  • Wikilink for amidships please.
                  I can link to Glossary of nautical terms, but not to [[amidships. Or if I can I don't know how.
                  Glossary of nautical terms#amidships should work. (Per the blurb at Template:Term#Linking to the term, the glossary term in the link has to be lower-case.) Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                  Thanks. Done.
                  • "..made them superior to the oared vessels.." What oared vessels? I assume this is referring to the galleys, but at this point in the article, at least, we haven't been told that galleys are oared.
                  Good point. Oars introduced at first mention of galleys.
                  • Consider adding {{See also|English Channel naval campaign, 1338–1339}} for the Earlier activities section.
                  Scratches head. I thought that I had done. Thanks.
                  • Redlink the Christopher and Cog Edward, which sound like they are notable ships.
                  Done.
                  • "..by the Breton knight Hugues Quiéret, the Admiral of France and.." Comma needed after "France".
                  Done.
                  • "..with his main force in north eastern France.." Earlier, you hyphenated "south-western". Be consistent.
                  Hyphenated.
                  • "On 10 June the Council received news that the Great Army of the Sea had arrived at Sluys, the main port of Flanders, on the 8th with consternation." The structure of this sentence makes the "with consternation" a bit odd stuck on the end. Can it be rephrased to flow better?
                  Done, although I don't recall doing it.
                  • "As they blocked the roadstead a further 10 ships reinforced them, bringing the total French strength to 213 ships." Earlier we were told the fleet was a "collection of 200 ships", and that "Contemporary French documents record the fleet's size as 202 vessels". The sums don't add up here.
                  Philip ordered the collection of 200; he got 203 - lucky chap. So not inconsistent.
                  The source says it increased to 213; I back-calculated and got 10! Maths - meh! Well picked up. Corrected.
                  • "The men in charge of the shipping arrangements were personally abused by the King." This just begs the question: Why? (I guess because they were struggling to muster enough ships?)
                  The source say "Edward, in a vile temper ... Edward personally confronted the mariners of Great Yarmouth, who had so far provided less than half the ships which they had found for his service in 1338." So your guess is pretty strongly implied, but the source seems to go out of its way not to link the two facts, and it seemed to me to be OR to do so. I am certainly open to persuasion.
                  Hold on, reading the source, it expands to say that he "accused them of settling their advice in advance with the Archbishop". So, "were personally abused by the King, as he suspected them of conspiring with Stratford to obstruct him." Or some such? Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                  I have expanded on what I think the source is saying Edward said in the article along similar lines, see what you think.
                  • Wikilink Yarmouth.
                  Done.
                  • Does the Sumption ref support the fact that Yarmouth was "the largest port in England"? I can't see it in the 1999 paperback which I can view on Google Books. Similarly, "To general amazement" doesn't seem to be supported by the 1999 version, but I appreciate both might be in the 1990 original.
                  Apologies, I was reading what I expected to read. The "largest port in England" source is Sumption page 176. Now added.
                  "To general amazement" is a paraphrase of "truly remarkable".
                  My issue with this is that I read "To general amazement" to mean that those at the time found it amazing. Whereas "The result of all this activity was truly remarkable" sound to me to be Sumption's (ie, a modern) opinion. Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                  How about if I replace "To general amazement" with 'In a feat which the modern historian Jonathan Sumption describes as "truly remarkable"?
                  Yeah, something along those lines would work for me. Harrias talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
                  • "..size of the fleet. 66 ships which sailed.." Don't start a sentence with a figure. (MOS:NUMNOTES).
                  Tweaked.
                  • Wikilink reconnoitre.
                  Done.
                  • "..organised itself in three lines across the 3-mile wide (5 km) estuary.." Three parallel lines, perpendicular to the inlet, or isn't there detail to confirm this?
                  Absolutely not. (And if there were I wouldn't believe it. Per our discussion on "shambolic".)
                  Was this a common tactic at the time? Can we draw parallels to other battles which have plans? At the moment we have no idea whether the intention was for the three lines to be parallel, if it was in essence one long line in which they were just joined in three parts, two in a chevron narrowing to the third, one at the front flanked by the other two in support, so on and so forth. If the answer is that we just don't have a clue, so be it. But if there is any inkling we have or can provide, it would be useful. Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                  Ah. I understand. I think. The plan was for three parallel lines, with a handful of larger ships slightly advanced, across the narrowest part of the estuary. I had thought that clear from "the French fleet organised itself in three lines across the 3-mile wide (5 km) estuary of the Zwin". Clearly you don't think so. I don't imagine that the reality ever came close to the plan, and by the time the English attacked it was a shambles. ("After nearly a day linked by chains and ropes, and with wind and rain working against them, the French ships had been driven to the east of their starting positions and become entangled with each other.") I have changed the wording to "When the English were sighted the French manoeuvred to bar Edward's way to the port of Sluys. Their fleet organised itself in three lines, one behind the other, each stretching across the 3-mile wide (5 km) estuary of the Zwin."
                  Thanks. That was what I assumed they were planning, but without it stated explicitly, I wasn't sure. Harrias talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
                  • "..while supporting troops poured in arrows or bolts." I'm not sure that "poured" works here.
                  No? A contemporary described it as "an iron shower", a participant as "like hail". Rewritten to be more objective - I think that the message still gets across: the English were firing over 10,000 arrows per minute.
                  Honestly, "..while over 10,000 arrows and bolts per minute were fired in by supporting troops." Sounds more impressive, and less metaphoric, to me. Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                  My main issue here is that this usage doesn't meet any of the dictionary definitions of "pour", which related to liquids or precipitation. Therefore, the usage must be metaphorical, which isn't encyclopaedic language. Harrias talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
                  @Gog the Mild: I'm interested on your thoughts on this. Harrias talk 18:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                  I have no problems with metaphors as being encyclopedic. To me the point is whether they are comprehensible. Goodness knows there is enough non-metaphoric language on Wikipedia which isn't. If they are readily understandable and ease the passage of the clunky facts they surround, then they are, IMO, a net positive. As you, as a reviewer, object, I have changed it; but I feel that the article is the worse for it, by which I mean that it does a less good job of conveying to a reader what happened. (And is less true to the contemporary sources.)
                  Re Dictionary definitions. Wiktionary, second usage: "To send forth as in a stream or a flood; to emit; to let escape freely or wholly." It gives an illustrative quote from Shakespeare: "How London doth pour out her citizens." Obviously citizens aren't "related to liquids or precipitation" ... Or the seventh usage: "To move in a throng, as a crowd." Or from my Britannic Oxford Dictionary: one definition "to discharge copiously, or in rapid succession"; an example quoted: "Troops poured towards the Rhine, Macauley". Or, according to other dictionaries one can pour out money, or one's hopes; or "pour it on"; or "complaints poured in", or "donations poured in"; or "Election results are beginning to pour in". I have not yet found a dictionary, paper or on line, which restricts pour to liquids. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                  @Gog the Mild: I'm a reviewer, yes, but that doesn't make me right: if you think that it makes it worse, then don't do it! At worst, I would abstain from voting, as one issue like this is never going to make me oppose the article. In this case, I can accept your argument. I'm not 100% sure that I agree with it, but having discussed it, I would support the promotion with the original wording. Harrias talk 20:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                  I think that I phrased myself too curtly. I know that I get too close to "my" articles and my wording, and sometimes it is difficult to let go. Even when the issue is inconsequential. And getting stubborn over trivia deters reviewers from visiting my future nominations, even if I "win" the argument. I shall put "pour" back in, even though I finally found a dictionary which restricts its use to liquids - Cambridge on line. And thanks for maintaining a Wikipedian point of view. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                  No, I shall leave it as is. As a lesson to myself not to be pig headed. And it reads fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                  For future reference, I use the Cambridge online dictionary... Anyway, I think this is pretty much there, but I want to have another pass all the way through before I'm sure! Harrias talk 20:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                  • "..and the Genoese managed to board and capture two English ships." This threw me off. Although we are told in the Opposing navies section that "The French galleys were supplemented by galleys hired from Genoa and Monaco.", we are later told that "The new regime was disinclined to enter into new contracts with the French. When several ship captains were persuaded to, they were bribed by English agents to renege." So... the assumption I had was that the Genoese weren't supporting the French in this battle.
                  Good point. Changed to "Barbavera had refused to tie his highly manoeuvrable galleys in with the French ships and the they managed to board and capture two English ships."
                  • "Several English noblewomen were killed.." Was it common for noblewomen to go into battle at the time? This statement begs more questions than it answers.
                  They were part of the King's court, which normally travelled with him. The source says that they wee on their way to join his queen, who was already in Flanders. It is a pretty inconsequential detail, so if you feel that it calls for much explanation I would rather delete than get too far off topic. (Another source states "the ship carrying the King's wardrobe was attacked, captured and all the crew except one woman and two men put to death." This may have been a different ship - the author is concentrating on the loss of the wardrobe records.)
                  Hi Harrias. Funkmonk has picked up the same point above and I have added an explanatory footnote. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                  Yeah, that works for me. Harrias talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
                  • "..and the water was reported to be thick with blood and corpses." Reported by who?
                    • This is still outstanding. Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                  • Provide a wikilinks for Norman and Picard. (The Norman one will need to go in the Earlier activities section.
                  Done.
                  • Our article has almshouse as one word, and a couple of dictionaries seem to suggest that is the prevailing form.
                  Done.
                  • Is there a more accessible word or phrase we can use rather than "interdicted", or at least a wikilink we can provide?
                  Linked.
                  • "..revoked some privileges of some of the ports.." I'm not sure if this is awkward repetition, or clever repetition to show how toothless his efforts were. On my first read, it seemed awkward, but now I quite like it.
                  Unlike some of the tosh I bung out, that phrase was thoughtfully crafted. I'm pleased to hear that it worked.

                  That's my lot at the moment! (Oh, I'm doing the WikiCup, and will claim points for this review, yar-de-yar-da.) Harrias talk 15:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

                  Well earned and hard earned points they will be. Many thanks for your usual painstaking review. The article is the better for it. All of your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                  Replied to a couple. Harrias talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                  @Harrias: And responded in turn. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

                  Image review

                  • File:Galera_Oliveta_1302.jpg caption needs editing for grammar
                  I have removed this image.
                  • File:Galera_Oliveta_1302.jpg is incorrectly claimed as own work
                  I have removed this image
                  • File:Modell_der_Bremer_Kogge_von_1380.jpg is own photo, but what is the status of the model itself? Is this a museum piece?
                  It is a self-made model. I missed that the photographer has not explicitly claimed it as their own work. I have removed the image.
                  • File:Edward_III_noble.jpg: coins are not typically considered 2D works.
                  Yes. You pointed that out when you generously did an image review at ACR and I had thought I had resolved it then, but obviously not. 2D tag removed, Numismatic Group tag left.

                  Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

                  I have put in two new images to replace the two removed. "File:Hugues Quieret - Versailles (cropped).jpg" I hope is straight forward: the photograph has a Creative Commons licence and the original sculptor died in 1858.
                  The other is "File:Ubena von Bremen Kiel2007 1 (cropped).jpg", a photograph of a modern reproduction of a wreck dated to 1380.
                  Hi

                  Not much to be said here, but:

                  • particularly when they were fitted with the castles from which missiles could be fired - "missiles" seems a bit odd here, could it be replaced by a synonym?
                  I am not sure why, but I have gone for more specific. Does that work for you?
                  My concern was with the use of the word "missile"; while it is technically appropriate, I feel the second dictionary definition, "a weapon that is self-propelled, carrying explosives", is the one most people think about. I would suggest replacing with "projectile".
                  L293D That use of missile hadn't occurred to me. Does my change from "the castles from which missiles could be fired or stones dropped on to enemy craft alongside" to "the castles from which arrows or bolts could be fired or stones dropped on to enemy craft alongside" remove the ambiguity? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
                  Yes, that works for me. L293D ( • ) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
                  • Wagner 2006 - suggest making consistent with other citations by putting the page numbers in the reference.
                  Er, they are already there. "pp. 286–287".
                  I think the point L293D is making is that in citation #55, a similar example, it uses "Hannay 1911, p. 246.", whereas citation #55 is just "Wagner 2006." Both are fine, but they are not consistent with each other. Harrias talk 16:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                  Ah. Understood. Thank you. Corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

                  Looks good. L293D ( • ) 14:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                  Hi L293D. Thanks for taking a look at this. Your two points addressed. Anything else?
                  Looks good.
                  Hi CPA-5. Good to see you casting your beady eyes over one of my nominations again.
                  • Link the Dutch language.
                  No. I think that it is common enough. Anyway, those IPA templates can't be linked.
                  • Damn that's the first time I've heard from a native English speaker that the Dutch language is too common.
                  • Unlink French because it's too common.
                  Oops. Well spotted. Done.
                  • The cogs had a displacement of 200–300 long tons (203–305 t) Link both tons.
                  Can't be done while using the convert template. So either way I go I break a Wiki-policy. I don't mind which, so let me know if you would prefer me to not use "convert", and I can then link.
                  @Gog the Mild: How about 200–300 long tons (203–305 t)? Harrias talk 19:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
                  Oh! Clever. Done.
                  • By English common law, the king was required to compensate the owners --> "By English common law, the King was required to compensate the owners"?
                  No. By common law, any and every king was expected to do this, it wasn't specific to Edward III.
                  • Thought it was the title king not like in general.
                  • In March 1338 Portsmouth was captured and razed Add England next to Portsmouth because probably the reader haven't heard of the name yet.
                  I'm not sure about that. It is reasonably obvious from context and it is Wikilinked. Following this precedent I think that the article will get cluttered if I insert "England" or "France" after first mentions of Southampton, Hastings, Boulogne, Dieppe, Le Treport, Mers, Portland, Teignmouth, Plymouth and Brest, etc.
                  • Five English ships carrying wool were captured off Walcheren in September Same as above but this time add the Netherlands here.
                  • In October the major port of Southampton was captured and burnt down Same as above.
                  • a deputation sought an audience with the French King in August Decapitalise "king" here.
                  Why, they sought an audience with a specific individual, King Philip. If you think that is unclear, I could add "Philip".
                  • Yeah but isn't it if you add the demonym of a country then the title should be capitalised?
                  • Link the Mediterranean.
                  Done
                  • Pipe both France to the Kingdom of France and England to the Kingdom of England.
                  Both done.
                  • which went on to besiege Tournai, a city in Flanders This sentence is odd. As a Belgian, I know that Tournai isn't in modern-day Flanders. Of course I know this about the county but the link goes to modern-day Flanders which doesn't make sense, why should it be linked if the city is in modern-day Wallonia while the link goes to modern-day Flanders?
                  My bad. Well spotted. Again. It shouldn't be linked at all. Sorry. Flanders is linked to to County of Flanders at first mention.
                  • English Channel is overlinked.
                  D'oh! Fixed.
                  • the Isle of Wight, Portland, Teignmouth, Plymouth and the Channel Islands. The English retaliated in September by raiding Brest First add Isle before Portland because there are more than one Portlands in the world. Second, explain that Teignmouth, Plymouth and Brest are in England and France.
                  I think that we have a difference of opinion on this. I have not seen this done in other articles. It's not something you have been picking me up on in your previous reviews of my nominations. Is there a new policy? If you are sure that this needs doing, then I would like to ping in the rest of the reviewers to see if we can reach consensus.
                  • As far as I know, no. Not really, you see because I'm not a native English speaker I have the problem to make everything clearer even though it's already clear enough to most English speakers by adding the country. Another problem is I know there aren't a lot of people who know where those places are I mean if I ask someone where Tournai lie they probably say "in France" because it sounds French even it's not in the country itself. Another example is British cities or towns, everyone knows how a British one is written (in something they're mostly unfamiliar with. An example would you know that the town of Manorhamilton isn't in the UK but in Ireland even though it sounds like it is from the UK (maybe Scotland or North Ireland?). I just now got now the idea of we should be more clear than normal. What I always do is (I'm probably the only one) add the country where the place is in and places after that don't need the country because the reader (in my mind at least) knows we're still in that country until we suddenly go for an example to a place in France then we need to add France after that. And if we go back to the UK then the UK should be added again. This is the same idea I have with years and months, we shouldn't repeat them unnecessary when we know we're still in the same year or month except at the beginning of a paragraph. Of course, I'm not a native English speaker (I barely know the grammatical rules in English) and maybe this is allowed in English it's not a suggestion, recommendation or a grammatical rule. I think this is a writing style. If you disagree with me then it's fine I don't see why it shouldn't be the way it now is.
                  • By English common law, the king was required to compensate the owners of ships impressed into service, but in practice he paid little and late Add a comma after practice and capitalise "king".
                  See above re capitalisation. I don't see why there needs to be a comma. Grammatically, one could put one there, if there was also a comma after "but". This will read a little oddly to me, but I will do it if you want.
                  • That's anything what I could find. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
                  Hi CPA-5. You are fantastic. All your points addressed above, some with queries or rebuttals. (Out of interest, how far would you need to travel to stand on the (now) dry land where the battle took place?) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
                  • Nah I'm not that fantastic you know. With the car it's just 92 km (a little more than an hour drive) from my home city. Cheers.
                    Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

                    This article is about a Yugoslav formation that fought briefly during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. It has previously undergone a Milhist A-Class review, so hopefully the rough edges have been knocked off it. It forms part of a Good Topic that will become Featured if this nomination is successful. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

                    Image review

                    • Have to say, even at full size I had a hard time spotting the red 10 in File:Yugo_History_map_of_invasion_7th_Army.jpg given the overlapping text. Any chance it could be edited to make it more obvious?
                      • "a horsed cavalry formation" As opposed to an unhorsed cavalry formation? Perhaps a touch of redundancy there? It also has "cavalry" twice in six words. Yes, I understand that there are and have been "cavalry" formations with few or no horses, but I think that many readers will stumble over this without further explanation.
                      • Well, concurrently there were motorised, mechanised and/or armoured cavalry formations in other armies, so horsed cavalry is needed here IMHO. Have trimmed some instances of cavalry. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Ho, hum. OK.
                      • "combat and supporting units" Optional: "supporting" reads oddly to me. 'support'?
                      • "were then disarmed by armed Croat" I don't have a better suggestion, but that is mildly jarring.
                      • "Infantry divisions had a wartime strength of 26,000–27,000 men,[4] as compared to contemporary British infantry divisions of half that strength." I'm not sure why this is in the background of a cavalry division.
                      • "Peacetime organisation" Was the peacetime organisation 2 brigades and 4 regiments; or 2 brigades consisting of 4 regiments. The article currently reads as the former so if that was the case, fine.
                      Well, yeah. I assumed so. But that hypothetical average reader out there ...
                      • Is the actual strength of the peacetime formation known?
                      In which case I am a bit twitchy about you giving "6,000–7,000 officers and men" in the lead, when this was only its paper strength for a few days and it was never achieved.
                      I assume you mean in the infobox, deleted from there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
                      I do. I did. Thanks.
                      • "the 1st Cavalry Division forming the bulk of the reserve for the 1st Army Group"; two sentences later "The 1st Cavalry Division was to be held as the 1st Army Group reserve".
                      • "The Yugoslav defence plan saw both armies" The previous sentence mentions two armies, but I suspect that these aren't the "both armies" you are referring to. Maybe 'the 1st Army Group' instead?
                      • "to be held as the 1st Army Group reserve around Zagreb"; in the same paragraph "he reserve for the 1st Army Group would be located in and around Zagreb".
                      • "detailing the plan of attack and command structure" → 'detailing the plan of attack and the command structure'.
                      • You don't say when the formation came into existence.
                      Any reason why that couldn't be stated? Possibly in pretty much those words?
                      Well, it is an assumption, so I wouldn't have a source to cite for it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Do you have access to Jarman, Robert L., ed. (1997a). Yugoslavia Political Diaries 1918–1965, volume 1? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
                      I have scans of parts of it from my work on the Royal Yugoslav Navy, they hold it at one of the uni libraries in town. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
                      It may be worth having a look at page 527. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Well spotted, I do have a scan of that page. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Thanks for taking a look at this, Gog. See what you think of my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Looking good. Well up to your usual standards.

                      Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points for the WikiCup.

                      Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Comments from AustralianRupert

                      Support: G'day, PM, I hope you are well. I have had a look at this at GAN and ACR. I see that it has improved further since then. I have following suggestions/observations/questions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

                      • suggest adding the 1921 establishment date to the lead
                      • Done.
                      • With regards to the pin map, I wonder if potentially some other reference point could/should be added? For instance, the loc of Zagreb if that isn't the one already depicted; and or some other major city to provide a little more context?
                      • Clarified that the division loc is Zagreb and added Belgrade, the Yugoslav capital.
                      • The 1st Cavalry Division was to deployed --> "The 1st Cavalry Division was be to deployed"? or "The 1st Cavalry Division was to deploy"?
                      • Fixed.
                      • Armed fifth column Ustase groups and German troops disarmed the division and its attached units before they could establish any coherent defence along the Sava: did the division offer any resistance to this? If there was resistance, do we know if the division suffered any casualties?
                      • The principal source on this (Terzić) doesn't say. Info about Yugoslav casualties during the invasion is very sparse, as many records were lost in the ensuing occupation and civil war.
                      • after the surrender, is there any information on what happened to the division's troops? I assume they were taken prisoner, or maybe returned to civilian life under the occupation?
                      • Added a bit about the Croats being released but the Serbs being held. This applied across the board, numbers aren't known for this formation though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • was the formation a regular, part-time or mixed formation prior to mobilisation? I get the impression that it was largely hollow prior to mobilisation, but I might be wrong? If it was a part-time or mixed formation, what sort of ongoing training commitments were required during peacetime?
                      • Some were full-time (so they could be used for public order work as necessary) and it was more of a cadre-type arrangement for other sabre regiments, so it was mixed I suppose. The training requirement was very complicated, which is why I haven't tried to explain it in any formation articles thus far, I'm leaving it for the Royal Yugoslav Army article when I get to it. Different types of troops had different obligations, even within a single division, and the obligations for different types of troops changed over time.
                      • Potentially, a single sentence in the peacetime organisation section might do it, IMO. For instance, "The division's units were manned by a mixture of full-time and part-time personnel". Or something similar. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Thanks, looks good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • logistics units: do we know what type (supply, transport, medical/veterinary etc) and how many?
                      • The sources don't say, other than a transport battalion. Added that.
                      • ext links all work (no action required)
                      • there are no dab or dup links (no action required)
                      • all information appears to be referenced (no action required)
                      • "London, England" --> :London, United Kingdom"?
                      • Done.

                      Thanks very much for taking a look at this, AustralianRupert. See if I've addressed your comments, here are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

                      No worries, nice work. Regards,
                      Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

                      This article is about... Another of the commemoratives from 1936. No great scandal here, it doesn't look like anyone at the time made much money out of it; still, there's an interesting backstory. Enjoy.--15:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Wehwalt (talk)

                      Support Comments by Usernamenunique

                      Infobox

                      • 30.61 mm / 2.15 mm (0.08 in) — Inconsistent abbreviation
                      • Gertrude Lathrop — In the body, you give her middle initial. Also, is it worth a red link in the infobox as well for consistency's sake?
                      I have no idea on whether there is any MOS on this, but unless there is, I'd prefer to avoid the infobox redlink. Initialed. I will probably write a stub on her at some point just to avoid the redlinks in this and the New Rochelle article.
                      • Any reason for the small images? Also, I suspect you may get some push-back in the image review over the licensing.
                      It's what we have. And this has come up in about 10 FACs and I explain, based on an opinion I got at MCQ on this, that Bobby131313 uploading the images, as an experienced editor, carried an intent to release according to the Four Freedoms even if not explicitly stated. They've been used on the main page I believe, without objection.
                      Have you asked Heritage Auctions if they might license one of their images? They have quite a few listed (both sold and active), with high-resolution photographs. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                      At one time, Godot13 had obtained permission from Heritage to use their images, registered with OTRS. My understanding was that only he was allowed to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                      He may have formed some sort of permanent arrangement with them, but that shouldn't be an obstacle for someone else to reach out. (This is beyond the scope of FAC, by the way—it's just a suggestion.)
                      I've made an inquiry with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Lead

                      • The Albany Charter half dollar, also known as the Albany-Dongan half dollar — Is it ever just referred to as the Albany half dollar?
                      • Lathrop's designs have generally been praised. — Perhaps more appropriate in the above paragraph, where you're talking about her designs.
                      Both taken care of.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Background

                      • Is there more information on what led to this coin in particular? As it stands, there's hardly anything.
                      Not really, the sources don't devote themselves to that topic. There is probably a backstory of who got the idea but it isn't in the sources.--Wehwalt (talk)
                      Often there are congressional hearings that specifically address the one coin or other material like the book in New Rochelle that over time gets into secondary sources. I haven't seen any here.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
                      There's a bit more info here; it suggests that the coins were for the event, although granted, the article is from a year after plans for the coin were designed. It also mentions that one could obtain a certificate for the coin at the event, which might be worth adding to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Thanks for that. I'm not going to use it. The most useful thing it says is that they planned to issue certificates for coins at the Dongan celebration. I don't want to say that without evidence the certificate actually were issued, which at a brief search, I don't see anything on. The info on the beaver being early money is interesting but they don't say there's a connection between that and why there's one on the coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • The group designated to purchase the Albany half dollar from the government was a committee to be established by Albany's mayor — So the group didn't even exist at the time of the proposed coin?
                      Not in that form, anyway. All three were civic people. The chair was a banker; I've seen several times banks hold new commemorative coins as part of their cash reserves so the designated group did not have to advance all the money up front. But I couldn't say for sure.

                      Legislation

                      • a commemorative half dollar in honor of the 250th anniversary of the founding of Albany — So that was the (ostensible) purpose of the coin. Perhaps it belongs in "Background"?
                      The footnote explains that Congress erred here. They meant of the Dongan Charter.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Preparation

                      • The part about Lawrie is confusing. Why did she bring the letter? What "designs in his letter" are being referred to? What (if anything) did Lathrop accomplish at the offices of the CFA, if she then immediately decamped to the Philadelphia Mint due to Lawrie's concerns (which seems to have already known about, as they appear to have been included in the letter)?
                      All the sources are not complete on this, Lawrie was a New Yorker and she probably saw him in NYC. She would have seen Sinnock in Philadelphia and O'Reilly in Washington. Lawrie was the sculptor-member of the commission, and coins are sculptures, so he would have been consulted for a preliminary opinion. Having received it, and not fully satisfied, she went to Washington by way of Philadelphia, gathering support as she went. She also went to Washington on the New Rochelle coin. Lathrop knew people (she knew FDR) and she politicked for her designs.
                      That makes more sense now. If there's a way to add that—that Lawrie was politicking for her design—without resorting to synthesis great, otherwise no big deal.
                      • splendid coin — Whose words?
                      Sinnock. I'll make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Design

                      • The word "Liberty" on this coin — The other two uses of "Liberty" are in all caps.
                      It's in a quotation mark and while I understand there are some who say that you should bring the article's style inside the quotation marks, I prefer not to.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "has always been considered pleasing by numismatists". — If you're using logical quotation, than I believe most of the other quotations should have the punctuation following the end quotation mark as well.
                      I"m not sure what you mean. My understanding was that quotes that contain a complete sentence from the text should have the punctuation (the period, usually) inside the quotation mark, otherwise not. Do I vary from that?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                      That's generally my understanding as well. The one variance I see is in the last sentence of this section: "that the coin ... positive precision.". Is that a complete sentence, you're just altering "That" to "that" without a "[t]"? If so, is the omission of brackets intentional?

                      Minting, distribution and collecting

                      • The committee wrote to O'Reilly in February 1937, wanting to know the procedure for returning unsold coins, and in 1943 ... it returned 7,342 pieces for redemption and melting — Just to be clear, they asked for instructions for returning the coins within months of purchasing them, but then waited six years to do so?
                      Yes. They continued on sale to the public and they tried to shift the lot to Kosoff.
                      • What were the proceeds used for?
                      Sorry for the delay, I was looking through sources. I've added a sentence on the law requiring that they be used to defray the costs of the anniversary celebrations.--fWehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • in 1954 it became known that the State Bank of Albany had some 2,000 Albany half dollars — This might fit better after the sentence ending with and reached $4 by 1950.
                      Moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • A photograph of the brochure and/or boxes might be a nice touch to the article. Any that you could get a license for? I see some of the boxes were auctioned some years ago.
                      Good idea. Front cover of the holder is two dimensional and so can be easily used, and I"ve added that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

                      References

                      • #7 reads "Page 6257–6258." Does {{USCongRec}} have a way of displaying "Pages" instead of "Page"? Also pinging Dcmacnut, who created the template.
                      Not that I am aware of.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Sources

                      • Duffield, Frank (uncredited) — How do you know Duffield is the contributor, if uncredited?
                      He was the editor and these were pieces that were written by the editor. His name of course appears as editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • United States Senate Committee on Banking and Currency (March 11, 1936). — Should have a paywalled logo for consistency
                      Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


                      Interesting read, Wehwalt. It would be nice to have more background about the coin—why it was proposed, what the money was intended/used for, etc.—but otherwise in good shape. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

                      I've addressed the points individually including that the money was to go to defray the anniversary expenses. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Thanks,

                      Hello. I will get to the review proper in a day or two, but I noticed your description of the beaver gnawing at the maple branch on the obverse. To my mind, he seems to be holding it more fully in his mouth than he would in gnawing, and the branch, a leaf-bearing one with three leaves, is too thin for gnawing anyway, even for a hardwood. In the Albany seal, however, he is gnawing at the stump of the tree he has brought down. Do the sources describe it as gnawing? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

                      Yes, I borrowed the word exactly.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

                      Note: The problem areas are in italics. No judgment is implied. You don't need to reply. If you do and disagree, I will not contest.

                      Lead
                      • In 1936, ... coins for issuance, including some of mostly local significance. (primarily?)
                      • These included the Albany piece, wanted by city officials to mark the 250th anniversary of the 1686 grant of its municipal charter by Thomas Dongan, governor of colonial New York. (it is applied to city officials; wanted: authorized?)
                      • The authorizing bill passed through Congress without opposition; though amendments added additional protections for coin collectors. ( "additional?" assumes some knowledge of the existing protections on the part of a reader)
                      • ... the Philadelphia Mint coined 25,013 Albany half dollars (13 were examples for the Assay Commission and thus not for circulation—the subject of the following sentences)
                      • and a hoard of over 2,000 was sold by a local bank in 1954 (at what price? Do the sources say?)
                      • The Albany half dollar catalogs in the low hundreds of dollars, but the original packaging may sell for more. (Nice)

                      I have edited a version of the lead, addressing these issues, and then self-reverted. See here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

                      Background, Legislation, Preparation, Design, Minting

                      You can find the review at User:Fowler&fowler/FAC review of Albany Charter half dollar

                      You have some nice sentences. I've offered a few ideas for revision, which you can also view in the article. You may take them or leave them.

                      You have used some old sources, bordering on the primary, which is OK for an interpretationally stable field such as numismatics but would be problematic in a political history article. But their general use in FACs is something that should be clarified by the powers-that-be.

                      (Off-topic 1) I still maintain that the beaver is not gnawing. He is holding the branch in its mouth scuttling his busy way to his lodge (in contrast to the plowman homeward plodding his weary way). I have some support at the NGC site, which says, "with a maple branch in its mouth." From Lathrop's description, it seems that the branch was added independently, see my review, as an artistic device. Why did they use gnawing? Is it because it is a cuter word, more conducive to selling? I don't know.

                      (Off-topic 2) I collect coins after a fashion. This article has made me more aware of all the little things that go into their making.

                      For all sorts of reasons, on-topic and off, I'm happy to offer support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

                      I'm working through your suggestions--thank you for the review and support--but I've been researching the beaver. Lathrop does not use the word "gnawing" in her description of the designs, but she doesn't focus on what the beaver is doing with the branch. However, there are two distinct sources from 1938 that use it. There is some Revolutionary War numismatic material (medals and banknotes) that use a beaver gnawing a tree as a symbol of perseverance and industry, especially in the struggle for independence, but that doesn't prove much. The beaver's forepaw is on the branch, which would seem to me to argue against the branch being moved. Vermeule's is a pretty authoritative treatment and he goes for the gnawing. I don't see how I get out of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Thanks for the research. Yes, absolutely. "Gnawing" is majority usage in the sources, and your hands are tied. Yes, he does have his paw on the branch, so he's not going anywhere. (I threw that in as a silly flourish to contrast the busy beaver with the tired plowmen in Gray's elegy, disregarding the logical contradiction.) And he is definitely gnawing on the stump in the Albany City seal. But when beavers gnaw on wood, or when humans such as I gnaw at corn on the cob, they do so with their front teeth, and what they gnaw at is only partially in their mouths. The animated scene on the obverse seemed to belie that notion. On the other hand, dogs do gnaw at bones and do so with their molars. When I wrote that, I was looking out on the woods that fringe our house, the oak, maple, pine, and fir. The leaves on the maples are gone, but the oaks do have stragglers. The leaf-bearing branches seemed too thin to require gnawing in the manner of a dog, nothing like bones, or so my thinking went. But then I'm no a zoologist, and Lathrop does have the artistic license to present reality in her unique style. Thanks for replying.

                      A few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

                      • outside the US, it may not be realised that Albany is the state capital, perhaps mention in lead?
                      • "catalog" isn’t a synonym for "sell" here (even when spelt properly!)
                      • but the original packaging may sell for more missing "in", or does it really mean that?
                      • were remaining Dutch property claims either Dutch property claims remained or were outstanding Dutch property claims
                      I've addressed these. I avoided "sell" because a catalog isn't a price list, it's an opinion.--

                      Close to supporting. A few comments (actually all minor points except the second one):

                      • Background: "and thus entitled to fees": I wasn't sure this phrase was important to the short background, but if I've missed its significance, no worries.
                      I felt it was important to say because it shows why the position was worth having, "secretary" of an area doesn't necessarily convey that.
                      • "The group designated to purchase the Albany half dollar from the government was a committee to be established by Albany's mayor, consisting of not fewer than three people." / "a committee of at least three people appointed by Albany's mayor be empowered to order the coins from the Mint": Seems repetitive, especially in such close proximity to each other. Can one of the instances be cut?
                      Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "three member committee" / "250th anniversary celebrations": Agree with Graham Beards above that these would better hyphenated, especially the first of these.
                      Did that. Cut the 250th.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • Design: In the third paragraph of this section, both Bullowa and Vermeule both talk about the symbolism in the coin; you could consider linking their similar points by putting their statements beside each other and—if you don't think it's forcing things—by using a linking word like "similarly" or "likewise" or another word if it works better. Bowers' "pleasing" design and Vermeule's "considerable appeal" could possibly also be joined, maybe by moving this part of the quotation to after the symbolism part (i.e., breaking up the longer quotation into two) and putting Bowers at the end after Vermeule. Anyways, these are just ideas and minor suggestions. No worries if you'd prefer to keep things as is.
                      I reversed the order of Bowers and Bullowa. I think the views are distinct enough not to warrant a "similarly".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                      That's all from me. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Thanks for the review. I've done or responded.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Looks good. Thanks for the changes. Moisejp (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Coord note

                      I see the discussion on images at the top but looks the licensing still needs a formal review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Seems like all licences and copyright tags check out. Images are also suitably placed. No ALT text that I can see.

                      Pleased to pick up the Source review, which I think is still needed? I'll complete this weekend. I'm afraid an Image review is above my paygrade. KJP1 (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Sure, I gathered from the above that Usernameunique had looked but no harm in more eyes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Thanks for that. I've put in a request for an image review at WT:FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      Ian, I don't think it'll be much trouble! KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      ISBN number consistency
                      • I know all ISBNs lead to Rome, howsoever cited, but I think there's a preference for consistency in the style. At present we've got
                      four in the style XXX-X-XXX-XXXXX-X (the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th);
                      one in the style XXX-X-XXXXXX-XX-X (the 1st);
                      one in the style XXX-X-XXXXXXX-X-X (the 3rd);
                      one in the style XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X (the 7th).
                      For consistency, I'd probably adopt the most prevalent, that is the 3 digit-1 digit-3 digit-5 digit-1 digit (XXX-X-XXX-XXXXX-X) style. Another editor did once try to explain the hyphenation system to me, International Standard Book Number#Registrant element, but I must confess to not fully understanding it.
                      • Richard S. Yeoman - any reason why his initials only are given, unlike all the other authors (except Q. David Bowers)? He's Richard S. in his article. I see you use initials in the main text, so just ignore if he's known as R.S. in the numismatic world.
                      • Publication locations for magazines - this may also be above my paygrade so ignore if it is, but is there a reason which the Numismatist and the US Government Printing Office don't have locations? They appear to be Federalsburg, MD. and Washington, D.C., respectively. But it could be that MoS says not to use them.
                      • Bullowa, David M. - uber-picky but should the publication location be New York, NY, as per Swiatek and Breen?
                      • Spot checks - not necessary, given the provenance, but I have clicked through to all the accessible on-line sources and they all check out.
                      • Minting, distribution and collecting - not a Source review comment, but the double, proximate use of "today" in the final para. jars slightly with me; "Both the booklet and the envelope it came in are highly collectible today. Even scarcer today are boxes..." Is the second necessary?

                      That's my picky lot. Looks set fair for a well-deserved bronze star. KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 14:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

                      This article is about a 19th-century Jesuit who was president of three universities four times. He was a major figure in Jesuit academia in the United States, helping start up two of the universities. Another in my series of Jesuit academic leaders. Ergo Sum 14:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

                      Comments Support from Coffeeandcrumbs

                      Please note I will be claiming this review in WikiCup. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

                      I will do a full review soon. In the meantime...

                      • You haven't used O'Neill & Williams 2003. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
                        • @Coffeeandcrumbs: Fixed. There was a good tidbit in there that I added to the article. Ergo Sum 23:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "and became a good friend..." would be better as a new sentence
                        • Done. Ergo Sum 22:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "later becoming Pope Pius IX" → "who later became Pope Pius IX"
                        • Rephrased slightly so as to avoid two "became"s. Ergo Sum 22:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "part of 1828 in Orvieto" would be better as "part of 1828 teaching in Orvieto" --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                        • Done. Ergo Sum 22:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • probably a good idea not to say "1830" twice
                        • Fixed. Ergo Sum 17:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "which eventually resulted" is strange. His appointment was not the cause. His inaction was the cause.
                        • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 17:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "HIs"
                        • Fixed. Ergo Sum 17:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • Per MOS:HONORIFIC, please do not use honorifics like "Fr."--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                        • Fixed. Ergo Sum 17:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "council fathers who gathered" would be easier reading
                        • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 00:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • Georgetown and Society of Jesus are linked twice. So is Thomas F. Mulledy but I can see at least that is useful.
                        • Removed the redundant links. Ergo Sum 00:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "republicanism"; I think you should something from p. 35 or p. 24 of Kuzniewski 2014, to explain that, by saying "American in attitude", Roothaan was referring to republicanism
                        • Isn't that already what the sentence says? His American attitude was support of republicanism. Ergo Sum 00:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                          • @Ergo Sum: Yes, but Kuzniewski p. 33 does not mention "republicanism". I was asking that you add either p. 35, or p. 24, to cover republicanism. I maybe over-thinking it though so feel free to ignore. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                            • Fair enough, that's a good point. I've added a citation to p. 35. Ergo Sum 04:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • Ref #24 should be inside the parenthesis
                        • Done. Ergo Sum 00:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I think the supposedly/purportedly inappropriate relationship with a woman needs to be mentioned somehow along with his visit to Rome in 1945 because of it
                        • Both of those things are mentioned in the first sentence of the College of the Holy Cross section. Ergo Sum 00:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "in the streets of Washington"
                        • Fixed. Ergo Sum 00:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "Such anti-Catholic aggression" would be beneficial--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                        • Added. Ergo Sum 00:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                      @Coffeeandcrumbs: Do you have any other comments working their way through the pipeline? Ergo Sum 03:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      I think I need another few days to finish up. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "struck" has several meanings; I got stuck reading that sentence. May I suggest "signed" or "completed" or "agreed to" or "approved"
                        • "Strike a deal" is a fairly common phrase. I don't know if it will cause that much confusion. Ergo Sum 14:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • Presidents of the College of the Holy Cross
                        • Fixed. Ergo Sum 14:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • I am fairly certain there is no apostrophe in "Willing's Alley". What a coincidence? I just started the article Elizabeth Willing Powel a few days ago. (See this possibly usable source to expand on how he "assisted in the founding of Saint Joseph's College" and the proper spelling of Willings Alley)
                        • I've seen some older source that include the apostrophe, but near all modern ones omit it. Therefore, I've removed the apostrophe. Ergo Sum 14:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                        • @Coffeeandcrumbs: I've also incorporated that reference. I didn't find anything about Ryder's contribution to Saint Joseph's, but there was a useful line about his preaching while president of Georgetown. Ergo Sum 14:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

                      That is it for me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

                      Source review

                      I am also going to do a simultaneous source review:

                      • "professorship in philosophy and theology at Georgetown"; Curran 1993, p. 109, says "to teach theology and sacred scripture"; is this the same thing as "philosophy"? Is there another source that says philosophy? Because p. 65 of Easby-Smith 1907 only mentions "theology".
                        • The last sentence of the second paragraph on page 109 of Curran explains that at Georgetown, he taught philosophy and theology. The teaching of sacred scripture refers to when he was in Spoleto. Ergo Sum 00:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "named the prefect of studies" is on p. 65 of Easby-Smith 1907, not on p. 88
                        • The ref I actually meant to cite to was Easby-Smith p. 89. Fixed it. Ergo Sum 00:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • "minister and admonitor" is on p. 19 of Kuzniewski 2014--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                        • Fixed. Ergo Sum 00:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • Eccleston admiration of Ryder's preaching bleeds into p. 34 of Kuzniewski 2014. You might as well move the ref to the end of the sentence.
                        • Done. Ergo Sum 00:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • Since you only reference Croce 2017 on p. 14–15, it would be helpful to add #page=14 to the URL like this--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                        • Sure. Done. Ergo Sum 00:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • You also need p. 79 of Easby-Smith 1907 for "Twice during his presidency were stones thrown... "--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                        • Done. Ergo Sum 00:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                      • Ref 34 does not appear to function. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                        • That seems to be a problem with the website the template links to. Since it is a fairly large website, I imagine this is a temporary problem that should be resolved rather soon. Ergo Sum 03:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
                        • I decided to remove that ref altogether, since it really wasn't helpful.
                          • File:James_A._Ryder_biretta.jpg: what steps have you taken to verify this was unpublished? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                            • I have done a reverse Google search for the image, to see other places it has been used. I've tried to look for a publication date for the webpage; the only hits I get are through Carbon Dating the Web, which estimates the date of its creation in 2018. I have looked in all of the relevant books that I know of, and find no instance of the image. This would be consistent with many of the archival images published online by the Georgetown Archives, which did not start publishing old images until the late 2000s.

                              Unfortunately not much attention in over two weeks here -- I'll list in the Urgents but if we don't see more activity in the next week I think we'll have to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                              Hi Ian, I might have a look if you hold for a few days.

                              Leaning support. My quibbles;

                              • He oversaw the establishment of the Georgetown College Observatory in 1842, which was undertaken by James Curle. State the role Curle undertook; it was surely not the re-establishment of the observatory.
                                • Clarified the relationship of Carley to the establishment of the observatory. Ergo Sum 00:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Some of the citations seem misplaced, eg "In September 1843,[40]"....to be factious that just cites that there was a September 1843
                                • I've moved that ref to the end of the sentence. It was just placed there because the other citation for that sentence didn't give the month/year of that event. Ergo Sum 00:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • A rebellion broke out among the students in 1850. Can you state clearer here why.
                                • The rest of that paragraph explains how/why it started. I've rephrased slightly to make that clearer. Ergo Sum 00:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • held a meeting one day - Sounds 17th century phrasing
                                • Not quite sure what you mean. "Held a meeting" is pretty common language. Ergo Sum 00:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  • its the one day phrasing I'm quibbling over. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • causing chaos in the dormitory is hopelessly vague and not a little old fashoned
                                • The source doesn't get any more specific, so I've just removed it. Ergo Sum 00:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Sentences like Having clashed with Thomas Mulledy during the latter's election as procurator of the Jesuits' Maryland province,[49] Ryder wrote that Ignatius Brocard's decision not to send Mulledy back to the College of the Holy Cross was a welcome one, as Mulledy was greatly disliked at the college.[50] are very hard to parse, as tensions between players are hinted at but not really, fully explained, taking from reader satisfaction. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                                • You're right; that was a poorly written sentence. I've broken it up and streamlined the phrasing. Ergo Sum 00:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Rather than say Ryder's oratorical skills brought him to California in 1852, would it be better to clarify that is oratorial skills say him promoted to a position in California in 1852 Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                                • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 02:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

                              @Ceoil: Do you foresee any other comments on the horizon? Ergo Sum 03:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

                              Support Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

                              Comments Support from The Rambling Guy

                              So as noted, I did the GA review for this, and applied my usual GA+ criteria which hopefully took it to a level easily beyond GA but perhaps not quite FA. So with that disclosure (and that this may form part of my WikiCup entry), here are my thoughts:

                              • Second para of lead might use another "Ryder" instead of five consecutive pronouns.
                                • Done. Ergo Sum 20:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "He began his novitiate..." sentence seems quite long, could consider a split after you describe Kenney?
                                • Split up. Ergo Sum 20:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "from Alexandria, Virginia on" comma after Virginia per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
                                • Done. Ergo Sum 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "He also spent..." -> "Ryder also..." as the previous "he" was the pope.
                                • Done. Ergo Sum 20:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "up aprofessorship in" is this a neologism?!
                                • Should have been a space in the middle. Ergo Sum 20:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "of which he became its first " this reads just a little odd, I don't think you need "its" (because you already have "of which") so just "the first".
                                • Done. Ergo Sum 20:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "17, 1830, this was the " it was, rather than this was?
                                • Done. Ergo Sum 20:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • " at the College" I'm never entirely clear on capitalisation MOS but shouldn't this just be college?
                                • I think either can be sustained here. I've made it lowercase. Ergo Sum 20:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "Ryder's relationship with Washington's politicians was strong. He had a particularly good relationship with" quick repeat of "relationship with" which could use some mixing up.
                                • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 20:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "and Jan Roothaan cited" don't normally need to repeat first names under unambiguous circumstances. Several instances of this...
                                • Removed a few instances of the first name. Ergo Sum 20:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Our article doesn't once hyphenate antebellum.
                                • Removed. Ergo Sum 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "He oversaw the ..." -> "Ryder oversaw..."
                                • Done. Ergo Sum 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "He voiced support" which "he"?
                                • Clarified. Ergo Sum 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "Upon his return," Ryder's?
                                • Yes. Clarified. Ergo Sum 20:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "upon" used three times in two sentences, could use a mix again.
                                • Changed it up. Ergo Sum 20:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "in accordance with the orders of the Maryland provincial from 1852 to 1858, Charles Stonestreet, " -> "in accordance with the orders of Charles Stonestreet, the Maryland provincial from 1852 to 1858,"
                                • Done. Ergo Sum 20:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "Philadelphia,[59] following a brief illness.[3] " I would just put those refs together at the end, pure aesthetics...
                                • Done. Ergo Sum 20:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Ref 29 needs a pp.
                                • Done. Ergo Sum 20:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

                              That's about all I see this time round. Mostly just overt pedantry, but perhaps some of it useful. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

                              @The Rambling Man: Thanks for your comments. Ergo Sum 20:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                              As ever, a pleasure. Great work, happy to support.
                              Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

                              Hello everyone! This article is about a song by American singer K. Michelle for her second studio album, Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart? (2014). Its lyrics are about an imaginary romance with Canadian rapper Drake. "Drake Would Love" was never released as a single and did not appear on any music charts, but its odd title and concept still attracted attention from media outlets. It received generally positive reviews from critics, although some criticized Michelle's decision to dedicate a song to Drake.

                              For this project, I was inspired by AJona1992's FAC for the Selena song "Missing My Baby" to work on an article about an album track. I do not have a lot of experience with bringing song articles to the FA level, so I would greatly appreciate any feedback as always for this nomination. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

                              Moisejp

                              Oppose for now, hope to change to support later.

                              Hi Aoba, I hope you’re well. I would say this article is not quite ready for FA yet, but I hope you may likely be able to fix the issues within the period of this FAC. Below I’m just highlighting quickly what for me would be some of the biggest issues. Once you resolve these I may have some other smaller points.

                              • In the second paragraph of the Critical reception section, there are four criticisms, but there is only one of them (the “just plain weird” one) that is very clear to me what the context is. The other ones feel like they need more background. Also the last one wiki-links to “sucking-teeth” but it mentions the context as being for the West Indies, while the writer of the review seems to be New York-based. It’s not clear that the wiki-link is relevant.
                              • I believe the "sucking-teeth" slang has expanded beyond the West Indies as it something that I have heard the expression in the US, but I understand your point. I have expanded on this paragraph to include further information from the sources, but please let me know if further work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
                              • In the first paragraph of the section there are some worthwhile-sounding points made by various writers, but it’d be nice if they could be tied together to try to link some similarities or related points among the different comments.
                              • I have revised the paragraph to link some of the similar points made by critics. The commonalities that I found are that critics were (in this case pleasantly) surprised by how the song sounded in comparison to the title and enjoyed Michelle's humor. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
                              • Not just in that paragraph, but also in the Composition and lyrics section—and I’ve mentioned this in a couple of previous reviews of articles you’ve nominated, and I hope I don’t sound like a broken record—I feel there are too many brief unrelated points reviewers say, listed one after another, without any overarching narrative to them. For me it’d be great if some of these could be fleshed out, to appear more substantial, and similar themes or trends among the things they say could be highlighted so there is a more solid story for the reader. Your first version of When You Get a Little Lonely suffered from that, but then you came back with more points of substance and a more solid narrative, and it was really a lot better.
                              • That is a fair point so no worries. I went for the following approach with this section. The first paragraph would focus on the music itself (i.e. genre, instrumentation, etc.), the second on the lyrics, and the third on how the song fits with the rest of the album. I renamed the section to "Music and lyrics" to hopefully make the separation of the first two paragraphs clearer. I have revised all of the paragraphs so hopefully it does not sound like just a bunch of information randomly smashed together, but let me know if further work is necessary. I would argue that the overall narrative of this article (and the publications about this particular song) focuses on the bizarre nature of a singer writing fan fiction about Drake. It is certainly a strange moment in music history. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
                              • Overall I feel there are too many quotations in the article. More paraphrasing would be better.
                              • Understandable, any particular section or paragraph stand out with this? Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
                              • I don’t understand what the comparison to Dr. Seuss is supposed to mean. It could use more context if it’s available in the source.
                              • I have attempted to revise this part. I think the source is making this comparison based on how the song lists Drake's qualities through a similar rhyming style to a Seuss book (i.e. same/games). This is the full quote from the source about it for further clarification: (In “Drake Would Love Me,” which reads like a romantic R&B song written by Dr. Seuss, Michelle enumerates Drake’s finest qualities: he would show her off at the Grammys; he would treat her like “his grand prize”; he wouldn’t lie; he wouldn’t make her cry; he wouldn’t “play no games”; he would “always be the same.”) Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

                              That’s all for now. While the article is not quite at there yet, with a little oiling here and there I think the gap is not so insurmountable and I wish you good luck improving it. Best wishes, Moisejp (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

                              • Thank you for the comments! I will go through the article sometime tomorrow to try my best to address your points if that is okay with you. I just wanted to leave a note to let you know that I have seen the comments. Thank you for being upfront with your oppose. Apologies again for being quite bad at taking criticism in the past, but I greatly appreciate your feedback. I will let you know on here when I have revised the article, and I am looking forward to working with you further on this. This one is a little outside of my comfort zone so it will be nice to work through the article slowly tomorrow as I do agree with your points above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
                              • I believe that I have addressed everything so I will refrain from editing the article further until I get further feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
                              • Hi Aoba. RL is a bit busy right now, but I hope to get back to looking back at the article in the next few days or so. I'm looking forward to seeing the changes you made. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
                              • No worries. Take as much time as you need as there is no rush. Hope you are having a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

                              Lead:

                              • Suggest to move what the song is about to near the start of the first paragraph.
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "It was written by Michelle, Bianca Atterberry, and Stephen Mosty and its producers Ronald "Flippa" Colson and Oak Felder." I suggest to replace one of the instances of "and" with "as well as". Three in one sentence feels like two much (even two is pushing it).
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • I would drop "Musically" from the start of the first sentence of the second paragraph.
                              • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "discussed its placement on Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart?" As is, seems too vague to be meaningful.
                              • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

                              Production and release:

                              • The middle two paragraphs don't seem like production, and maybe fall more under theme/writing/inspiration. You could consider expanding the title of this section to encompass something like this.
                              • I have revised the section title to "Background and release", but I am open to any suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • The article is about the song about Drake. I'd argue that what's in the second and third paragraphs should be more prominent (i.e., come before) the first paragraph. Or maybe merge the content about the songwriters into what is now the second paragraph, then put the stuff about production, vocals, mixing, and mastering near the end, just before the paragraph about its release.
                              • That is a good point. I have restructured this section, but I will look through it again later today to make sure it is cohesive. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "favor" (near the end of the second paragraph): could I suggest "respond to" or "like", or something else?
                              • Replaced with "respond to". Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "her second studio album, Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart?". Where it is now, it feels too off-handed an introduction to the album that the song would be released on.
                              • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "Jon Caramanica highlighted it as an example of clickbait". The NYT article says "'Drake Would Love Me' is great clickbait soul, a song in which she aligns herself with hip-hop’s great emoter." I read the sentence in the "Drake Would Love Me" article, and the sentence in the NYT article, and how clickbait is described in the wiki-link, and I don't have confidence that the three are aligned. The NYT article only has the one elusive sentence about this, so it's hard to know exactly what nuance of "clickbait" the author may be hinting at.
                              • I have removed that part. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

                              More to follow. Moisejp (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

                              Music and lyrics:

                              • "calming melody": Could this be paraphrased?
                              • I am not sure it has or should be paraphrased. There are a relatively low amount of quotations in this section in particular, and I do not see the value of paraphrasing this part. But, that is just my personal opinion, and I am open to ideas about this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • In this case, I didn't mention this one due to the frequency of quotations in its proximity. Rather, it's because there are quotations that add spice and life to an article and others that stick out for their blandness. This could just be my opinion too, but I think by putting quotation marks around words it highlights them in a way as "important text". And when a bland phrase is highlighted as "important text" the reader may wonder "Did this need to be underlined as important text even when it's such an everyday little phrase with no special or deep meaning. Could it maybe have been paraphrased?" But again, that could just be my opinion, and it's okay if you disagree. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Thank you for the explanation. For some reason, my brain just died and I could not think of a way to paraphrase this part without sounding dumb. I have revised it to remove the quote completely. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "The song contains references to Drake's music,[17] including: "Drake wouldn't leave me, he would keep me, never break his promises / I'd be the best he ever had, he'd be on his best behavior." " Does this mean similar phrases appear in one or more of Drake's songs (that's what the references to his music are)? If so, maybe this should be explained more explicitly and the referenced song should be mentioned. Moisejp (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

                              Critical reception:

                              • Amorosi's review seems to make the point that the song was unexpectedly not funny, then a little bit later there is the statement that "Michelle's humor was also the subject of praise" with some examples given, with no acknowledgement made that this may differ from Amorosi's interpretation. I think it would be nice if those bits were linked to each other better.
                              • Good point. I have revised this part to help with the flow of the overall paraagraph. Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "Brown remarked that the lyrics adhere to how Drake presents himself as the ideal man rather than realistically portraying his attitude toward women." Can you give more background about what his realistic attitude towards women might be? Are there indications that he might sometimes have a bad attitude? I actually know very little about Drake myself, but I did read once he was criticized for his attitudes in "Hotline Bling". Are there other examples? I don't know, I just think the current wording of "rather than realistically portraying his attitude toward women" kind of suggests there may be more to say about it.
                              • I have attempted to address this, but I would greatly appreciate any further feedback on this point. The Jezebel source portrays Drake as someone who has relationships with many, many women as opposed to the more romantic ideal in the song. Some media outlets have criticized Drake's music as sexist (although there are also critics who say the opposite), and there has been discussion about his relationship with underage girls (with his friendship with Millie Bobby Brown being a more recent point of discussion). I was hesitant about adding the second part to the article as I was uncertain if it would go against any of the WP:BLP policies. Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "Although music has been written about celebrities, including fellow musicians,[28] The Washington Post's Chris Richards still felt it was "mildly radioactive" to release a track explicitly about a crush on another singer." In the first part of this sentence, it's kind of good that you're trying to add some background. But it feels misleading as it is now. It sounds like Richards is making this "Although..." point when I believe all he said was the second part of the sentence. I wonder if there's a good way to shuffle the sentence up a bit so that the first part doesn't sound misleading but can still be kept as useful background. Moisejp (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • I have attempted to revise this part, but I am more than happy to hear further suggestions on this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

                              Thank you for the edits to the lead. It is nice to see a different approach as I think a lot of the leads for song articles can be quite cookie-cutter in terms of structure. I think your edits have improved it, and I would be more than happy to hear any further suggestions on how to improve it more. Aoba47 (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

                              • "she explained that Drake attracted a female fanbase because he releases more love songs than other men and was more respectful to women in his music": "explained" doesn't seem like the best word to me, but before I can suggest a better word, it would help if Michelle's stance was clearer. Was she a fan of Drake herself, i.e., does she include herself in the female fans who admired his love songs and his respect for women in music? Or is she more detached, and is observing these women and putting herself in their shoes like an actress would? Are their indications in the sources that could clarify this distinction and possibly flesh out this aspect and add to our understanding of Michelle's motivations for writing this song? As it is, this sentence (for me, anyway) falls flat as it doesn't go deep enough to be meaningful or helpful in our understanding of why she said this. Moisejp (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • According to the sources, Michelle and Drake are friends and she respects him as a person. I went back to watch the Breakfast Club interview directly, and she explicitly says the song was inspired by conversations that women had in the recording studio. The interview can be watched here, and the part about this song starts around 1:55. It seems more like she is putting herself into the fans' shoes and recorded the song because she knew it would appeal to a particular demographic of people. I think it would be best to cite the interview directly and add this part to the article. I went to the official YouTube account for the Breakfast Club and I had trouble finding this interview there, although I could just cite the interview directly. I hope that clarifies things further. Thank you again for taking the time to do this review as you have helped to improve the article immensely. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • I have attempted to incorporate the information from the interview into the article. It is a little rough though admittedly. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "She has also written songs about Kim Kardashian for her fourth studio album Kimberly: The People I Used to Know (2017) and Jay-Z and Ciara for her fifth studio album All Monsters Are Human (2020)." Maybe consider putting this in a footnote. It feels out of place in the current flow of facts in this section.
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "In a 2018 article for Rolling Stone, Elias Light described Felder as one of the most influential R&B producers partially for writing and producing "breakout hits" for artists like Michelle, Nicki Minaj, and Alessia Cara." The relevance of this feels questionable to me. I would strongly consider removing it.
                              • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "critics described it as either a ballad or a slow jam". I don't think "either...or" really works here. One critic called it a ballad and another called it a slow jam? Maybe there's another way you can find to express that?
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "A Music Times contributor wrote that the track fits with the "often emotional themes" in his music." This is another place I'd recommend paraphrasing—again, not because there are necessarily too many other quotations in the vicinity, but rather because it's such an everyday phrase that sticks out as not needing to be quoted directly.
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "Renowned for Sound's Meggie Morris and The Quietus' Alex Macpherson noted...": Here "noted" may not be good as it suggests an objective truth, while this sentence is about an interpretation or opinion.
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Especially in this Music and lyrics section (and to a lesser degree throughout the article as a whole) there is an overabundance of sentences using simple S-V-O sentence structure. It would be great if there could be more variation in sentence structure, for example by starting more sentences by subordinate clauses.
                              • I have tried to revise this, but let me know if more work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Sorry, in retrospect, even with the change you made, I would argue that "Music has been written about celebrities, including fellow musicians" doesn't work at all; it feels like a stretch to connect it to what Chris Richards wrote. I would recommend cutting this bit. Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • No worries. It is good to try things and realize when they are not working. Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                              Thanks for making the changes. I'll try to have another read-through in the next couple of days or so. :-) Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

                              • Thank you, and take as much time as you need. Hope you are having a good start to your week :) Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

                              The article has definitely improved. I'm removing my oppose for now, but there are still a number of points I feel could be tighter:

                              • The first paragraph of Background and release flows quite a bit better than before—nice work on it. But one issue still: "Along with this inspiration, she also based the track on how Drake's fans fantasize that he would fall in love with them." Right before this we get a somewhat specific account of her hearing conversation in the studio, so this next sentence falls a bit flat. It's not clear where she may have come up with these ideas—maybe also from hearing it in the studio, maybe somewhere else. I'm not sure if I'll have time to look at the sources, but if it happens this information isn't available, maybe just the sentence can be rewritten a bit. Perhaps in this case substitute something else for "based the track on", which I think adds to the reader's expectation of something more specific.
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • In the same paragraph, two sentences in a row with "appeal". Can you change one for variety?
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

                              More to follow. Moisejp (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

                              • "Although a majority of Michelle's music is autobiographical, she clarified in a 2014 interview with The Breakfast Club that she only had a platonic relationship with Drake." Yeah, I might not have time to delve into the sources, but is one half of this from ref 8 and the other half from ref 9? As it is now, it's kind of unclear whether she may have said both parts in the Breakfast Club interview. It would be reassuring for the reader to know whether it was Michelle who said the first part, and possibly whether she said it in that interview or elsewhere. Or, at the very least, if one part is from 8 and the other is from 9, maybe you could put one of the refs in the middle of the sentence and the other at the end.
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "Throughout the track, Michelle sings about attending the Grammy Awards with him and being hated by his groupies." From this it sounds like them being at the Grammies and fending off groupies is a major part of the song. Is this the case? If not, maybe reword "Throughout the track".
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Aoba47: Better, and may be good enough. I don't want to make it too wordy but if it's appropriate and there's a way to say this concisely, it might be even better to say something whose general gist is "Among the situations described in the song..." or "The story points detailed in the song include..." What do you think, would such a change be accurate, and can you think of a good wording for it? Moisejp (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Thank you for the explanation. I have used one of your suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • I can't immediately think of anything better, but I'm not sure the structure "When Michelle lists... Feeney compared" works. Moisejp (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "In USA Today, Martín Caballero praised it as an "anthemic big-stadium R&B ballad", and liked it despite the focus on Drake": Not clear from this why Caballero would find it problematic that the song was about Drake.
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Critical reception, first paragraph: Two sentences in close proximity with "writing for...". Maybe you can change the first one. It may not be an impossible wording, but "writing for, enjoyed" still seems a little awkward ("writing for" means he's at his computer, then suddenly "enjoyed" is not clear what the flow of ideas is).
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • You asked before whether "and for his relationships with underage women" may be counter to BLP. I don't know the answer. If there's another example of bad behavior/attitudes towards women that you can find, it could be an idea to substitute it in. But if you can't find anything else, I don't know what to suggest. The point is stronger with two examples rather than just the one about misogyny. Moisejp (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Drake's communications with younger women is definitely the thing getting the most attention (more so than the misogynistic lyrics) so it should be fine then. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "and considered it a reason for her popularity": What is "it" here? I'm not sure that it's clear. Moisejp (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • "Reviewers were surprised by the song due to their reservations about its unconventional subject matter": This sentence is a little bit confusing and when I try to deconstruct it I'm not sure all the pieces fit together (but they may, and it may just be me). If you can think of a clearer (possibly simpler) way to say this, it would be helpful to me at least. Moisejp (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                              • Revised. I am uncertain if this sentence really works. I was trying to tie together these two ideas. The USA Today critic was surprised that the song "works" because of its odd title/subject, while The Philadelphia Inquirer critic expected something funny/cocky rather than serious. I had tried to tie them together because they both came to the song with different expectations, but had a positive response to the song. However, an expectation for a song to be bad and another for a song to be funny or quite different so maybe it would be best to remove the sentence altogether? Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

                              Those are all of my comments. Moisejp (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

                              • Thank you for the comments. I have attempted to address everything, but let me know if further revision is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

                              Support. The article has improved a lot in the last few weeks. I'm unfortunately unable to look at any of the sources within in the scope of this review, but would like to support based on prose, coherency, and perceived comprehensiveness. Moisejp (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

                              • Thank you for the help!

                                There are probably a few places that this could do with a little tightening. I've had a quick look, and found a few things but nothing major. I'm no expert on "reception" sections, but reading the above comments, I think the nominator has cleaned up that section quite nicely and it seems to flow reasonably well now. Here are a few thoughts from me. It reads nicely enough overall, and has been well put together so far. Sarastro (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

                                • I think we are overusing "Michelle" (if you do a Ctrl-F, the page lights up like a Christmas tree), and a little rephrasing and increased use of pronouns would make this a little less repetitive. (This is always one to watch out for, and I'm guilty of it myself, every time, without fail!)
                                • Revised, but let me know if more instances of "Michelle" could be replaced. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • Looks better now. I removed one more of them. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • In a few places, we lose our encyclopaedic tone, mainly because of the sources. A little rewriting should solve this easily enough. For example, "A writer for The Fader cited "Drake Would Love Me" as the number-one time R&B music was "just plain weird" in 2014" reads very awkwardly (Is there any reason we are not naming the writer?). It could be reworded simply as "In The Fader, X described it as "just plain weird" which avoids the current online media obsession with lists of "times that...". Another example of tone issues would be "Jon Caramanica believed Michelle was smart to release a song" ("smart" is too informal) but it may be worth looking for others.
                                • Understandable. I added the "smart" sentence pretty recently so it was not as edited as other parts of the article. I have removed that part altogether because it does not seem necessary as I have already used the critic in a previous section to reference the song as click-bait. I have revised The Fader part according to your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • "AllMusic's Andy Kellman wrote that Michelle "emphasizes certain syllables like surgical knife twists" with her vocals.": I have no idea what this means, so could we perhaps give an example of what Kellman means? If he doesn't give any examples, I'd be inclined to cut this as meaningless.
                                • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • "The opening lines are: "I would be the apple of his eye and he would treat me like his grand prize ... trophy" and the chorus is "Drake would love me, he would kiss me, he would touch me like I need."": What is the significance of this? Without commentary, we are just quoting the opening lines for the fun of it. Also, as the last thing we mention is Bynes' tweet, it may be read as quoting that.
                                • I could understand removing the opening lines as that is rather arbitrary, but since the chorus is the an important part of the song, should it be included in the article to help a reader better understand the song? If not, I would be fine removing it, but I thought I should ask first. Aoba47 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • I've no real opinion either way. If we can add some commentary from somewhere, that would be ideal; I can't see much point in adding lines unless we can show they're important, but it's not a huge deal either way and isn't really related to WP:WIAFA. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • I have removed the chorus sentence. I have a feeling it was actually more detrimental to the article because it pulled focus and made the section in particular seem more like a random collection of facts than anything with cohesion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • "Critics had varying opinions on how "Drake Would Love Me" fit with the rest of Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart?.": A little awkward (especially with the doubled punctuation at the end of the sentence, but that may be unavoidable without making it a little contrived). Also, from what we quote here, their opinions didn't really vary that much. And I think the rephrasing done after the above comments has introduced one little glitch: we introduce Alex Macpherson's idea that the final three songs are linked, go to Morris' comments, then return to Macpherson linking the final three songs. Possibly this could be reworked a little?
                                • Thank you for catching that. I have recently edited this paragraph and left a duplicate sentence on Macpherson. I have revised the paragraph and took out the topic sentence as I am not sure it is really necessary. Let me know if further revision is necessary. For album/song titles with punctuation, like Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart?, should a period be used if it appears at the end of a sentence? I was never quite sure of that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • You're asking the wrong person! MoS isn't my thing at all. It looks strange, but that doesn't make it wrong. My preference would be to reword it to avoid the problem, but I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't make for a horrible sentence! Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • I am just glad that I am not the only one that has these questions/problems lol. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • "Some reviewers were surprised by the song due to its title": A little awkward (better as "The song surprised some reviewers...") but maybe we need to explain what it was that surprised them. "Some critics, however, disliked the song's focus on Drake" also reads a little awkwardly too; maybe a further polish of the prose might be needed?
                                • Revised both parts. I believe critics were surprised because they assumed the song would be more of a joke based on its title, but they found it to be far more serious than their initial expectations. Let me know if further revisions are necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • Regarding "The song surprised some reviewers who expected it to be more comical than serious", maybe "Reviewers were surprised by the serious theme of the song, expecting it to be comical"? (Or even "jovial"?) I liked the reference to the title in the previous version, but I notice that only the Star Tribune ref supports this. Could you find another review that makes explicit the expectations raised by the title, and put back "owing to its title"? Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • I also prefer the "due to its title". I have checked the reviews again and I unfortunately could not find an explicit reference to the title. I had used this sentence (Don't ask us how or why, but Drake serves as the inspiration for this anthemic big-stadium R&B ballad, and it works) from the USA Today source to support the title wording in the previous version, but that is a stretch. I am also starting to feel uncertain about the "comedic" part (and that was my comment so I take responsibility for that recommendation) since the USA Today source was more surprised the song worked because they though it would be a failure. Upon further reflection, it seems like the USA Today and Star Tribune sources were more surprised by how much they enjoyed the song despite their initial expectations of the song. Do you have a suggestion for a better sentence for this? Apologies for the long message here. Just trying to look through this part thoroughly. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • The order of "Production and release" could perhaps be improved. We really should discuss her playing the song to Drake before we describe its release, and maybe move the initial reaction to the title of the song to before we talk about its release too?
                                • That is a good point. I was somewhat uncertain on how to best structure this section. I believe that I have revised it per your suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • This is a very short article. I think I know the answer (a resounding "NO!") but are there any more details about how she wrote the song? She wrote it "with Bianca Atterberry, Ronald "Flippa" Colson, Oak Felder, and Stephen Mostyn" but we say nothing about their role. Can we expand on what they did? I'm guessing that, at least, the lyrics were exclusively Michelle's but it would be nice to know a little more about how it was all put together. I suspect nothing is out there, but we should at least look. As it stands, I would find it hard to support an article which is so sparse; however, I certainly would NOT oppose on such grounds, so don't worry.
                                • It is a fair concern, and I would not take it personally if an editor did oppose on those grounds. I imagine that is one of the mains reasons getting a non-single song to the FA level is difficult. After doing another search, I could not find any additional sources. K. Michelle is more of a lesser-known artist so she does not get the same coverage as major artists. Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • I'll be honest. If we could find a bit more background, I think this would be a marvellous little article. I've got no idea where such things might be found as modern music isn't really my thing... but have any print magazines covered her? No features on her? Even if we just said a little more about her, that might help too. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • I was just doing a little digging, and it looks like Bianca Atterberry has worked on a few things with her before. I'm also wondering if she is notable enough for her own article? She is on a few "profile" sites, and is mentioned in a few news articles. But not anything that helps this article yet. Sarastro (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • Thank you for the recommendations. I will look into print publications, and I will also look around web results around the album's release with some creative search terms. A feature or a portion of an article could have touched on this song without using the exact title so it is worthwhile to search further. It was a good idea to look into Atterberry. I will look further into the songwriters and producers and see if there are any interesting points about their collaborations with Michelle specifically. I agree that if more information could be added here that it would really tie the article together. Thank you for taking the time to help! Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • I have added the following Rolling Stone feature on Felder. The article talks about how Felder became an influential R&B producer and mentions he has produced "breakout hits" for artists, including K. Michelle. In the following interview with K. Michelle, the interviewer mentions how she has often written songs about other artists. However, since the site does not seem particularly reliable enough for a featured article, I have cited the albums directly, although I do quite like this line, "inspired musically by different entertainers and their public stories". Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                                • One area that we might perhaps expand... I think we could say a little more about Drake. Who is he? Why are people obsessed with him? Maybe flag up how unusual it is for one musician to write about another (we merely mention this as a reviewer comment). Has anyone looked at this? It would be nice background for this song, and give it a little more context than the usual stuff we get in all song articles. Sarastro (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • That is a good point. The article as a whole and the song itself focuses on Drake's popularity with women so it would be beneficial to add background here. I am always uncertain on when to add background information so that was my fault. I will also look into coverage on songs dedicated to or about other singers. I think this instance is unusual since this is a love song dedicated to a singer, although neither party was ever in a romantic relationship or had a romantic attraction to each other. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • I found a few sources about Drake's female fanbase and incorporated them into the article, although I will revisit that portion later to iron out the prose further. I will still search for background information about musicians writing about other musicians. I added in what I found and revised that particular paragraph to hopefully help with the overall flow. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • No fault anywhere, and certainly no rush. Take you time, it's worth doing this right. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • Agreed, it is always best to take one's time with this. I will of course keep you updated on my progress. Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                • I believe that I found updated the article with enough background material on Drake, and I have added the best that I could find on songs about singers. I would like to clarify that The Washington Post source mentions how fans often have crushes on singers, but he believed it was "mildly radioactive" for a singer to have a crush on another performer. I have hopefully updated that paragraph so it reads clearer and more like a cohesive narrative. Aoba47 (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC

                                @Sarastro1: Apologies for the ping, but I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your points above and complete the resarch (at least for now) on the requested point in case you missed. I am in no rush since this FAC is still relatively new so I do not mean this ping to be rushing you. Just wanted to use it as an update. Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

                                Comments from Toa Nidhiki05

                                Going to start a review on this at some point soon. I do intend to claim Wikipedia:WikiCup points for this review. Toa Nidhiki05 00:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

                                • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                                Prose
                                Per WP:MOS#YEAR, punctuation should follow the date (December 2, 2014) in the lead.
                                • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                                Not sure about the first sentence of the lead’s second paragraph, specifically “which critics described as a slow jam and a ballad” being split off by a period and “which”. It kind of reads like the critics are describing the R&B song. Maybe using a semicolon (ie. ; critics described it as a slow jam and a ballad) would work better.
                                • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                                In “Michelle based the song on his female fans” would change “his” to “Drake’s”, given “his” is used later in the sentence. I would also ditch the comma here.
                                • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                                The order seems wrong in “attributed his "delicate tempos and emotionally charged lyrics" as the reason women respond to his music”. Perhaps it should read “attributed the reason women respond to his music to his "delicate tempos and emotionally charged lyrics."“?
                                • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                                Same issue with the first sentence of “Music and Lyrics” as in the lead.
                                • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                                ”including "Best I Ever Had", "Worst Behavior", and "Make Me Proud"” is split off with a comma before it but not after. It might be worth considering parenthesis here instead.
                                • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

                                More to come. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

                                • Thank you for the help so far. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  I’ve looked at the citations as well here and they seem to be in order in terms of consistent formatting and content. Tentative support for prose and formatting. Toa Nidhiki05 13:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  Thank you.

                                  Wait for my review soon. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

                                  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  Lead and infobox
                                  • "...American singer K. Michelle for her second studio album, Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart? (2014), and is about an imaginary romance with Canadian rapper Drake." I would add that line in bold right after "the song was based on Michelle's perception of how Drake's female fans responded to him." in the second paragraph, for it to be more cohesive.
                                  • That is understandable. I move it before that sentence since it has the descriptive phrase for Drake and I think it may be better to introduce the song's main narrative before going into the inspiration, but I am open to putting it later in that paragraph if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  • Has Michelle performed this song live?
                                  • I could not find any information on a live performance. I double-checked the set lists for her tours for and after this album. It is a shame because I would genuinely want to hear her perform this live. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  • Steven Ace is not mentioned on the lead
                                  • Thank you for catching that. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  • Is the Anybody Wanna Buy a Heart? track listing really needed on the infobox?
                                  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  Background
                                  • Is the information in citation A really relevant? it does not have anything to do with the song
                                  • I have removed. I added it because I have found a recent interview where the interviewer mentions how Michelle has often written songs based on other artists, and I thought it may be useful for adding background to this article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  • I believe a picture of Michelle herself would be more useful than one of Oak. She is the performer of the track, after all
                                  • Changed. It is not the best picture in the world, but I do agree it is best to have a picture of the main artist in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  Critical reception
                                  • ""Drake Would Love Me" received generally positive reviews from music critics." With no sources supporting it received mostly positive reviews, this falls into WP:SYNTH
                                  • I am not sure if it counts as WP:SYNTH since the rest of the paragraph includes citations with positive reviews. I have removed the "generally" part as I could see that going into WP:OR as "generally" could be interpreted in many ways, but I would imagine the sentence without it should be fine. That is just my perspective though, and I am open to further discussion on how to best handle this part. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  References

                                  @Aoba47: More to come later. --Paparazzzi (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

                                  • Thank you for the comments. I appreciate you for taking the time to look through the article. Hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  I support this nomination. --Paparazzzi (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                  Thank you. And thank you for the edit to remove the notes part. I cannot believe that I forgot to do that.

                                  Overall, the article looks as complete as can be for a non-single album track. One suggestion I would make is rendering the discussion of Music and lyrics in the present tense - for example, "critics identify as a ballad..." rather than "identified", and "are interpreted by critics" rather than "were interpreted". The section is serving as a description of a song in the present tense, rather than as a past event, so for consistency's sake, all of it should be rendered in the present tense. isento (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

                                  • Revised. I am somewhat uncertain about this though. I always thought that critics were supposed to be represented in the past tense since their reviews are tied down to a specific time and publication (similar to what is done in the "Style" (Taylor Swift song) article). However, I can also understand your point about consistency as it can be rather distracting to read a section that bounce between present and past tenses. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

                                  Also, is the Laurence commentary at the end of the section an analysis or a criticism? To say a song "lacks deep emotional feeling" sounds more like the critic is attacking the merits of the work. isento (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

                                  • This sentence is referring to this part from the source: (Not all the songs are intensely emotion-filled. "Drake Would Love Me" is basically a fan's love song to Drake.) The critic is contrasting the song with others from the album, and I do not take it as a negative review. I have revised the sentence to better represent that. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

                                  I have to agree with a previous reviewer's comment that the "generally positive reviews" claim should be removed. While summary is not synthesis, this to me is not accurate summary - there appear to be almost as much unfavorable perspectives as there are favorable. I strongly recommend opening the Critical reception section instead with a statement summarizing what specifically the subsequent sentences say was praised. Same for the lead. In this case, an overarching description like "generally favorable" is contentious and should be avoided. Otherwise, I would support this article in terms of prose and comprehensiveness. isento (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

                                  • Thank you for the support and the explanation. I have revised the parts in the article per your recommendations.
                                    • File:K Michelle picture.png: A little wary of the provenance of the image (it looks like it was cropped from somewhere) but TinEye does not provide information on its provenance. Why is the caption referenced to a Wikipedia article?
                                    • I chose this K. Michelle image because it seemed the clearest of the available ones to me, but I can understand the concern. There are others available on Wikimedia Commons. This one (File:Kmichelle2019.jpg runs into the same issue with the origin and is pretty low quality in my opinion. Another one (File:K-Michelle4.jpg) has a clearer origin, but it is a rather weird image so I am hesitant to use it in this article. Do you have any suggestions for this? It was suggested earlier in the review to have an image of K. Michelle, but if necessary, I can remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
                                    • I am confused by the last question. What do you mean that the caption is referencing a Wikipedia article? Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

                                    Both images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

                                    • Thank you for the review! Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
                                      I don't think Drake's image needs to change. The caption issue to me is that the link that normally goes to the source, goes instead to a Wikipedia page. It should point to a source if it's to be linked at all.

                                      Everything seems well. The sources are reliable and archived while the style is quite consistent. Almost every source is quite accessible too. While Youtube can be used in Wikipedia, its usage (reference 15) might need an extra link like author or work to back it up. Ping me when it is done.Tintor2 (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

                                      • Thank you for the source review. The YouTube references should be fine as they are both from Michelle's official account and support a way that the song was made available to the public. I doubt that a third-party source would cover this information, but I believe it is still necessary to cover this part in the article. Thank you again.
                                        Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

                                        This article is about the Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999-2000. This is an unusual case of a multinational coalition not lead by a great power. The politics of the operation, the diplomacy involved in assembling the coalition, and of course the operations are all fascinating subjects, but my interest as always is in the logistics. The official history of the intervention in East Timor, although written, has yet to appear, and I'm not expecting a great deal on logistics, as the World War II and Vietnam volumes are very poor in this regard. (The US volume on logistics in Vietnam has also failed to appear.) So this article represents my best effort. It has passed GA and A-class reviews, and the latter included source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

                                        I can't find anything to nag about except

                                        Overall: Well-written and well-researched article, no major red flags in terms of quality, neutrality and copyright, and it is well-referenced. As I read the article from top to bottom, here's what I found can be improved:

                                        • "was a highly complex, and ultimately successful, endeavour": I wonder if we should skip including this conclusion in the first sentence and let the facts below stand for themselves.
                                          Sure. Why not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "Eleven nations contributed transport aircraft to the ..., but over 90 per cent of the cargo and most of the passengers travelled by sea …" If the sea is the primary means of transport shouldn't that be mentioned ahead of the airlift?
                                          Swapped them around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "transported by a naval task force that included the high-speed catamaran HMAS Jervis Bay and landing ship HMAS Tobruk, which brought supplies from Australia by sea. Crucial support came from the replenishment oiler HMAS Success and tankers HMNZS Endeavour and HMCS Protecteur." What is the difference between the roles of the first 2 ships and the last 3 ships, that they needed to be listed separately?
                                          The first two were moving troops and cargo, the latter providing logistical support. With the exception of the UK, English-speaking people have to travel long distances to get anywhere much, so at-sea refuelling and logistic support are essential; but many other navies lack this capability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • The logistical support units spent the next two months catching up and eliminating backlogs: which months were these? The start date of the mission wasn't mentioned at this point.
                                          Changed to "October and November"
                                        • I think the leads are missing these info: when the mission starts and ends (in months if not dates), as well as a brief background of East Timor's status (did it already gain independence, or is in transition?) as well as why INTERFET was deployed.
                                          Added: "INTERFET deployed to East Timor in September 1999"
                                        • The island was formally divided between the Netherlands and Portugal in 1637: 1661 is the year mentioned by the reference?
                                          Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • the first Portuguese governor of East Timor was appointed in 1702: The ref says 1701
                                          Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
                                        • Any idea who were on the island or ruled it before the Europeans came? I'd suggest 1-2 sentences for the sake of completeness because paragraph 1 of background seems to focus on the colonial history, and begins with the Portuguese establishing a settlement which seems very European-centric for a non-European island.
                                          The East Timorese of course; my main concern was not with colonialism, but explaining how the island came to be divided in two. Added a couple of sentences: "The island of Timor has been populated for up to 40,000 years, populated by successive waves of immigrants from southern India, Malaysia and Melanesia. It was ruled by small kingdoms that traded spices, slaves and sandalwood with their neighbours."
                                        • "the preferential allocation of resources to combat capabilities and the acceptance of risk in logistics functions brought the Army to the precipice of operational failure.": name the source of this quote inline
                                          Any reason why? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                          • In my view, this quote is an opinion, and WP:WIKIVOICE recommends that opinions are not stated in Wikipedia's voice (already done, by using quotation marks) and attributed to the source making the opinion. HaEr48 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                            • @Hawkeye7: Please take a look at this. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
                                              Very well. The point is that liked the quote, which neatly sums up the consensus among historians; but the author of the quote is less of an authority than the Wikipedian who wrote the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Planning and organization: I understand that because Australia is the coalition leader it merits more coverage, but can we please find something about the other nations, especially those that sent large contingents ? I think this is important for the comprehensiveness criteria because other nations account for about half the troops.
                                        • Added a paragraph on New Zealand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Alternatively, if Australia was actually responsible for all logistics in the mission, we should add more info about how it came to be that way, e.g. was there any coordination or discussion among the other nations that decided it this way? I think it's important both for comprehensiveness and to provide context to readers on why the rest of the article is so Australian-centric. Right now, Australia's almost exclusive role is presented as a given without much context.
                                        • The codename Operation Stabilise was given to operations in and around East Timor, while Operation Warden included its logistic support activities in Australia: The second part is a little ambiguous, does Warden include or exclude operations in East Timor? If it is excluded, maybe the preceding sentence should be reworded because it gives the impression that Warden is entire intervention.
                                          Added "also" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • However, due to its isolation, Darwin had better facilities than other cities of similar size: suggest explaining the causal relation between isolation and better facilities, it is not very obvious for the general reader like me.
                                          "Due to its isolation, Darwin had to be more self-supporting, and therefore had better facilities, than other cities of similar size" ?
                                          • Sounds good. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • The outsourcing of "non-core" logistical functions in the ADF had created critical shortages of many essential trades ranging from cooks to port terminal handlers: Isn't the point of outsourcing to expand the workforce? why does it cause shortage?
                                          No, the purpise is to contract the workforce. Added: "as many of these jobs were no longer performed by military personnel" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • In "planning" Wilkinson was appointed Logistic Component Commander on 26 August, but in "organization" the date is 30 August - any reason for the different dates?
                                          It is not uncommon for a commander to be designated
                                        • Stapleton was "dual-hatted" as both NCC (Commander, Task Group 645.1), answerable to both Cosgrove (Commander, Task Force 645) as COMFLOT (Commander, Task Group 627.1), and to COMAST's Maritime Commander, Rear Admiral John Lord (Commander, Task Force 627): Are there to many "both"s in this sentence? Could it be reworded to clarify?
                                          Got rid of one of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Spell out the full form of COMFLOT when first mentioned.
                                          Spelt out. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Barrie announced: The operation will be Operation Stabilise…: is there any date of this announcement?
                                          19 September. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "An important concern was the Japanese encephalitis vaccine regime": is it because the disease is endemic in East Timor, because there was an outbreak at the time, or…?
                                          Added that the disease is endemic to East Timor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Deployment: suggest reordering "Sealift" before "Airlift", because sealift seems to have had bigger contribution.
                                          Yes, but the airlift comes first chronologically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Deployment: Did other non-Australian troops (especially outside Commonwealth countries) also deploy via Darwin/Australia? Could we add some explanation?
                                          The Canadians, New Zealanders and Kenyans are mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Unfortunately, the landing ships HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora, purchased in 1994: Suggest removing "unfortunately" per WP:EDITORIAL
                                          Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • The heliport was found abandoned: "The heliport" hasn't been mentioned before. Is it in Comoro, in the UNAMET compound, or somewhere else?
                                          It's in Dili. I supplied a map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Christianson went to the control tower and explained, through an interpreter since he did not speak Bahasa Indonesia,: "Bahasa Indonesia" is the Indonesian name of the language, which seems weird in an English sentence. Suggest using the English word "Indonesian". Compare "he did not speak Español" (seems weird) vs "he did not speak Spanish"
                                          • Alternatively we can also get rid of "since he did not speak Bahasa Indonesia" because it is implied from the use of translator
                                            Australians always refer to it that way. It's not obvious. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • No. 381 Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron RAAF assumed responsibility for the operation of the airport at Dili, while No. 382 Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron RAAF operated Cakung Airport at Baucau: Did they take over all operations at the airports, or just INTERFET-related?
                                        • All operations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • " It was augmented by three French Air Force C-130Hs…" Suggest splitting the sentence because it is too long.
                                          Split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Curious, is "C-130H" short for C-130 Hercules, or is it a variant of the aircraft? It seems both C-130H and C-130 are used in the text
                                          It is the model of the C-130. Everyone was flying the H model except the British, who had the K model See Lockheed C-130 Hercules#Further developments for all the technical details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "In order to effect Cosgrove's operational concept of flooding East Timor with as many combat troops as possible, Evans deployed ..." Suggest adding the roles of Cosgrove and Evans in INTERFET, here or before, as context to this statement.
                                          They are detailed earlier. In case someone is unsure which Evans is referred to, the text says "his brigade" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • as had occurred in the Vietnam War in 1966: Just to clarify: did this occur to Australia in 1966 or to the US-led coalition overall?
                                          We're talking about Australian forces here. Added a bit.
                                        • ADF cargo was tracked using three computer systems, the Standard Defence Supply System (SDSS), Lotus Notes Interim Demand System (LNIDS), and the Cargo Visibility System (CVS): Given it mentions Lotus Notes as the developer of LNIDS, also mention those of SDSS and CVS for completeness?
                                          No, all were developed by DoD. The LNIDS is just an applicationuses Lotus notes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Each soldier had to carry a day's supply: is this Australian regulation applying to Australian soldiers or a general rule of thumb for everyone? Suggest clarifying because not all troops are Australian.
                                          No, everyone. At this point though, the foreign contingent consisted of the Gurkhas, SBS and NZ SAS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • the ADF had no ship-to-shore refuelling capability: Is there a good link for " ship-to-shore refuelling capability", to help understanding what that usually requires?
                                          No, unfortunately Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • With limited stocks of ammunition on hand, the 1,500 soldiers of the 3rd Brigade confronted some 15,000 TNI troops, who presumably had plenty of ammunition:
                                          • Not sure if confronted is the best word here, given that the mission was Indonesian-sanctioned? How about something like "In comparison, TNI had 15,000 troops in the area who presumably had plenty of ammunition"?
                                            Hmmm. Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                          • Is the 3rd brigade singled out because they were the first one to be deployed?
                                            Yes. All INTERFET troops were assigned or attached the 3rd Brigade for operations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • The first phase of this was Operation Lavarack, in which 2 RAR moved by air and armoured personnel carriers of B Squadron, 3rd/4th Cavalry Regiment, by sea, to occupy Balibo, which was secured on 5 October
                                          • Can this be reworded to be easier to parse? Did 2 RAR move by air and APC, or did 2 RAR move by air and the APCs moved by sea (if the latter, why were only the APCs moved and not the squadrons themselves)?
                                            That wasn't what I meant; I just meant that B Squadron moved by sea with its APCs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • " He was assisted by students from the...": Is "he" Cavanaugh or Wilkinson?
                                          Wilkinson. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • The main body arrived in Dili on 3 December, but the ship carrying its heavy plant and equipment did not reach Brisbane until 27 November: 27 November is still before 3 December, so why is it a "but"?
                                          Because Brisbane is not Dili. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "There was no vaccine" and "Nor was there any treatment other than rest": are these for both diseases or just dengue?
                                          Dengue. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "One Malaysian UN observer died from malaria.": suggest moving it before "A particular concern with dengue…" because (1) the death seems more significant than the nine soldiers getting treated (but alive) (2) the Malaysian sentence doesn't seem to be connected with the rest of the paragraph it is in.
                                          Added a bridge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "A prophylactic regime was instituted whereby personnel were given a daily dose of 100 milligrams (1.5 gr) of doxycycline commencing two days before departure from Australia and continuing for two weeks after returning": Who instituted it? INTERFET or Australian military? Is it for all INTERFET troops, or just Australian ones?
                                          Australians, although it is true of New Zealanders as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • three weeks after return from Australia: How about Australian soldiers, when did they get this primaquine?
                                          From the RMO. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • told a CMOC meeting : what's a CMOC?
                                          Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Postal: Interesting info, any info for mails from/to other countries further than Australia?
                                          No, but I'd be surprised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • took advantage of free mail delivery: Is it free due to the military mission, or due to Christmas? does the free delivery apply to soldiers from all over the world or just Australian?
                                          Just to Australians, but for the whole time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Indonesia recognised East Timor as an independent nation on 19 October, and TNI forces withdrew on 31 October, leaving INTERFET in charge: I think this is better placed as background than "end of mission" as it was closer to the beginning? Also, while reading the article body I kept wondering about when the status of East Timor change or if INTERFET interacted with TNI at all. This part provides the important clarification and I think is better to be mentioned in the beginning.
                                          You can see that the two overlapped by a considerable amount. This article being on logistics, the fighting is not described. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • End of mission: Could we have more info on when the troops started leaving and how? I am assuming there should be logistical aspects related to returning troops and their supplies
                                          Yes, but the scope of the article is INTERFET. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                          • @Hawkeye7: Shouldn't the scope include the return of INTERFET troops, then? HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
                                            Well, the article says that 10 FSB handed over to 9 FSB, and that INTERFET handed over to UNTAET. The treatment of diseases picked up in Timor is mentioned. The washing of vehicles and equipment is mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Or did the troops not return at this point because they also made up UNTAET's forces? If yes, it could be mentioned also
                                        • 2 and 3 RAR returned to Australia leaving 5/7 RAR behind with UNTAET.
                                        • End of mission: Suggest switching the order of the sentences starting with "On 20 February 2000" and "Australian logistical support". The former sentence is a bit surprising without context (why would you switch units with just 3 days left?), but the latter sentence provides that context and is better to be first, IMO.
                                          It will be out of chronological order then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • While the troops had good reason to be critical of a lack of spare parts, medical supplies and amenities, they still received logistical support on a scale that many other armies could only dream about: The last part reads quite hyperbolic, suggest either rewording or using quotation mark if it's a verbatim quote
                                          Switched to a quotation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Cosgrove had the resources he needed to carry out his mission: "INTERFET had the resources he needed to carry out its mission" to avoid focusing on just one person?
                                        I'm talking about command and generalship here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Retrospect: Can we add perspective from other nations about the support they received in East Timor?
                                          Added some more about New Zealand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Picture: HMAS Tobruk: is the ship the left one or the right one?
                                        • The one on the right. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Picture: "HMCS Protecteur in 2014": is the ship the one in front or back?
                                          Foreground. It is being towed by the tugboat USNS Sioux, Embarassing for the ship, but it's a nice image of it.
                                        • Some sources need more complete info for example author, date, and more precise description of publisher: footnotes 14, 20, 29, 33, 42, 43, 53, 61, 110
                                          @Hawkeye7: Please take a look at this too. HaEr48 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
                                          {{cite web}} requires, url, access-date, title and publisher only. These have been supplied. No other details are available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • I have also edited lightly when I am confident about the needed improvement, feel free to modify any if it's not appropriate.
                                        • Disclaimer: I am competing in WikiCup and planning to claim points from this review.
                                          Well deserved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

                                        I hope I don't bore you with too much feedback, and hope they are useful. Good job and thank you for your work. HaEr48 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

                                        No, that's fine. I should see if I can get Zawed to check the New Zealand section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        I've taken a gander and made a few edits to correct some typos. There was one sentence (being on 28 days readiness) that I wasn't sure of, so please check my edit there is correct. I have the Crawford & Harper ref, will doublecheck it later today/tomorrow. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        @
                                        • "brought troops and supplies from Australia by sea" You do not need "by sea" as you have said it on the line above and named ships.
                                          Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "HMNZS Endeavour and HMCS Protecteur" I would specify New Zealand and Canadian. NZ is obvious but I had to check what C referred to.
                                          I don't think the redundancy would be appropriate in the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • You show the statistics in the 2nd paragraph in different ways. 90% and most for sea, and exact quantities for air. I suggest giving the exact numbers by sea in brackets if the information is available.
                                          I regret that the exact figure is not available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • You have logistics or logistical six times in the final paragraph of the lead. Would it be correct to replace "vehicles and logistical support" with "vehicles and other supplies" and "inadequate logistics" with "inadequate supplies"?
                                          Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • I do not think the early history of Timor is relevant in such a specialist article, although that is personal opinion.
                                          I agree, but see the comments above from other reviewers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Your explanation of the situation before independence is very unclear. If I understand correctly, before WW2 West Timor was part of the Dutch East Indies and East Timor was a Portuguese colony. The whole island was occupied by Japan during the war and handed back to the colonial powers after the war. West Timor became part of Indonesia in 1949, but the east stayed Portuguese until 1974. A civil war then broke out between the pro-independence Fretilin and the UDT, which opposed independence except during a short period of cooperation with Fretilin. This should be spelled out if correct.
                                          Sounds like you understood correctly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • Indonesia should be wikilinked, but should it be at the first mention of the country, which is as "Indonesian" or the first mention of "Indonesia"?.
                                          We don't wiki-link present-day countries like Australia and Indonesia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "Oecussi enclave". The article on Oecussi describes it as an exclave. I have never heard of this word before, but it is correct and enclave wrong according to Enclave and exclave.
                                          Except for the sea border, it is entirely surrounded by Indonesia, hence is a semi-enclave. It is also a semi-exclave. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • ""teeth-to-tail" ratio". Is there an article you can link to?
                                          Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "the very same cuts in logistic capability rendered this impossible" I am not clear what you are saying here. I assume you are referring to the "administrative cuts", but I would take this to mean in desk personnel rather than logistical capabilities (which presumably means mainly transport and storage facilities and stocks).
                                          Tightened the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "which based in Sydney" "which was based in Sydney"?
                                          Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "developing plans for Operation Spitfire, the evacuation of foreign nationals and selected East Timorese". I think it would be clearer to start the paragraph with something like "The first task, which was to evacuate foreign nationals and selected East Timorese, was designated as Operation Spitfire."
                                          I don't see how that would work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • I realise that Australia and NZ took the lead roles, but it seems unbalanced to give an extremely (excessively?) detailed account of their preparations, down to who attended which meeting, and not a word of the logistical preparations of the other 21 countries which took part.
                                          The article also covers the United States and Canada. These four countries accounted for nearly all the in-theatre logistics. I have accounts from Thailand and the Philippines, but only Kenya contributed to the logistical effort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "and joined the TNI personnel there". The very high use of initials makes the article difficult to follow for non-experts. It would, for example, make it easier for readers if you wrote here "and joined the Indonesian army personnel there".
                                          TNI is the Indonesian armed forces, the Indonesian equivalent of the ADF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "Singaporean RSS Intrepid, and the Danish civilian ship Arktis Atlantic". No change needed, but is the first ship redlinked and not the second on the principle that every naval ship deserves its own article but not every civilian one?
                                          That and the fact that it is already red-linked in other articles. Two of its sister ships have articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • "we saw pallets of beer being loaded on hercs" The next sentence refers to Darwin but I am not clear whehter the whole Canadian quote refers to Darwin.
                                          Added "in Darwin". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • " black and grey water". These could be linked to Blackwater (waste) and Greywater.
                                          Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
                                        • This is a first rate article. I found it difficult to follow due to the excessive use of initials, but I assume that this is standard in this type of article. The only major fault is the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph of the background section, which are a collection of facts rather than a clear explanation. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
                                          A clear explanation of what? The purpose of the background section is to fill the reader in on how the situation came about.
                                          Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

                                          This is an article I'm quite pleased to see finally make it to FAC - it's come a long way since August 2007. Part of the Armored cruisers of Germany good topic, this article covers one of the later vessels, which had an interesting career, serving as a flagship of the German scouting force, seeing action during World War I in the Baltic, and ending up slated to be converted into a seaplane carrier, although the war ended before the conversion could be carried out. As I alluded to earlier, this was a fairly old article I wrote back in 2008–2009 that I overhauled last year, after which it passed a Milhist A-class review. Thanks for all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

                                          CommentsSupport by CPA-5

                                          I'll do this one as soon as possible. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

                                          CPA-5, are you still planning to stop by? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                                          • Did it, sorry for the delay.
                                          • SMS Roon was the lead ship of her class of armored cruisers No SMS note?
                                            • Added
                                          • had a top speed of 20.4 knots (37.8 km/h; 23.5 mph) Unlink the common units here.
                                            • Done
                                          • in several operations against Russian forces Pipe Russians to the Russian Empire.
                                            • Done
                                          • 2,000 metric horsepower (2,000 ihp) and speed by .5 knots (0.93 km/h; 0.58 mph) This isn't an American-related article so add a nought in the knots.
                                            • Done
                                          • She carried up to 1,570 t (1,550 long tons; 1,730 short tons) of coal Other sentences don't use short tons.
                                            • Removed
                                          • Roon spent the following years participating in various --> "She spent the following years participating in various"
                                            • Done
                                          • Link knots in the infobox same for nmi.
                                            • Done
                                          • "SMS Roon in the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal, c. 1910" Needs a circa template.
                                            • Added
                                          • Is it possible to standardise the 10/13-digit numbers in the ISBNs?
                                            • Done

                                          @Parsecboy: Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

                                          Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
                                          • Nice work, support. Cheers.

                                            The references are all appropriately formatted, and the sources are of high quality, exactly what you would expect for a German ship of this vintage. Spotchecks not conducted due to nominator's long record at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

                                            CommentsSupport by PM

                                            This article is in great shape. I reviewed at Milhist ACR so only have a few minor things to add here:

                                            • in the first sentence I suggest adding "in the 1900s" after "(Imperial Navy)"
                                              • Good idea
                                            • link knots in the lead
                                              • Done
                                            • drop the comma in "In September 1911,"
                                              • Done
                                            • were the 8.8 cm guns in the superstructure open mounts?
                                              • Clarified
                                            • suggest being consistent with the deck armour measurements between the infobox and body, one in mm the other in cm
                                              • Fixed
                                            • full stop after Fritz Hoffmann
                                              • Good catch
                                            • Eugen Kalau vomn Hofe
                                            • perhaps state that HMS New Zealand was a battlecruiser
                                              • Done

                                            That's all I could find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

                                            Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
                                            @Peacemaker67: - anything else you'd like to see addressed? Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
                                            Nope, thanks for the ping. Supporting.
                                            • The length is not converted to feet/inches, only feet in both text and infobox
                                              • Good catch
                                            • Metric horsepower linked in infobox but not text
                                              • It is, in the first para of the design section
                                            • In Service history section, would rewrite the sentence "...Field Marshal Alfred von Waldersee christened the ship after Field Marshal Albrecht von Roon" as "...Field Marshal Alfred von Waldersee christened the ship Roon, after Field Marshal Albrecht von Roon" otherwise it sounds like von Waldersee took a turn christening the ship after von Roon.
                                              • Good point
                                            • Since you use ship and Roon in that sentence, would suggest changing "the ship" in the following sentence to "the cruiser" to break up repetition (since "ship" is also used in the word "flagship".)
                                              • Works for me
                                            • Are the two minelaying cruisers named Albatross different ships? If they are not, the second link in the Baltic operations section can go, as well as the "minelaying cruiser"
                                              • Fixed - didn't catch it since the first link lacked the dab
                                            • "retreat of the Albatross" - remove the definite article
                                              • Fixed
                                            • "break into the Gulf" - no need to capitalize gulf there.
                                              • Fixed

                                            That's all I could find. Otherwise good stuff. Llammakey (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

                                            Thanks Llammakey. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                            Support - no problem Llammakey (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

                                            Image review

                                            • Suggest adding alt text
                                            • Suggest scaling up the plan
                                              • Done
                                            • File:Roon_linedrawing.png is tagged as lacking author and description. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
                                              • Added. Thanks Nikki.

                                                I reviewed this article during its A-class review, and by and large I have little to add.

                                                • Use {{lang}} templates for foreign-language terms please.
                                                  • Done
                                                • "..with the belt armor being 10 cm.." Avoid Noun plus -ing.
                                                  • Reworded
                                                • In the lead it says that "There, she formed part of the reconnaissance screen during the raid on Yarmouth in November.." and in the body of the article, this is described as "The ships then escorted the main body of the High Seas Fleet during the raid on Yarmouth on 2–3 November." It's not immediately apparent to me if those two descriptions are exactly synonymous. Assuming that they are, I vastly prefer the plain phrasing used in the body; consider adopting similar in the lead, as "reconnaissance screen" is not accessible to a layperson.
                                                  • Works for me
                                                • "Roon was ordered under the provisional name Ersatz Kaiser.." If I've learnt anything from these articles, that means she was replacing a ship called Kaiser, right? Can that be mentioned explicitly?
                                                  • Done
                                                • "Prince Heinrich had pressed for such a cruise the previous year.." It would be worth providing context of why Prince Heinrich's opinion mattered. (A quick look suggests he was commander of the High Seas Fleet?)
                                                  • Good idea
                                                • "..the armored cruiser Blücher, which had been transferred to I Scouting Group, and on 25 August.." It's not that important either way, but I'm not sure the explanation of why Blücher needed replacing is necessary in this article.
                                                  • I think we could safely lose that.
                                                • I wonder if so much detail is necessary in the Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby paragraph. Including all the specific times seems to me to give the impression that it is very important information, and I felt like I had to pay very close attention. The stylistic difference to the rest of the article makes it stand out, and I'm not sure the content warrants it. Harrias talk 15:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                • That's a fair point - I've trimmed the times.
                                                  Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                  This article is about the history of home venues used by the Wales national football team. This article was started quite sometime ago and was on my list of possible improvements for sometime before I finally got round to it. I think it makes for a relatively interesting read and is now up to the standard required to be a FA. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                  • Quick comment – Move south and pre-war success: In "made it the last Wales International held at a rugby ground until 1989", why is "International" capitalized?

                                                    Very comprehensive, a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                    • You overuse "host", sometimes twice in one sentence. I realise there's bound to be some repetition, but a bit more variation is possible
                                                    • I've removed around a quarter of the uses and replaced them with alternatives. Let me know if there are anymore that seem particularly repetitive that I may have missed. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                    • alternate venues—unless you are writing in US English, I think you mean "alternative". If the word is what you meant, say which venues are alternating - Done
                                                    • one English newspaper—no harm to name it here
                                                    • Unfourtantley, the source itself only refers to an English newspaper rather than the specific title. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                    • Crowd control was an issue again as large numbers of spectators watched the game for free—not sure that this is a crowd control issue, just free spectating
                                                    • I've replaced crowd control with gate control to hopefully reflect the situation clearer. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                    • "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau—perhaps a Saesneg translation too? - Done
                                                    • dramatic drop in attendance for international matches due to Welsh results in qualifying competitions—insert "poor"? - Done

                                                    @Jimfbleak: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've addressed the points above. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                    No other queries, supporting above
                                                    • Just doing a random sampling of online sources.
                                                      Ref 5--Used accurately, no close paraphrasing
                                                      Ref 8 (also checked #7 as both are paired)--Information present, used appropriately. Happy with these.
                                                      Ref 33--Mentions the stand being destroyed by fire but I can't see any reference to thieves with explosives; where did this part come from?
                                                      Added a source for that. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Ref 45--Source doesn't mention that the attendance record stood for 40 years, but does state that it was a record for the venue. I would assume the length of the record may be mentioned in the previous ref (44) but this is an offline print source which I can't check. If it is, consider appending an inline citation after the "40 years" claim.
                                                      Added an inline cite. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Ref 67--On its first use, it's used appropriately, but it might be worth noting why the Taylor Report lead to a decrease in capacity (converting standing to all seated) as this information is in the source to be used. Second use is appropriate too.
                                                      Added the conversion to seating info. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Ref 83--Not sure of this one. The article specifically mentions success in the 2016 Euros which the source doesn't specify ("In the intervening seven years, fans have packed the smaller Cardiff City Stadium to create a fervent atmosphere, which has been an important factor in recent Welsh success", but that doesn't attribute anything to any one tournament). This may need either reworded or an additional source used to back up the specific claim.
                                                      Added a source that mentions the atmosphere as a positive during the qualifying campaign. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Ref 85--Seems fine. Perhaps a degree of reading between the lines for the claim of Cardiff's capacity being an issue but it does mention increased crowd size definitively and the claim of future matches for large crowds is there in black and white.
                                                    • Seems like there are a few issues which could be looked at here; I can take another look at this once these have been addressed. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      @Grapple X: Thanks for taking a look, I've addressed the points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      The additions seem fine; AGF on the new print source as always. I'll check another few at random shortly just to make sure nothing else has slipped through the cracks. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 21:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                    • Round two:
                                                      The current ref 83 (Grauniad article) points to a "page not found" error. It might be possible to relocate it on their site or try an archival link.
                                                      Fixed url. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Ref 9--fine
                                                      Ref 71--fine
                                                      Ref 68--Source doesn't mention the claim that "the side suffered its first defeat at the site of the National Stadium since its original incarnation in 1910".
                                                      Added further cite. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Ref 6--Source doesn't mention Hampden Park nor when it hosted any international matches; only that the Racecourse is the record-holder.
                                                      This was actually from the previous ref but a copy editor suggested splitting the refs to separate sentences. I've moved them back together now so this covers the info. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                    • Having taken two passes at the sources here, it unfortunately seems to me that although this article is well-researched and put together, it isn't necessarily reflective of its sources--I'm sure a lot of this information is true but it's been fairly common to see information attributed to sources which make no mention of it. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 12:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      I think it's a little unfair to suggest that given the points I've addressed in the second pass. A handful of positioning fixes has fixed the majority of your points, that doesn't suggest the sources are not reflected correctly. Kosack (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Yes, every instance raised has been addressed so far but there have been several instances of sources used to cite information which they don't mention, which is more than a "positioning fix". I haven't gone as far as opposing, as the prose and comprehensiveness all seem more than good enough, but it's at least fair to point out the teething problems with sourcing so any passing co-ord can judge whether they're satisfied that it's been adequately addressed. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      @
                                                      Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      This article is the sequel to Balfour Declaration, which achieved WP:FA status in 2017. The Mandate for Palestine was the document which made the Balfour Declaration a reality, inventing the state which became modern Israel and the Palestinian territories, and in an adjacent set of events it also invented the state which became modern Jordan. The article illustrates the competing political dynamics during 1917-23 which led to this outcome, and shows how the borders of these countries were negotiated from scratch. No other online resource comes close. The mandate was formally allocated by the League of Nations on 25 April 1920, so I am aiming to get this article to WP:TFA on the centenary on 25 April 2020. I am grateful that the article has undergone a thorough GA review by FunkMonk and others, and has been copyedited by Miniapolis at the GOCE. Like the Balfour Declaration article, this article has many important quotations set out in the endnotes, which serve to maintain the stability of the article in this highly contentious topic area of Israel-Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Comments by Constantine

                                                      I will comment here as I go along. Constantine 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      • I am somewhat confused as to why the Balfour Declaration comes before Sykes-Picot. From 1914 we jump to 1917, and then back to 1915. A strictly chronological approach would probably be least confusing for the average reader. And perhaps an opening paragraph with the situation in Palestine should be added, giving the respective populations of Arabs and Jews (with numbers), and making a brief introduction on Zionism and nascent Arab nationalism in the Ottoman empire (brief mentions/explanations with links to the relevant articles would suffice). Constantine 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      I have been giving this comment a lot of thought. The reason I haven't gone for strictly chronological in the background section is that all three sets of agreements were discussed and negotiated over the same period, such that chronological would mean jumping back and forth between Zionist, Arab and French discussions. I consider that more difficult to follow and digest than keeping the three counterparties separate (which mirrors the reality that during the war these discussions took place in silos). So I would like to retain the structure, but will work on some clarifying tweaks. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      @Onceinawhile: Then perhaps it would be a good idea to have an introductory/overview paragraph at the beginning, outlining the parties involved and their aims. I know just enough about the period not to get confused, but that certainly won't apply to the average reader. Constantine 11:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "Palestine was part of the coastal exclusion" it is not immediately apparent what the "coastal exclusion" was. This should be made clearer, i.e, that the "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo" were coastal (with reference to the map). Constantine 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "At the Peace Conference, Prime Minister Lloyd George told Georges Clemenceau" link and mention Paris Peace Conference as well as its date (in the narrative before and after we are still in 1915), introduce the British Prime Minister and his French counterpart as such, and link them. Constantine 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • " led by Emir Faisal," mention that he was Hussein's son, thus linking the "Hashemites" to the Sherifate of Mecca mentioned above.
                                                      Fixed, with explanation of Hashemite moved earlier in the article Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • " The Faisal–Weizmann Agreement was signed on 3 January 1919, " briefly mention what this agreement was, or at least that it was signed by Faisal and a WZO representative (perhaps introduce Weizmann here instead of the next paragraph).
                                                      Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • Look out for inconsistent capitalization and endash for "Sykes–Picot Agreement"
                                                      Fixed both Onceinawhile (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "British Foreign Minister Curzon ultimately decided" link Curzon here, and look out for inconsistent mention of him; I suggest "Lord Curzon" at the first reference and simply "Curzon" after, or "Lord Curzon" throughout.
                                                      Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "At the end of September 1920, Curzon instructed Vansittart" what was Vansittart's capacity?
                                                      Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "and autonomous Transjordan under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Kingdom of Hejaz" the links here are a bit WP:EASTEREGGy. Perhaps amend the first to include the entirety of "autonomous Transjordan", or better yet, "an autonomous Emirate of Transjordan", and somehow introduce the Sharifian Solution in the main text, since using it to pipe "Hashemite" doesn't make much sense.
                                                      Fixed, with explanation of Sharifian Solution Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • " diplomats from the League of Nations": move the link up to "were supervised by a third party: the League of Nations.".
                                                      Done Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "the Treaty of Sèvres was about to be re-negotiated" link the treaty
                                                      Done Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • as a general note, given the unusually high reliance on quotes, which provide much of the article's content, I strongly recommend adding links to the footnotes. For example, the "Jerusalem Riot of April 1920" should be linked to 1920 Nebi Musa riots. Constantine 16:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      I have added links throughout the footnotes Onceinawhile (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "Stanley Baldwin, replacing Bonar Law, set up a cabinet subcommittee" link both and explain their role/capacity
                                                      Done. I removed Bonar Law as doesn’t need mentioning Onceinawhile (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "Quigley noted that", "As Huneidi noted," who/what are they?
                                                      Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • The concept of a "Class A mandate" is introduced in the article in the very first sentence, but is never properly explained, and completely left unmentioned in the body of the text until quite late.
                                                      I have removed it from the lede, as it is unnecessary jargon. I have added a more fulsome explanation in the League of Nations mandates section Onceinawhile (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "With the Fascists gaining power in Italy, Mussolini delayed the mandates' implementation." link March on Rome, add date, and explain that the Fascist leader Mussolini was the new Italian Prime Minister.
                                                      Done, good suggestion. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "On 23 August 1923, the Turkish assembly in Ankara ratified the Treaty of Lausanne by 215 of 235 votes." the significance of this is not immediately apparent here, and it is already better covered, in terms of context, in the following "Turkey" section. Recommend removing this and amend "The dispute between France and Italy was resolved by the Turkish ratification" by adding "... of the Treaty of Lausanne (see below)" or analogous.
                                                      • "When memorandum to the Council of the League of Nations was submitted" -> "When the memorandum was submitted to the Council of the League of Nations"
                                                      Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "because it required the agreement of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk." that is entirely incorrect, the treaty required no assent by Kemal. There was a quasi-civil war between the Ottoman government and Kemal's nationalist movement, at the same time as the latter's fight with the Allied powers (France, Greece, Britain). Just leave it at the fact that the treaty was not ratified, and that following the victory of Kemal's Turkish National Movement in the Turkish War of Independence, the treaty was revised at Lausanne.
                                                      • "of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement" link these terms
                                                      Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "The Negev region was added to Palestine" do we know why?
                                                      Explanation added Onceinawhile (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      That's it for now. The article is well-written, well-referenced, and very informative, and I don't see any major obstacles to it getting the FA star. I will definitely need to re-read it a couple of times with a clearer head though. Constantine 17:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      @
                                                      • Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up
                                                      I have scaled up a number of the images
                                                      • File:1918_British_Government_Map_illustrating_Territorial_Negotiations_between_H.M.G._and_King_Hussein.png is of quite poor quality
                                                      You are quite right, and you rightly made the same comment at the Balfour Declaration FAC. As I said then, unfortunately there is no better quality version available anywhere outside the UK Government Archives. It is the only known government map illustrating the 1915 agreement, so is highly notable.
                                                      • File:The_high_commissioner's_first_visit_to_Transjordan,_in_Es-Salt..jpg: when/where was this first published?
                                                      I have added a better tag for this one, PD-Matson. The LOC is explicit that this image, and a few thousand others, have no known restrictions.
                                                      • File:Cair_Conference_12_March_memo_regarding_Transjordan.jpg: the UKGov tag is sufficient, life+70 is not needed. Same with File:British_Government_memorandum_regarding_Article_25_of_the_Palestine_Mandate_with_respect_to_Transjordan,_25_March_1921.jpg
                                                      Removed as suggested.
                                                      • File:Italy_Holds_Up_Class_A_Mandates;_League_Council_Has_Failed_to_Meet_Her_Views_Regarding_Palestine_and_Syria_-_July_20,_1922.jpg: who is the author? Same with File:Zionist_Rejoicings._British_Mandate_For_Palestine_Welcomed,_The_Times,_Monday,_Apr_26,_1920.png
                                                      Both of these are unknown authors. The same goes for File:Syrians Present Grievances to League (of Nations, 1921).jpg. In the US (for the two NYT articles), they fall under the Work for hire designation, so were out of copyright after 95 years. In the UK (for The Times) “ If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created”[7]
                                                      Suggest in both cases then not using the life+70 tag given that that's not the rule being applied. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Done Onceinawhile (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • File:British_Proposal_for_the_Southern_Boundary_of_Palestine,_1919_Paris_Peace_Conference.png: where was this first published?
                                                      Certainly prior to 1963 (I have clarified on the commons page), so UK Crown Copyright (which applies worldwide) has expired.

                                                      Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      @Nikkimaria: thank you for the above comments, which I have now addressed. Are there any other images which you think should be scaled up? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      I would say both the first and the last map. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Thank you – this has been done.
                                                      • Lead looks good. In the last paragrah, "Britain announced their intention" should be "Britain announced its intention." Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Background

                                                      • Link and define Zionism and add a sentence or two about the Zionist movement prior to the Balfour Declaration. Right now I don't feel like the background goes back far enough. Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • For the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the French got modern-day Syria and Lebanon as a result of Sykes-Picot, didn't they? Why do you only discuss what the British received and fail to mention that? Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • In the second to last paragraph of this section, you mention the protectorate system. I'm guessing that this is what existed under the Ottoman Empire. Can you explain what it was?
                                                      More to follow. Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Assignment to Britain Palestine

                                                      • "This proposed that three sons of Sharif Hussein – who had since become King of the Hejaz, and his sons emirs (princes)"-I'm having difficulty determinig what this means. Please rephrase. Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • T.E. Lawrence's name is mentioned in the third paragraph here. Is this the first time that it appeared? If so, it should be linked. Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "Palestine being within the area of Arab independence." I'm confused. In that case, there would be no Palestine, correct? Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • What kinds of advantages, economic or otherwise, did Britain receive by administering the mandate? Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Addition of Transjordan

                                                      • "indicating their political ideas about its future.." What does this mean? Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • Why would Transjordan be added to Palestine? Display name 99 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Drafting

                                                      • "The February 1919 Zionist Proposal to the Peace Conference was not discussed at the time, since the Allies' discussions were focused elsewhere." I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to say where. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • I'm a little bit confused now. I see a draft made in December 1919 is mentioned but I can't find anywhere what the provisions were. It's also unclear to me why there had to be so many drafts. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "The inclusion of Article 25 was approved by Curzon on 31 March 1921, and the revised final draft of the mandate was forwarded to the League of Nations on 22 July 1922." This comes off poorly to me unless we first explain what Article 25 was. I feel that we should explain the circumstances that led to the article, say what was in the article, and then say when it was approved. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      I have a number of questions specifically about the sub-section "1921–22: Palestinian Arab attempted involvement:"

                                                      • How was the Palestinian Arab Congress formed? What if any political authority did it have? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • What executive committee? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • What was the "4th" Palestinian Arab Congress? And shouldn't it be written as Fourth rather than 4th? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • Why would Conservative members of Parliament provide encouragement to the Arabs? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Oppose-I'm sorry but I do not think that this is FA quality right now. It is clear to me from my comments and what was identified by Sarastro1 that the article contains plenty of good information but at times is convoluted and ambiguous. In addition, my comments have been posted for nearly 10 days and only one of them has been addressed with no explanation for the inaction. I agree with Sarastro1 that the article would benefit from a copyedit by an unvinvolved editor, especially one who is an expert in the topic, which I admit that I am not. I recommend peer review as a possible solution. Display name 99 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                      @

                                                      This is a substantial article on a complex and difficult topic. As such, the nominator deserves congratulations. The down side is that reviewers can be a little reluctant to wade in, especially as there are over 8,000 words (which I have absolutely no doubt are necessary). I've made a start, and it looks good overall. I've checked a couple of sources, which looked ok to me, but at some point I may do one or two further checks. From a first look, I do wonder if this would benefit from a copy-edit from an uninvolved editor; there are a few parts that are difficult to understand and other parts where the prose might benefit from a massage. Content-wise, it looks good so far. I'm not an expert on this at all, and most of what I know comes from studying this in history for GCSE a loooooong time ago. So overall, maybe this needs a touch more work, but I have no major concerns so far. Here's what I've found over the last day or two, as far as the start of the "Addition of Transjordan" section. Sarastro (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      • ”envisaging the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship”: Fused participle. Maybe “…economic union; Jerusalem would be transferred…”
                                                      Changed to "on 29 November 1947; this envisaged the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union, and with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship." Onceinawhile (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "added to the mandate following a March 1921 conference”: A bit of an easter egg here; maybe make it “following the Cairo Conference in March 1921”?
                                                      Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • ”By late 1917, in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration, the wider war had reached a stalemate with two of Britain's allies not fully engaged; the United States had yet to suffer a casualty, and the Russians were in the midst of the October revolution.”: I wonder if this could be split into two sentences after “stalemate”?
                                                      Done Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • ”The term "national home" had no precedent in international law,[9] and was intentionally vague about whether a Jewish state was contemplated.[9]”: Why do we have the same reference twice in the same sentence? Once at the end would seem to be enough. Also, I’m not too sure why we are using “p 82 ff” when as far as I can see, everything is referenced on p 82 (and possibly 83, so maybe pp 82-83 would suffice?). A similar issue with reference 20 in the next section (the same citation twice in a sentence). Neither of these is a particular issue, I’m just curious about the reason.
                                                      "ff" replaced by 82-83 as suggested. I have kept the same reference twice in those two sentences, on the basis that each separate clause represents an important point. We are being crystal clear that both clauses within the sentence are explicitly sourced. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • ”The primary negotiations leading to the agreement occurred between 23 November 1915 and 3 January 1916, on which date the British and French diplomats Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot initialled an agreed memorandum”: Presumably the latter date? Perhaps this should be specified?
                                                      Specified as suggested Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • Reference 24 is to “Eugene Rogan, The Fall of the Ottomans, p.286” but this is not in the bibliography.
                                                      Added Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • ”His delegation made two initial statements to the peace conference”: As we don’t call it Faisal’s delegation in the previous sentence, and the subject of the previous sentence is the delegation itself, I think this may be better as “The delegation made…”
                                                      Amended as suggested Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • ”The Hashemites had fought with the British…”: Specify during the war?
                                                      Done Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "Although France required the continuation of its religious protectorate in Palestine, Italy and Great Britain opposed it. France lost the religious protectorate but, thanks to the Holy See, continued to enjoy liturgical honors in Mandatory Palestine until 1924 (when the honours were abolished).” A bit to sort here. We would be better without close repetition of “religious protectorate” and “honours” (especially as we spell it two ways in the same sentence). Also, what are liturgical honours? This is their only mention in the article. We need to at least link “Holy See” and what does the Holy See have to do with anything?
                                                      • ”As Weizmann reported to his WZO colleagues in London in May 1920,[b] the boundaries of the mandated territories were unspecified at San Remo and would "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" at a later stage.” This seems a bit of an afterthought as the rest of the paragraph is not about this. Also, “As Weizmann reported…” appears to be a little bit of editorialising using Wikipedia’s voice. It may be more neutral to simply say “Weizmann reported…”
                                                      • ”British forces retreated in spring 1918 from Transjordan after their first and second attacks on the territory”: Why did they retreat? I’m a little lost here, and can’t quite tell what is going on.
                                                      • ”Britain and France did agree on the East border of Palestine being the Jordan river as laid out in the Sykes–Picot Agreement”: Perhaps better as “Britain and France agreed that the East border of Palestine would be the Jordan river as laid out in the Sykes–Picot Agreement”, but why are we capitalising East?
                                                      Fixed and suggested, and replaced East with eastern. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • ”Regarding Faisal's Arab Kingdom of Syria, the French removed Hashim al-Atassi's newly-proclaimed nationalist government and expelled King Faisal from Syria after the 23 July 1920 Battle of Maysalun.” This is the first we have mentioned of any kingdom of Faisal’s. I’m a little confused where this comes from, and how Faisal acquired a kingdom when the last we read of him, he was the head of a delegation. There is probably a simple explanation and I’m possible being a little thick, but I think we could make this more transparent.
                                                      • Comma use: I'm not totally sure we are being consistent in how we are using commas at the start of sentences:
                                                        • ”Immediately following their declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, the British War Cabinet began” (comma)
                                                        • ”By late 1917, in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration,” (comma)
                                                        • ”Between July 1915 and March 1916 a series of ten letters” (no comma)
                                                        • ”In anticipation of the Peace Conference, the British…” (comma)
                                                      The rule I have applied is to use a comma after an introductory dependent clause. I didn't have it in the 1915-16 sentence only because that sentence has quite a lot of breaks already. I have added it back, but am now thinking the sentence should be restructured. I'd be grateful if you have any ideas here. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Sarastro (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Comments from T8612

                                                      • Why did you make such long footnotes? and two series of notes? I feel that the readability of the article is really impacted by this formatting (think about those reading it on mobile!). I would much prefer seeing the content of these notes in the text body; the article is not that long for such a complex topic (55k characters), and some sections are quite small ("Turkey", "Legality" have only one paragraph). Imo there is no need to add such long verbatim quotes from primary and especially secondary sources. The former can be interesting when really significant (but not that many), not the latter (unless from a very influential academic or book). All the info in the notes starting by "Biger wrote" etc. should be synthesised and added in the text body. I don't think it is FA standard right now, although you have made a great job at collecting all the material. Now you just have to make it more encyclopedic. T8612 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Hi @T8612: thank you for reviewing the article. You raise an important topic. I last discussed it in detail with the late great Brian Boulton in this thread from the first FAC review of the Balfour Declaration article. I explained the following, which is equally applicable to this article: "The subject of this article is the origin of perhaps the most controversial and hotly debated of all modern conflicts. I have edited in the Israel Palestine area for some time, and have learned that quotes in footnotes are a must in order to avoid edit wars on controversial topics. As it says at WP:IPCOLL, every topic is described differently by both sides. Israelis, Palestinians and their respective supporters come to read this article all the time - when they see something that doesn't fit the narrative they thought they knew, let's just say that they do not bother to go and check the source book out of the library before editing." The rest of the thread goes on to provide more detail.
                                                      It has proven to work; both Balfour Declaration and this article went from edit warring battlegrounds to completely stable articles after the addition of these detailed footnotes.
                                                      Are there any footnotes in particular which stand out to you? Whilst I feel strongly about the overall concept, I am open to cutting them down further wherever possible. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      I understand, and I remember having read the Balfour declaration article and being similarly bothered. Would it be possible to transcribe important speeches and newspapers articles on Wikisource? This way they would be easily accessible without making the article overwhelming with quotes/notes everywhere. On edit wars, I thought every article on Palestine had an extensive protection. Isn't it enough?

                                                      I'm going to try rewriting a section to show you how I would have written it (the one entitled "British Parliament"):

                                                      British public and government opinion became increasingly opposed to state support for Zionism. Even Sykes had begun to change his views after a last trip to Palestine in late 1918, as he considered the situation could become dangerous.[ref to Leslie's book] Following a visit to Palestine in February 1922, the Conservative media mogul Viscount Northcliffe—who notably owned the Times and The Daily Mail—launched a campaign in the press against Zionism, fearing that it would upset Muslims in India. On 15 February, he published from Cairo a statement suggesting Palestine risked becoming a second Ireland.[Defries ref] Concerned by his fading support in Parliament, Churchill telegraphed Samuel—who had begun his role as High Commissioner for Palestine 18 months earlier—asking for cuts in his expenditure, so he hoped he could dodge the critics on the cost of supporting Zionism for the British taxpayer.[ref to Huneidi] This policy initially failed as the House of Lords rejected a Palestine Mandate incorporating the Balfour Declaration by 60 votes to 25 after the June 1922 issuance of the Churchill White Paper, following a motion proposed by Lord Islington.[refs to Huneidi and Hansard] The Lords' vote was only symbolic though, since it was subsequently overruled by a vote in the House of Commons thanks to skilful political manoeuvring from Chruchill. He avoided showing his support to Zionism, focusing instead on imperial and strategic considerations, especially the need for Britain to remain in the area to control the Suez Canal.[refs to Hansard and Mathew].

                                                      There is more info and less notes. The role of Northcliffe is important, but with your current formatting, you put the info in a quote that leads to a note; that's not ideal and easy to follow. T8612 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Hi @
                                                      Nominator(s): Constantine 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      The Battle of the Defile was one of the largest and most important battles of the late Umayyad period. Along with the Battle of Marj Ardabil a few months earlier (and arguably the Battle of Tours a year later), it marked the end of Umayyad expansion. The casualties suffered also helped undermine the Umayyad regime, increasing disaffection in Khurasan and removing many of the regime's most loyal forces from the metropolitan regions to the frontier, thus paving the way for the Abbasid Revolution. We are also fortunate to have one of the most complete accounts of a battle preserved in al-Tabari, and we can reconstruct events with more detail than usual for the period. The article was written in 2012, and passed both GA and MILHIST ACR back then, but I've kept working on it since, and I think the time has come to put it forward for FA. Constantine 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      CommentsSupport by PM

                                                      A great article. I have a few comments:

                                                      • when mentioning the conquest of Transoxiana by the Muslims, perhaps indicate that this was under the Umayyad Caliphate and link at first mention in the body
                                                        • Good point, done
                                                      • suggest "led to the abandonment of most of Transoxiana by the Caliphate's forces except for the region around Samarkand." rather than the current sentence structure
                                                        • Good point, done
                                                      • might it be better to use Umayyad consistently rather than Muslim or Arab when referring to the army? I initially thought this was a third force, not knowing much at all about early Muslim and Arab history
                                                        • That is a common complaint, I know. I have tried to explain this when introducing the Umayyad Caliphate, although it is somewhat awkward.
                                                      • is there any estimate of what size Junayd's army was when he set off towards Samarkand?
                                                        • Nothing in the sources, AFAIK, and the evidence is scattered. There were 50,000 men sent as settlers when Khurasan was first conquered, but they don't appear to have much increased. Under Qutayba ibn Muslim, there were 47,000 Khurasani Arabs and about 20,000 native levies. Junayd clearly did not have as many available, either because they were sent on other missions, in garrisons (12,000 in Samarkand alone), or simply not called up. But the initial force before the desertions cannot have been much larger than 30,000 men.
                                                      • is there any record of how many Türgesh circled around to attack the baggage train and stragglers near Kish and who their commander was? I assume this wasn't part of the main Türgesh force attacking within the pass?
                                                        • No. The Türgesh are mostly portrayed as the typical faceless horde by the Arab authors, only when the Khaghan or some other senior leader was active did they mention it (and often "the Khaghan" is a stand-in for the Türgesh as a whole). TBH, I doubt the Arabs themselves knew exactly who was attacking them. Tabari merely mentions the Arab commander and that he "suffered martyrdom".
                                                      • link counterattack
                                                        • Done
                                                      • did Sawra survive the relief debacle?
                                                        • No he did not, it is mentioned that he perished in the fire with his companions. Clarified in the text
                                                      • suggest "The events of the Defile"→"The battle"
                                                        • Good point, done
                                                      • should it be Khurasani's rather than Khurasanis'
                                                        • Why? "Khurasani" is an adjective like "German". The sources use "Khurasanis" for the plural throughout.
                                                      • suggest "In the aftermath of the setbacks of this battle"
                                                        • Hmmm, since I give the name of Marj Ardabil next, I prefer to use the name here as well.
                                                      • Suluk is mentioned as the commander of the Türgesh in the infobox, but was he present at this battle? If so, perhaps mention that when the Türgesh force is first mentioned?
                                                        • I can't believe I missed that. Clarified that Suluk was the khaghan.

                                                      That is all I can find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Thanks Peacemaker67, I've addressed the points you raised. If there is anything else, please let me know. Cheers, Constantine 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      All good, supporting.
                                                      • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • Link terms and names in image captions.
                                                        • Done.
                                                      • Suluk is duplinked.
                                                        • Done.
                                                      • "in al-Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings, which in turn draws upon the work of the earlier historian Abu'l-Hasan al-Mada'ini, written about a century after the events." Which work does "written about a century after the events" refer to? You could give the time for both works here.
                                                        • Done.
                                                      • I had never seen the word "defile" used in this way before. Is it a synonym of pass? Now it is first used in the article body at "Junayd used the diversion to break through to Samarkand, but as his army exited the defile". Is there a way the term could be used earlier in a context that makes it clearer what it is?
                                                        • Done and linked to wiktionary.
                                                      • It is also a bit confusing that you say both "Defile" and "defile".
                                                        • Capitalized is for the battle, changed to the full name now to avoid confusion.
                                                      • You use Arab and Muslim interchangeably throughout. Were the armies predominantly Arab at this time, or did they not also contain many converts of other ethnicities? For example "the Arab losses at the Defile led to a rapid deterioration of the Muslim position in Central Asia".
                                                        • This is a bit complicated. Indeed, Umayyads, Arabs, and Muslims are used interchangeably, although they are obviously not entirely coterminous. However, this reflects the practice in the sources and is also a way to keep reminding the readers that the Umayyads were an Arab Muslim regime, and that a retreat/advance of the Umayyads also represented a retreat/advance of Islam. The army certainly did contain allied contingents and native converts, but in most cases they are not mentioned except when they had some role to play. For the events described here, allied rulers are completely absent from the sources for the Umayyad army, whether because most native rulers had switched over, or because they were not part of the campaign (Junayd left for Samarkand with the army of the Khurasani Arabs) or because they are ignored. The native converts or mawali are seldom differentiated from the bulk of the Khurasani Arab settlers, chiefly because they were a) subordinate and b) affiliated with the Arab tribes. Also see the note regarding the army's composition.
                                                      • You mention way down in the end that the local Khurasani warriors were also Arabs, I wonder if it should be mentioned earlier, I thought they might have been recruits of local ethnicities until that point.
                                                        • Good point, added a footnote as I couldn't find a good way to segue into a diatribe on that subject in the main body.
                                                      • "This was especially the case with the powerful Syrian army, the main pillar of the Umayyad regime" Maybe it should have been stated earlier that the Umayyads were themselves based in Syria?
                                                        • Good point, done.
                                                      • "to attack the Türgesh in the rear" At/from the rear? "in the rear" reads a bit, err, awkwardly.
                                                        • Indeed, done.
                                                      • "which one of the most detailed accounts of the entire Umayyad era" Only stated this strongly in the intro, which should not have unique info.
                                                        • Very good point, fixed.
                                                      • It is only stated in the intro that the Türgesh were Turkic.
                                                        • Good point, done.
                                                      • It should probably be mentioned in the intro that the aftermath of the battle led to internal turmoil, since this is an important part of the legacy section.
                                                        • Good point, done.
                                                      Hi
                                                      • "File:Caliphate 740-en.svg" The description is interesting, and I don't doubt the map's accuracy - but it needs to be based on a verifiable RS.

                                                      Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      @
                                                      • MOS:BQ states "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides." Eg "after the Day of the Defile, many Khurasani tribal surnames never again appear as part of the army in Khurasan, leading one to suppose they had been annihilated or their men had given up fighting. Some Khurasani troops remain, of course, but their divisions are now paralleled by Syrian ones. Thus it appears, particularly from Tabari's emphasis, that the Day of the Defile was practically a turning point in the war with the Turks, at least as far as the Khurasanis were concerned [...]."
                                                      • Cite 41: "p." → 'pp.'.

                                                      Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.
                                                      Nominator(s): Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      This article is the second in a series of four I've written about the Silesian Wars of the eighteenth century. It has already been through a Good Article Nomination and a Military History A-Class Review, and I've tried to proactively incorporate feedback the previous article received in its recently concluded FAC. I'd love to get some more constructive feedback on this one and try to get the whole series to featured quality. Thanks in advance to all reviewers and coordinators! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Support from Emicho´s Avenger

                                                      I support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emicho's Avenger (talkcontribs) 20:02, January 15, 2020 UTC (UTC)

                                                      Hi, thanks for stopping by but, for the record, declarations of support without accompanying commentary that addresses the

                                                      Are the following publications not relevant to this article?

                                                      • Reed Browning, "New views on the Silesian Wars", Journal of Military History, vol. 69, no. 2 (2005), pp. 521-534.
                                                      • Michael Hochedlinger, Austria's Wars of Emergence: War, State and Society in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1683–1797, Modern Wars in Perspective (London: Longman, 2003). (Especially that part of chap. 11 on the Second Silesian War, pp. 257-9).

                                                      Browning's article is historiographical and cites quite a number of works, mostly in German. I don't know how relevant they are. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC).

                                                      "New views on the Silesian Wars" is already cited in First Silesian War and Silesian Wars to discuss Frederick's motives for seizing Silesia, as well as to confirm that the historiography has always considered the wars to have ended in Prussian victory. I felt that since this war merely defended the territorial status quo ante bellum it would be less relevant to include a detailed discussion of why Prussia wanted to control Silesia (beyond obvious points like taxes and manpower); if reviewers here feel strongly that more should be added, I can try to adapt some of the material from "First Silesian War", but I figured that that material made more sense in that article. I'll look into "Austria's Wars of Emergence" and see if there's anything new. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      There were a few good bits in that book! I've added a citation from it to this article (as well as a couple in other articles in the series), and I'll keep looking for bits it has to offer that weren't in my other sources. -
                                                      • The map and the infobox image do not have alt text.
                                                      The infobox image currently has the alt-text "Painting of Prussian infantry marching in formation across a field at the Battle of Hohenfriedberg"; the map's alt-text was accidentally missing the "alt=", which has now been fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "By the middle of 1743 Austria recovered control of Bohemia, drove the French back" Should that not be 'By the middle of 1743 Austria had recovered control of Bohemia, driven the French back ... '?
                                                      Yes, I suppose the perfect is better there. Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "which established a new "Quadruple Alliance" among Austria, Britain–Hanover, Saxony, and the Dutch Republic" I am not sure that "among" works here; perhaps 'between'?
                                                      This seems to be a vexed issue. Style guides pretty much all agree that "between" is typical for two items and "among" for more than two, but it seems that "between" can be preferred when the items are specific and "among" when they are more generic. I incline toward the more concrete rule relating to quantity, but I could live with either word if the consensus among other editors is that "between" sounds better. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      My vote is for 'between', but it's "your" article.
                                                      Changed to "between". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "not long after relocating there, however, the Emperor died on 20 January" Is "however" necessary?
                                                      I've restructured the sentence to make it unnecessary. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "in late April Austria prepared for a more forceful invasion of Silesia" "more"? More forceful than what?
                                                      Quoting from our previous conversation about this phrase (in the A-Class review): "The point is that all through the winter Upper Silesia had been probed and harassed by Austrian light troops, but what occurred at this point was more of a proper 'invasion', meant to take and hold territory, although Austrian troops had already been in a sense 'invading' the region intermittently for months. I'm open to suggestions for an adjective that would better convey the distinct character of the 'invasion' of spring 1745." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Merely a suggestion: 'in late April Austria prepared for a large-scale invasion of Silesia'. or 'full-scale'?
                                                      Changed to "large-scale". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "a major Prussian victory, sending Prince Charles's army retreating in disarray back into the mountains they had just crossed" Getting a little word-to-watchy. Consider losing "major" - its importance seems clear enough from the context - and "they had just crossed" - a reader knows that, you told them in the previous sentence.
                                                      Respectfully, this is the battle that decided the outcome of the war, and I don't think it's peacocking to describe it as a "major" victory, though I've changed it to "decisive". This is a famous victory in German history, the inspiration for Der Hohenfriedberger march. If you insist, I'll remove the adjective completely, but I think it's justified. I've removed "they had just crossed". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      I am convinced, feel free to replace "major".
                                                      I've changed it to "decisive". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "ended in a solid Prussian victory" What is a solid victory? Maybe just a victory?
                                                      Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "Prussia and Britain hoped that the Austrian defeats at Hohenfreidberg and Soor would persuade Austria to come to terms and concentrate its efforts against France" I am unsure that this makes sense. Whose efforts are being concentrated?
                                                      "...would persuade Austria to come to terms and concentrate <Austria's> efforts against France". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "On 29 August Austria and Saxony had agreed on a more offensive alliance" More offensive than what?
                                                      When Saxony rejoined the war on the Austrian side in late 1744, it only agreed to participate in a defensive capacity by helping to drive Prussian forces out of Bohemia. It was at this point (August 1745) that Saxony changed its stated goal in the war to the offensive conquest of Prussian territory and committed an army to a northward march aiming at Berlin. Maybe I should emphasize the ostensibly defensive character of Saxony's participation up to that point somewhere earlier? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      I think that that would be helpful to a reader.
                                                      I've tried to make the contrast more clear with changes here and earlier, when Saxony first joins the war in 1744. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "a new advance from multiple directions" Does the multiple bit not imply that the advance(s) were plural?
                                                      Er, it was one strategic advance made by multiple forces? I don't have a military background, and I may not be using the terminology as clearly as possible. The point is that two armies were moving in a coordinated fashion toward the same destination; I don't know if that should be spoken of as one "advance" or two. I bow to the expertise of others. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Ah, I see what you are trying to say. Perhaps replace "advance" with 'offensive'?
                                                      Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "by repeatedly making separate peaces" I thought that he only made one peace in this war?
                                                      Yes, but also two others during the First Silesian War (only a few years before), and this occurrence was more significant in that it fit a growing pattern. The two previous separate peaces are discussed earlier in this article, so I think it's fair to expect the reader to be aware of them? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      Yes, it makes sense in the context of the sentence, but the previous sentence, the opening one of the paragraph, starts "The Second Silesian War" and the rest of the paragraph is something of a list. If you are convinced that the paragraph is clear to a reader then I won't push it.
                                                      I've changed it to "...by making another separate peace...". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "Frederick's repeated unilateral withdrawal from his alliances in the War of the Austrian Succession deepened the French royal court's distrust of him" You said more or less the same thing two paragraphs earlier.
                                                      That's true; it's structured as summary and then detail, just as the lead section says things that are later repeated in greater detail (with citations) in the body. If you feel that they're too close together, then I can try to reduce the overlap. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      It's not a major issue, but the closeness of the wording of both is eye catching. Possibly be briefer under Outcomes or give more detail under Prussia?
                                                      I've changed the first instance to "by making another separate peace ..., Frederick damaged his own diplomatic credibility." Does that seem better? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      • "his next perceived "betrayal" (the 1756 Convention of Westminster)" The nature of that could probably do with a little more detail for non-experts.
                                                      I've changed it to "(a defensive alliance with Britain under the 1756 Convention of Westminster)". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      That works well.

                                                      What a fine article. The trivia above was all I could find. The balance of background-main event-aftermath was within acceptable limits and both focus and breadth were good. Without actually dusting off some very old textbooks the article seems to include all of the main events and not miss any that I was expecting. And, as a bonus, it is readable. Good work.

                                                      Thank you for your time and feedback! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

                                                      Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                      Hi Bryanrutherford0, some further comments and responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      I am aware that discussion and/or action is ongoing regarding a couple of my minor niggles above, but I don't see that their resolution need hold up my support for this fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                      That all looks good Bryan. Sterling work.
                                                      • This is an excellent article. I reviewed the sources (not necessarily text) on this (the subject matter is in my academic wheel house) and I'd say that it is a good balance of old, middle aged, and new sources. There should be no way to write an article about this war without citing Carlyle, despite the aged source. The article has appropriate sourcing from new and newer work as well. Difficult to make anything on Frederick readable--especially when it's one d-battle after another. The nature of Frederick's deployment tactics, and his ability to move his army at incredible speed is clear from this article, and these attributes play important roles in the Third Silesian War. So source-wise, I support this article.

                                                        A couple of minor suggestions, after reading the article.

                                                        Under section on preparations: Maria Theresa, for her part, aimed at the same goals This is awkward. Marie Theresa established the same goals?

                                                        How about "Maria Theresa pursued the same goals she had from the beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession"? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        Yep, that's better. MT's goals never really changed. Consolidate the crown for her husband and later son, and get Silesia back. Loosing Silesia had long-term impact on Austria/Habsburg economic growth. auntieruth (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                        Under outcomes.... densely industrialised region (for the time period) also awkward. In what was, for the mid-18th century, a densely industrialised region...

                                                        Maybe the qualifier isn't needed at all. What about just "a densely industrialised region with a large population and substantial tax yields"? Should we trust the reader to understand that no part of the world in 1745 was "densely industrialised" by the standards of the 21st century? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        Yes, that's good. :)
                                                        Changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                        Prussia's seizure of Silesia made Austria into a lasting and determined enemy ....made Austria into its(?) lasting and determined enemy auntieruth (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                        That construction seems to me to suggest that Austria was Prussia's only or principal enemy. Are you saying that it seems unclear that the enmity meant is toward Prussia? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        seems to me that other enemies came and went, but you are setting up the dichotomy of Austria and Prussia contest for dominance in German states. Greater Germany, lesser Germany. Russia was the occasional enemy of Prussia, as was France, especially when allied with Austria, but generally, Austria and Prussia were going to duke it out with one another over the next 120 years. Except during Napoleonic Wars. But that's another story.
                                                        Fair point. I feel like "make an enemy of X" is the phrasing that just "sounds right" to my ear (as opposed to "make X my enemy"), and I'm not sure I can give a great grammar or sense reason why. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        Made them lasting and determined enemies....? Although they had an uneasy and unsuccessful alliance during the French Revolutionary Wars, and more successful in the last campaign of the Napoleonic Wars. auntieruth (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        So then, "The seizure of Silesia made Prussia and Austria into lasting and determined enemies"? I guess that works; changed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        I'm not married to any of these suggestions. I agree the qualifier in the first case isn't needed at all. I still support. Either way. :)

                                                        I am conscious that I reviewed this at both GAN and Milhist ACR, so may not be able to see the woods for the trees now. Anyway, the only point I have is:

                                                        • "By early 1744 both Prussia and Austria..." seems redundant, as we next go back in time from early 1744 and are told what these alliances were. I suggest deleting it.
                                                        Changed. Thank you for all your input and guidance in this process! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                        Great job on this, Bryan. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                        You are very welcome. Supporting.
                                                        Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                        This article is about Donald Brown, a New Zealand soldier of the First World War who was a posthumous recipient of the Victoria Cross. Only the second New Zealand soldier to be so recognised during the war, it was awarded for his actions during the Battle of the Somme in the First World War. The article was submitted to FAC last year but was closed without promotion due to a lack of comments at the time. Source and image reviews were done by Brianboulton and Nikkimaria respectively; it passed the source review and I have actioned the comments by Nikkimaria. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                        Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Zawed, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                        • suggest linking draper
                                                        • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • is there potentially a link for Totara?
                                                        • Done, as a red link. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • link trench warfare?
                                                        • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • link company, battalion and division?
                                                        • Done - I linked the second mention of battalion, not the first which was part of a unit name. I thought it could be potentially confusing otherwise. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • link commission
                                                        • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • link second lieutenant
                                                        • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • improving the existing defences: is it possible to very briefly explain this? I know what it means, but potentially "improving the defences" might be unknown to the general reader
                                                        • Have added a bit and expanded from another source, the one I relied on initially didn't shed much light on this. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • The Otago Regiment was back in the front line on 1 October -- is it possible to very briefly explain what they did in the intervening period?
                                                        • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • seizing of an enemy machine gun --> "seizing of a German machine gun"?
                                                        • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • in the References, The New Zealand Division on the Western Front 1916 – 1918 --> "1916–1918" (remove the spaces?)
                                                        • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • in the References, Official History of the Otago Regiment, N.Z.E.F. in the Great War 1914-1918: endash
                                                        • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • "October 26, 2009" --> 26 October 2009, for consistency
                                                        • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • McGibbon is probably overlinked in the References
                                                        • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • (brief biography details) --> not sure that the italics are necessary are here
                                                        • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • external links work (no action required)
                                                        • there are no dabs, all images have alt text (no action required)

                                                        Thanks for the review AustralianRupert. I have responded as above and my edits are here]. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                        No worries, added my support above. I made a couple of minor tweak also - please check you are happy with those changes. Regards,
                                                        • Please make it explicitly clear where I can verify middle name
                                                        • Have recited his name in full in the early life section, which is supported by the cite at end of that sentence. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • At least 1 link to First World War, in either the body or lead, would be nice
                                                        • Done. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • Source says McFarlane was her birth name (maybe {{nee}}?)
                                                        • Have added. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • Ref #3 has the notable fact that he was the youngest son. May I suggest "...was youngest son and one of 10 children..."?
                                                        • I've tried a variation so I didn't have to move cites around. How does it work for you? Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • "should Switch Trench" → "should the Switch Trench"
                                                        • I disagree but can see why you raised. In hindsight, the introduction of Switch Trench in the narrative wasn't handled well. I have rephrased it, is the current form acceptable to you? Zawed (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • I don't understand what you mean by "With Brown's death". Are you suggesting he would have otherwise advocated for his own nomination?
                                                        • No, not the intention. The issue here is that officialdom wasn't moving very fast to recognise his gallantry and it may have been different if he was still alive. I suspect that it was easier to take a go slow approach for a dead hero than a living one. I have rephrased this section. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                          @Zawed: "... recognise Brown's gallantry wand it was not until the officers ..." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • Coffeeandcrumbs thanks. I have fixed and dished out a self-administered face slap. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        Sorry. For some odd reason, my brain could not figure out that it was a misspelling of "and". I feel stupid. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • It would be easier to read if Arthur Foljambe was the subject of the sentence
                                                        Done. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • I have checked every online source cited and AGF on offline sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • Coffeeandcrumbs: thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have responded to your points above and with changes to the article. My edits are here. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                        • Support and source review completed – A short but heroic life is well documented in this article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                          • I should clarify that I am claiming this review at
                                                            • "Brown's company lost 123 men from its initial complement of 180 during the opening day of the battle." Is it known how many were wounded and how many killed?
                                                            • No, there is no breakdown of casualties within the company in the sources. I did find one for the battalion's casualties for the opening 24 hours but that probably won't be that helpful here.
                                                              Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                              When the Queen asked him what he did, Herbert Maryon responded that he was a "back room boy at the British Museum." This humble (or, perhaps, deer-in-headlights) comment belied the fact that Maryon, at Buckingham for his appointment to the Order of the British Empire, had only just embarked on his second career; a sculptor, metalsmith, and archaeologist for the first half of the 20th century, Maryon joined the museum's research laboratory at the end of the war and immediately set to work on the treasures from Sutton Hoo, one of Britain's greatest archaeological finds. In other work, he excavated one of Britain's oldest gold artefacts, restored a Roman helmet from Syria, and influenced a painting by Salvador Dalí. When nearly 90 he retired for the second time—then left for an around-the-world museum and lecture tour (where at least two Wikipedians, Peter Knutsen and AJim, heard him speak in 1962).

                                                              This exhaustive article has been built over the last three years. It is easily the most comprehensive take on Maryon's life and contributions, collecting information from hundreds of sources, and spawning a number of related articles (e.g., Works of Herbert Maryon). It was reviewed by KJP1 last May and recently given a fresh copyedit by me, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                              Image review

                                                              • As per Commons, signatures are eligible for copyright protection in the UK
                                                              • This page doesn't reflect an official policy and as far as I can tell, its UK commentary merely reflects one user's opinion from 12 years ago. None of the sources mentioned offer more than a line or two of analysis, and the one court decision mentioned in the UK is significantly mischaracterized, which makes me question the sweeping declaration that UK signatures should not be used on Wikipedia. A better analysis, I think, would ask whether the signature does more (and/or is intended to do more) than fulfill a utilitarian purpose; here, there is no question that it is simply a utilitarian signature.
                                                              • Our article and the source provided there seem to support the Commons claim. Do you have any alternate sources suggesting that signatures aren't protected by copyright in the UK? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                              • Newcastle Libraries only posts images to Flickr that they understand to be in the public domain (link).
                                                              • I understand that, I'm just wondering why they have that belief in this particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                              • Added.
                                                              • Yes. Both were published in 1954, so—assuming life +70 applies—the earliest either of them could enter the public domain is around 2024.

                                                              Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                              FunkMonk

                                                              • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                              • There are a bunch of duplinks in rather close succession throughout.
                                                              • Thanks, FunkMonk. Good point about the links—removed other than the post-nominal in the first paragraph, where the first link might get overlooked. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                              • "Herbert Maryon studied from 1896 to 1900" I assume his name is repeated in full here to separate him from his siblings mentioned before?
                                                              • Exactly.
                                                              • "Memorial to Bernard Gilpin in St Cuthbert's Church" Could you specify it is by Maryon and when? Perhaps that image should moved a paragraph down to where it is mentioned?
                                                              • Added. I'll probably eventually move it two paragraphs down and add a second photograph (of an earlier work) above, but have left it where it is for now.
                                                              • "The University of Reading War Memorial" Likewise, the caption establishes no context or date.
                                                              • "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were featured in The Studio and its international counterpart." Any dates for these?
                                                              • Added "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were completed towards the end of Maryon's tenure and the school and featured in The Studio and its international counterpart". I've left a specific date out since while they were presumably done in 1904—Maryon's last year at the school—they weren't featured in the magazines until 1905 (The Studio) and 1906 (International Studio).
                                                              • "along with an altar cross designed by Maryon for Hexham Abbey" Any of the crosses seen here?[9][10]
                                                              • Yes, right in the middle: it's the one seen here. It might be possible to get a photograph from Hexham Abbey of just the cross, which I need to follow up on.
                                                              • "vade mecum" Could this be explained in parenthesis?
                                                              • Why not full name for Cellini as everyone else?
                                                              • Only because he's frequently referred to by his last name only, but that's not a particularly good reason. Now given as Benvenuto Cellini
                                                              • Why not spell out W. G. Collingwood and G. M. Collinson? All other names are.
                                                              • W. G. Collingwood because he seems to have gone by his initials, but I've changed it for the sake of consistency. I haven't been able to find the full name of G. M. Collinson.
                                                              • "Three years later he witnessed" Could a year be given instead for simplicity? Wouldn't want to break up the flow by making the readers calculate, hehe...
                                                              • Done.
                                                              • "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" Is the first "at" needed?
                                                              • Nope, removed.
                                                              • "While there he published his second book, Modern Sculpture: Its Methods and Ideals." Date?
                                                              • 1933, added.
                                                              • "These included at least two plaques, memorialising George Stephenson,[18][127] and Sir Charles Parsons" Dates?
                                                              • "The statue was the subject of "adverse criticism" Why?
                                                              • Because it's ugly? Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the answer to this, despite a fair amount of searching. The footnote I've just added adds some depth; works by Jacob Epstein had recently been tarred and feathered, so the tarring of Maryon's was presumably a copycat event. Yet while that indicates where the students likely got the idea of tarring and feathering, it does not answer why they decided to take it out on Statue of Industry. A librarian at Durham University also found a brief excerpt in the November 1929 issue of the college's magazine The Northerner, but it doesn't shed much light either: "Angry critics of our 'industrious' raggers suggested that they should be punished by being splashed as they splashed the statue. They would then have been 'moist with their own – betarred.' [Tut! Tut! – ED.]". There are a few other ways I’ve been meaning to look into this—by emailing a few more libraries, and by trying to nail down the universe of newspapers/school magazines the statue might have been mentioned in—but so far it’s unclear.
                                                              • "when he was 64 or 65" Maybe bypass this irritating uncertainty by just saying mid-60s?
                                                              • Done.
                                                              • "He spent the World War II years, from 1939 to 1943, engaged in munition work." Any further details on this?
                                                              • Nothing, unfortunately. I've spent some time looking for this, but haven't been able to find anything beyond how Maryon described that time in a later bio, which is "Munition Work, 1939–43".
                                                              • "One of the gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns" Again, some context? Maybe add "excavated under Maryon in 1935" or similar?
                                                              • Now One of two gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns, matching the one excavated by Maryon in 1935
                                                              • The paragraph under "British Museum, 1944–61" is a massive wall of text, could it be broken in two?
                                                              • Done.

                                                              Many thanks, FunkMonk. Responses above. —Usernameunique (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                              • "to T. D. Kendrick" Full name?
                                                              • Done.
                                                              • "in the modern-day city of Homs" Odd phrasing?
                                                              • Now The Roman Emesa helmet had been found in the Syrian city Homs in 1936. I was been trying to indicate that Homs was once called Emesa (without repeating the word Emesa), but it was a bit clunky, and risked making it sound as if "Homs" is a recent name.
                                                              Ah, sorry, I misread the text the first time and didn't see the "of" somehow. I actually thought I had removed the comment, but there we go... FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                              • "D. E. L. Haynes" Full name?
                                                              • Done.
                                                              • "Not only the pose, but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression." Who said this? Long wuotes like that could use in-text attribution.
                                                              • Done: "Not only the pose," wrote de Callataÿ, "but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression."
                                                              • "W. S. Gilbert" Full name?
                                                              • Done.
                                                              • You mention Toronto twice, only linking it the second time
                                                              • Fixed.
                                                              • I wonder if the intro is a tad too long (a fourth)? The article itself isn't that long in relation.
                                                              I'll read the intro once this is answered, then I should be pretty close to support. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                              I've shortened it by about 12%—does it still look too long? It's a bit hard to chop it down, given how many things Maryon did; each careers seems to have produced at least half a dozen things worth talking about.
                                                              • " J. C. Orelli's" Full?
                                                              • Done.
                                                              • "tin are very brittle,"" Should the quotation mark not be before the comma?
                                                              • Impressed you made it that deep into that footnote. Fixed.
                                                              Thanks for the review,
                                                              • Avoid having more than three citations in a row, especially in the lead; it's distracting.
                                                              • I've cut down on these considerably, although have left a few places where the citations are independently useful. These are: different types of sources for newly discovered helmet fragments (see below), four sources which together support the general number of Maryon's publications, a variety of contemporaneous death notices, and in footnote 2, where the relevant literature (four articles/chapters) for a particular subject is listed.
                                                              • Footnote 8: The vast number of news sources is completely unnecessary. List one or two per country explicitly stating which country. That's much more useful and better for showing "international attention".
                                                              • How does it look now, with the cites now as external links rather than footnotes? Numerous newspaper articles were published, including in the United Kindom, Canada, and the United States. See § Colossus articles.
                                                              • Is it really necessary to cite five different obituaries? Just one probably suffices for this information. Move others to external links if they are providing unique info not in the article already. (per WP:EL) buidhe 02:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                              • Necessary is perhaps the wrong word, but (I think) they add some interesting color. As I mention below, the five citations are hardly pretty, but it's a collection of all of the immediate notices of Maryon's death: two in The Daily Telegraph two days after his death (likely paid and unpaid notices), two versions of the story picked up by The Canadian Press, and Maryon's probate. It's somewhat interesting to see how his death was dealt with by the papers, and I figured that's the best place to put those particular sources, given that the later obituaries are more detailed retrospectives on his career and are thus included earlier.
                                                              • Per WP:NOT and standard practice, we should not host an exhaustive list of Maryon's articles. Only keep those that are cited in the article or meet some other defined criteria.
                                                              • This might make more sense with someone who has more publications, or whose list of publications is widely accessible online. In Maryon's case, however, the list gives a sense of the breadth of his studies and interests; helpfully provides links to all but nine of his articles; and lists some contributions, such as early articles in obscure journals, that would otherwise be overlooked. The three articles in Goldsmiths Journal, for instance, are not even mentioned online, and are only able to be listed because I found a copy of Maryon's cv in the Penn Museum's archives, and Serial Number 54129 then dug up copies in the British Library.
                                                              • I would consider moving the complete list to a talk page or other non-mainspace location, just a suggestion. buidhe 02:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                              • Although personal preferences certainly vary, the list is something that I think adds value, and that (in keeping with my prior practice—see for example Caroline Brady § Publications and D. H. Turner § Publications) I would prefer to add. And though WP:NOT does not appear to say anything about the issue, WP:MOS § list of works actively supports its inclusion: "Complete lists of works ... are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet."

                                                              More to come. buidhe 14:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                              • Thanks for the comments, Buidhe, and sorry it's taken some time to get back to you on them. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                              • Buidhe, just wanted to check in to see if any have any further comments. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                              • "by 1954 Herbert Maryon had spent 60 years tracing back the history of the family." is cited to a self-published source which doesn't meet WP:SPS. Nominator added this back after it was removed by another user. buidhe 03:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                              • Buidhe, I’m sorry if you thought I meant to overlook your thoughts regarding the self-published work that you removed. I realize that undoing an edit is sometimes an overly abrupt maneuver, and I could have been more clear about why I did it. Did you happen to see my edit summary? I agree that it could be problematic to rely on it for whatever genealogical records are recorded within; I only meant to rely on for the discrete fact that Herbert Maryon had, as of 1954, spent some 60 years researching his family’s past. I don’t think it’s a controversial point—he probably just told the author as much in a letter, and the copious amount of material at the Essex Records Office makes clear that Maryon was indeed an amateur genealogist. But please let me know if you see it differently. By the way, I hope to respond to your other points later today. Best, —Usernameunique (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                              • Buidhe, further responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                              • It may well be true, but that doesn't exempt it from WP:RS. There's no evidence that the author of this work (who is not Maryon) meets the requirements for

                                                                I have to head off imminently, but a few quick comments to start with... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                • Sorry to be a bore, but... Could you say a little more about the Life Archive from which the lead image is taken? Are the images for sale? I'm just thinking about the not-often-mentioned non-free content criterion 2.
                                                                • I would hardly expect you to forget one of the NFC criteria! In 2008, Life and Google partnered to digitize the magazine's photograph archive, which Google published online. Google did the same for each issue of Life. Although copyright of the photographs remained with Time Warner, rights were made entirely "free for personal and research purposes" (see press release). The images are also available for purchase (see the image's page, which has a "Buy framed image" link); as one article mentioned at the time (link), the commercial benefit to Time Warner is that the photographs, by being made widely available, are now widely monetizable.
                                                                What you are presumably getting at is that the best way to uphold NFCC #2, "Respect for commercial opportunities," appears to be to use the photograph at its full resolution as available via Google. That way it can be given greater visibility, and those interested in purchasing the image—in original resolution and/or for commercial use—are more likely to see it. I'm glad you noticed that; it means that we can find synergy between the interests of readers and of the copyright holder, by using the image at its higher resolution.
                                                                • In the lead, you refer to him as a "teacher" - given that he's publishing books as well, and some of his positions were at major research universities, would "academic" or "lecturer" not be preferable?
                                                                • Changed "while a teacher" to "while teaching," although he is still referred to as a "teacher" elsewhere. In his own 1960 bio (link), he is referred to as "Teacher of Modelling and Crafts, University of Reading, 1908-27; ... Master of Sculpture and Lecturer in Anatomy and the History of Sculpture, King's College." I chose teacher partly because of that description, and partly because it is the most general; considering the many, frequently overlapping corners of Maryon's career, it seems incorrect to pin him down as an "academic" or a "lecturer." Meanwhile, I just realized that among all the many descriptions in the first sentence, teacher is not one of them. Might have to add a seventh...
                                                                • "coined the term pattern welding to" Words as words; you should use italics.
                                                                • Done; good catch, I had no idea that was a thing.
                                                                • Added. I've considered that one for a while, especially as it is singled out in the article, although hadn't until now because a) it doesn't come out all that well at small size, and b) I have my eyes set on another piece that I would like to get a photograph of. But this should do the trick for now.

                                                                Ok, more:

                                                                • Is "The Jewelers' Circular" a periodical? If so, italics? And one of what? The critical notes?
                                                                • italicized, and changed to One such note.
                                                                • "led the one-time secretary of the Metropolitan Museum of Art to label Maryon not" If you're not naming the secretary, shouldn't that be a one-time secretary? Surely there's more than one.
                                                                • Yep, done.
                                                                • "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" ??
                                                                • Fixed.
                                                                • "The book received mixed reviews.[115]" Can you say that while citing one source? Or is that a source that specifically says that the book received mixed reviews?
                                                                • It's a bit of a mixed review itself, so is being used more as an example than as support. I figured it's as good a place as any to cite that review.
                                                                • "with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas" Comma splice - also, what does the this refer to, here? Brown umber, or the mix?
                                                                • The plaster, actually, which leaves us with (I think) a grammatically correct but confusing sentence. How does it sound as: Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster; this was mixed with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas.
                                                                • That's a comma splice, I think. How about Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster; this was mixed with brown umber. Plaster was also used to fill the in-between areas. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • Meant to say "which was also" there but edited too quickly, but that is also problematic. How does Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; this was also used to fill the in-between areas. sound?
                                                                • I think that's still a little ambiguous. It's just not clear what the this refers to. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • Does this mixture was also used to fill the in-between areas do the trick?
                                                                • I thought it was just the plaster? Not "the mixture [of plaster and umber]"? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • Yes, sorry. Have been busy and edited too quickly. Meanwhile, that that also proves your point about it being unclear! I've changed it to Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; plaster was also used to fill the in-between areas.
                                                                • "Yet as Bruce-Mitford wrote" Is it fair to present this in Wikipedia's neutral voice? It reads like editorialising.
                                                                • No, that's a good point. Changed to Yet "[m]uch of Maryon's work is valid", Bruce-Mitford wrote. "The general character of the helmet was made plain."
                                                                • "while a 1948 paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method, employed on the Sutton Hoo sword and others,[27] of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal." I understand your desire to have references following punctuation, but I'm struggling with the commas here
                                                                • The awkward phrasing is more an attempt to keep the subject matter consistent, with Sutton Hoo mentioned in the prior sentence. How does Several of Maryon's earlier papers, in 1946 and 1947, described his restorations of the shield and helmet from the Sutton Hoo burial.[181][215] In 1948 another paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal;[29][216][217] the method was employed on the Sutton Hoo sword among others, giving them a distinctive pattern. sound?
                                                                • Could you perhaps make clear who claims that the hollow statue ideas were "great"?
                                                                • Clarified: Although "great ideas" according to the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ. We could get more specific, although "according to the professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the Oriental Institute of the University of Louvain Godefroid de Callataÿ" is a mouthful.
                                                                • This is only a half thought, but it seems strange to talk about marriages and children only at the end when wives and sons have been alluded to earlier.
                                                                • Let me know if you have a better suggestion, but I've spent some time thinking about this and I'm not sure how else to put it. There isn't a particularly logical place to put the 1903 marriage in the Keswick section (although "Mrs. Herbert J. Maryon" is mentioned there, and is presumably said wife, that relates to something that happened in 1906). And his son John is mentioned earlier—but in the last sentence of the preceding section. I think it might be easier to integrate the personal details into the rest of the article if we had better information, but all I've really found is names and dates.
                                                                • At least some of your footnote references probably need some italics without them being there.
                                                                • Is there a type of citation that you're noticing that needs them? I've italicized all of the newspaper and journal titles; are you thinking of things like "Mapping England" and "Historic England"?

                                                                Great read - I'm seeing very few issues. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                • Thanks, J Milburn—I appreciate the review. With apologies for tackling it piecemeal, I think I've finally responded to everything. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                I'm sure you've come to expect this comment from me, but, for the record... Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the article's lead is too long. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                Josh Milburn, yes, I was surprised to see your initial comments touch on only two thirds of the fair use/logical quotation/lead length trifecta! I’ve taken some more out of the first paragraph, although as noted above, I’ve had some difficulty in shortening it further; the guy did a lot of things in his 91 years & 2 careers, and a lot of it is noteworthy. Is there anything In particular you would consider removing from the lead? —Usernameunique (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                Images (again, sorry): Josh Milburn (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                • I'm happy with your explanation for the lead image. If we've definitely no free image, that one's probably usable.
                                                                • File:University of Reading War Memorial.jpg: If this is a Maryon-designed building, we probably need a FOP tag. I think there's some confusion about "Andrew Smith" on the image page.
                                                                • Done. And removed the "Andrew Smith" link; looks like a bot put that in 2012.
                                                                • Done.


                                                                Hey J Milburn, just wanted to see if you have any further comments on this. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                @
                                                                Interesting reading. A few things.
                                                                • The word "memorial" is used three times in a short span in the second paragraph's final sentence, once as a proper noun, once as a common noun and once as an adjective. Suggest avoiding one of them.
                                                                • I've cut and moved this sentence significantly, and it now only contains one use of the word "memorial."
                                                                • "At the end of 1899 he displayed a silver cup and a shield of arms with silver cloisonné at the sixth exhibition of the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, an event held at the New Gallery that also included a work by Maryon's sister Edith.[51]" Unless there is some reason not to, I would move up the Maryon to before "displayed" and substitute "his" before "sister".
                                                                • Reworded.
                                                                • "At the following year's exhibition the Manchester School of Art purchased a copper jug he designed for its Arts and Crafts Museum.[78]" Slight ambiguity, since it could be read to say he designed the jug for the museum, something which seems unlikely.
                                                                • Reworded: At the following year's exhibition a copper jug he designed was purchased by the Manchester School of Art for its Arts and Crafts Museum.
                                                                • "He was also the warden of Wantage Hall from 1920 to 1922.[9][10] " A link to the intended use of warden might be useful for American readers.
                                                                • "and more helmet fragments were discovered during the 1965–69 re-excavation of Sutton Hoo;[190][155][191][192]" I note the refs out of order, if you are doing them in numerical order, but also are four refs needed for such a short passage?
                                                                • I've cut down on the use of four refs as commented on above, although here I think there is some value to them here. [190] is a report of the 1965–69 excavations while they were still in progress; [155] is an article (technically, a chapter) published after the excavations; [191] is the finalized report; and [192] discusses the new fragments in the context of the helmet reconstruction.
                                                                • "royal bronze effigies.[212]" I might reverse the adjectives.
                                                                • Done.
                                                                That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Thanks for the review,

                                                                Just booking my place. I'll be back with detailed comments after a proper read-through. (I happen to be working on an overhaul of Canon Rawnsley's article at present, and so this article is of particular interest.) Tim riley talk 08:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                Support. This is a splendidly researched article, focused on the subject with no excessive digression. The sourcing is wide and looks impressive. The illustrations are spot-on. I read the text with pleasure. A few very minor quibbles, which don't affect my support but you may like to consider:

                                                                • I might prune the formulaic "tendered her resignation" to plain "resigned".
                                                                • Done.
                                                                • I wonder why in the same sentence The Bookman and The Spectator have a capitalised definite article but the Staggers doesn't.
                                                                • Fixed.
                                                                • "Maryon's time at Armstrong coincided with an interest in archaeology" – it isn't immediately obvious that the interest was on Maryon's part rather than that of the world in general.
                                                                • Reworded: Maryon's expressed an interest in archaeology while at Armstrong.
                                                                • "He spent the World War II years, from 1939 to 1943" – given that the World War II years were from 1939 to 1945 it might be smoother to redraw on the lines of "During WW2 he spent the years 1939 to 1943" or some such.
                                                                • "Trustees of the British Museum to serve as a Technical Attaché" – rather a lot of capital letters there. Not sure trustees, technical and attaché need capitalising. There are a few other (over-reverential?) capitalisations elsewhere, such as "Director" in footnote 4. I do not press the point.
                                                                • It's a valid point—I generally kept the capitals from the sources, but that—if not over-reverential—preserves what is probably overly self-important. I've changed them except for "Technical Attaché," which perhaps(?) makes clear that it was his title, rather than a description. But I'm not wedded to that, and if you don't think it adds anything am happy to change it.
                                                                • "Harbor" – surely "harbour" in a BrE article?
                                                                • Fixed.
                                                                • As a G&S buff I really, really wouldn't refer to Frampton's subject as "Sir William Gilbert". "W. S. Gilbert" is what is wanted here, I am quite sure.
                                                                • Done. I changed a few of these due to FunkMonk's point about consistency (either initials or full names), but if people went by their initials, that makes sense to me.
                                                                • Removed.

                                                                Those are my meagre gleanings. Nothing there to stop me adding my support. A fine article, fully meeting the FA criteria in my view. An interesting and remarkable man, and the nominator has done him justice. Tim riley talk 22:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                Thanks very much for the review and support, Tim riley. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Excellent! I look forward to seeing Maryon on the front page in due course.

                                                                I won't pretend I checked every one of the numerous works, but here are my comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                • I don't much like links that don't go to any viewable content, eg "The Bernard Gilpin Memorial in Kentmere Church". Personally I only link to text that is either free to read or paywalled, but not to non-pages
                                                                • This may depend on one's location. In the US, where that source has spent decades in the public domain, Google Books allows one to view that content.
                                                                • As far as I can see, all the sources are appropriate, I looked at a few and they were correctly used.
                                                                • Two refs read identically as "statue". The British Museum Collection Online. The British Museum. Retrieved 8 January 2020. but link to different pages, perhaps add the museum number to differentiate
                                                                • I've changed to "Statue (Comedy)" and "Statue (Tragedy)".
                                                                • Arwidsson 1942, p. Taf. 1. I don't know what Taf means and I can't see the content, perhaps write in full/translate or whatever
                                                                • It's the German abbreviation for "Tafel", i.e., "Plate". In English, it would be "Pl." Here, given that the citation is in a photo caption, and the photo itself shows the abbreviation ("Taf. 1"), I think it's probably fine as is.
                                                                • But I can't see the content, so it's not obvious to all non-German speaking readers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • p. 312 & n.4. elsewhere you have separated non-consecutive pages with commas
                                                                • This cites to content in both page 312, and footnote 4 on page 312.
                                                                • There seems to be massive overlinking of people like Rupert Bruce-Mitford, and titles like "Studio Talk: Keswick" and The Studio. . Not clear why you aren't linking just once, per MOS
                                                                • Links seem to be treated differently in an article body, and in a bibliography; in the latter case, hardly any people read straight through, but rather look at sources selectively based on which citation brought them there. The long line of Bruce-Mitford citations does stand out, although I'd be hesitant to change the overall style based on one outlier.
                                                                • Review of Der Überfangguss. Ein Beitrag zur vergeschichtlichen Metalltechnik perhaps add translation of the German, but your call
                                                                • No objection to doing so, although I wouldn't trust my own translation of this. It also looks as if "vergeschichtlichen" might be a typo (for "vorgeschichtlichen"). Gerda Arendt, do you have any idea how this would be translated?
                                                                • Check title case, eg "Colossus of Rhodes Is Described As Hollow Sham". which has of...Is...As. In fact, several of the Colossus titles are incorrectly title cased, best check them all, need changing even if you have followed the original formatting
                                                                • Done.
                                                                • Done.
                                                                • Schoolboys unearth golden hair tress more than 4,000 years old". other titles use title case
                                                                • Done.
                                                                • I may have another run through later, easy to miss something with so many

                                                                Thanks for the review, Jimfbleak. I've now responded to all your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                All looks OK now, I'll leave the translation with you, since that's your call anyway, good luck

                                                                Not ready; the overcitation in the lead needs attention, as does the WP:NOT list of works at the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                SandyGeorgia, I've already responded to these specific points above. If you have any further comments about the content of this article, I would be happy to address them. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Thanks for pointing that out, but I don't agree on either point. The lead is overcited (does it not properly summarize the article?) and WP:NOT should be respected. Wikipedia isn't a webhost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                SandyGeorgia, the MOS says that "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Do you take issue with that, or is there another section you think is more relevant? Likewise, could you please point to the section of WP:NOT that you think guides against a comprehensive list of a subject's publications? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                I see the overcitation is throughout the article, not just the lead, and there are prose issues ... I will review further tomorrow as this will take more time than I have now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                My apologies for the delay; starting over now, as there is more to address here than I realized on my first pass. My usual procedure is to start review at the bottom of the article first, since some reviewers never make it down there. I also prefer to address the lead last. In process now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Citations
                                                                • There are two Harvard Ref errors (at Bruce-Mitford1983b and Pudney2000). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Fixed.
                                                                • Could you please explain the citation style? Perhaps I am just missing it, but here are just a few samples from only a few of the citations (please review throughout, this is only a sample list): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • There is inconsistent use of last retrieval dates. Journals do not require a last access date, but some newspapers have them while others don't?
                                                                    • I've removed about half of these, for the ones that have a stable underlying source (primarily a piece of paper such as a newspaper which will never change). I've left them for the other sources—mostly websites, including a few newspaper websites where I'm not sure what the print version (if it existed) looks like.
                                                                  • There is inconsistency on Volumes/Issues in the citations: most citations include volume when available, while the first citation for example (Annual report on Royal Ontario Museum) leaves it off.
                                                                    • Added. I think that one was missing due to unfamiliarity with using the {{cite report}} template. I didn't see another journal/report/similar missing volume information, but I've added volume/issue information for a number of newspaper articles.
                                                                  • Some citations use roman numerals for volume, even when the source does not: example https://www.jstor.org/stable/865852?seq=1
                                                                    • I use what the actual journal used. So if you look at the title page for that one, it uses Roman numerals. I've actually put a fair amount of time in trying to figure out how each journal numbers itself; every so often I'm unable to find the answer for a particular journal/date (some change over time), and in those cases I default to Arabic numerals.
                                                                • See WP:NOTCATALOG on this source. Since this is only covered in a Note (not in text), and there is independent coverage, the sales catalogue is not overly problematic, but you might consider whether to remove that link and stick with the independent source. I'm not fussed either way on this, other than noting external criticism that FAC needs to keep a better eye on WP:NOT, which we have historically neglected.
                                                                  • It's not a big deal, but the main add for that source is that it gives a color photograph of the casket. Theoretically it could also serve to give the sale price, but I've been unable to retrieve that information so far as I don't have a subscription to the website.
                                                                • What makes K Simon a reliable source? [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Also not a big deal, but it adds another work by Maryon, with a nice photograph to boot. The fact that the citation is being used for ('Maryon made this work') is also uncontroversial, especially since "H Maryon" is visible at the bottom right of the photograph. But feel free to push back if you disagree.
                                                                  • On second thought I've taken this out. Given that the date of the plaque isn't known, it's too speculative to group it in with the 1929/1932 plaques; it's better suited in Works of Herbert Maryon for now.
                                                                • A large amount of the citations are to Maryon himself: it might be helpful to have Ealdgyth or Johnbod review that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • This is discussed more directly below, but what are you suggesting the review look for?
                                                                Works and Layout
                                                                • See MOS:BIB. One expects to find a list of works in the article, before See also, Notes and References, per WP:LAYOUT and MOS:ORDER. MOS:WORKS discusses books, but never mentions journal articles (curiously), but it does say "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged". There are instances in the article where the relevance of his publications are mentioned, and others that are sourced to himself (example, and in 1939 he wrote articles about an ancient hand-anvil discovered in Thomastown,[145]; Maryon published the finished reconstruction in a 1947 issue of Antiquity.[180])
                                                                  The article says, "He also wrote some thirty archaeological and technical papers.[2][4][9][10]" so although I cannot access those sources, there is apparently some reliably sourced scholarship about his list of Works. Considering his theory on the Colussus was rejected by others, I am unsure if the entire list of his publications is warranted, but at minimum, could you follow LAYOUT and move it all to a Works section (as it initially read to me as a long WP:NOT list of External links). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • Do you have any suggestions for how to structure this? The reason it's at the bottom is so that the "Maryon 19##" references link down (like everything else), not up. But a few upward links may be worth it, especially here, where his works are somewhat hidden. One possibility would be to move "Publications" to after "Personal life", with books/articles/other becoming subsections of "Publications". Another possibility would be to make "Works by Maryon" a standalone section after "Personal life"; that would create a bit of redundancy in section titles, but be more in line with what you are suggesting.
                                                                Taking your other points in order, most of not all of the cites to Maryon's articles could be supplemented with another cite saying he did, indeed, write them. But they are uncontroversial points, the main utility of the cites is to give an interested reader a way to find the article, and there are certainly enough citations as it is. Paraphrased, sources [2][4][9][10] just say 'he wrote approximately # papers', sometimes mentioning one or two of them; they don't list them, giving extra utility to the list in the article. And it may be more fair to say that the Colossus article didn't catch on, than that it was rejected (see the bottom of footnote 9), but in any event, I'm not sure why scholarly disagreement over a nonetheless-influential paper would be a reason to not list an author's other publications.
                                                                MOS
                                                                • Please have a look at MOS:OVERLINK and review throughout. For example, San Francisco, World War (either; probably the most overlinked terms on Wikipedia-- everyone knows what World War I, and no one is likely to click on that article from this one) are low-value links that are not likely to be clicked on. Tailor is probably understood to most English speakers, as is a world fair. This is not a big deal or something I would oppose over, but it should be reviewed; please doublecheck throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • Checking image captions, which look fine, but I encountered "The Valsgärde 6 helmet was one of the few published exemplar helmets at the time of Maryon's reconstruction." It is confusing that this helmet is never mentioned in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • It's a subtle point, but compare it with the image and caption in the infobox; it's the same helmet (in fact the very same photograph in the very same book) that Maryon has open in front of him.
                                                                • I added samples of WP:NBSP; please review throughout.
                                                                  • I assume links are automatically non-breaking, so no need to do so for WWI/II/Elizabeth II? "25 workers" now has one, as do "350 odd", "356 plates", "1300 years", "500 pieces", and "526 examples". There are probably some other places they could be added (e.g., dates), although personally, breaking spaces have never annoyed me; the occasional break where there shouldn't be a space (e.g., when a quotation mark and the bracket that leads off the quotation find themselves are separate lines) are more of an issue.
                                                                    • I believe it was Reidgreg who indicated elsewhere that links aren't non-breaking and do need nbsps; perhaps they will weigh in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                      • (talk page stalker) Linked phrases will line wrap. I'll almost always use [[World War&nbsp;II]], the non-breaking space works fine in a link, it doesn't have to be piped. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • MOS:LQ generally looks fine, but could you check this one: yet added that "[b]y a system of grouping, however, according to some primarily aesthetic aim ... their inclusion is justified."
                                                                  • Will do, although it might take me a day or two to pull the source. What looks off about it?
                                                                  • Well spotted; what caused you to catch that? With the sentence before and after added, it reads in full: Apart from similar wise sayings his book is remarkable for its extraordinary catholicity, admitting works which we should find it hard to defend, often cheek by jowl, in the illustrations, with works of great merit. By a system of grouping, however, according to some primary aesthetic aim—as unity of line, on the one hand, or by historical or literary connexion, on the other—their inclusion is justified; and we agree with Mr. Maryon when he says that, though literary qualities alone cannot make great sculpture, they can make a work of sculpture more widely understood and appreciated. As he says, in conclusion, "The strongest roots of art are to be found, not in technical problems, but in life itself."
                                                                    • Ha, you think I can remember how I spotted something five days ago ? :) :) Generally, at this stage, I am just scanning the page for the standard stuff I check. Are you all caught up and should I kick up the speed here? My plate is full today, but I should be able to step up the pace tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                      • Thanks, SandyGeorgia—yes, given my own propensity to forget things from five minutes ago, that might be a bit of a stretch. Anyways, hope the VBB (Very Big Birthday) was fun. I just need to respond to the "Overcitation" section, but will get to that today. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                I will continue in a bit with prose and citations, then to the lead; out of time for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                Prose

                                                                A bit more time now for some prose redundancy checking.

                                                                • There are 20 instances of the word also (almost always redundant), including one paragraph with three instances of the word. Some are useful/necessary, but many are redundant. (Watch for "in addition", too.) Some samples only:
                                                                • Now down to only 10 uses of the word. The remainder are predominantly used to try to maintain flow, although I'm open to any suggestions you may have on rewording those.
                                                                • Maryon's four-year tenure at Keswick was assisted by four designers who also taught drawing:
                                                                • four other drawing designers?
                                                                • Designing and teaching are distinct roles here: the former was about creating designs for the school to produce en masse, and the latter about teaching others how to draw. How about Maryon's four-year tenure at Keswick was assisted by four employees who created designs and taught drawing:?
                                                                • He also had the help of his sisters:
                                                                • Removing this one seems to interrupt the flow; the "also" is used to provide continuity with the preceding sentencing, which also discuss the role of assistants at the school.
                                                                • Maryon was also frequently in conflict with the school's management committee,
                                                                • Reworded: Maryon was often in conflict with the school's management committee
                                                                • The word subsequently. The article has nothing like the dreaded "He was mortally wounded and subsequently died" (d'oh), but not all of the uses are needed:
                                                                • Perhaps not, although "subsequent papers ... followed" isn't much better! --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • He has subsequently been termed "[o]ne of the finest exemplars" of a conservator with a deep technical, as well as artistic and historical, understanding of the objects he worked with. (also, passive voice in the lead)
                                                                • Reworded: He has been remembered as. In my mind the passive voice helps focus on the point of the sentence (Maryon), rather than the less important part of who's doing the remembering (which is specified lower down).
                                                                • Maryon's account of the excavation was published in 1936, and subsequent papers on archaeology and prehistoric metalworking followed. … subsequent … followed, redundant.
                                                                • Removed.
                                                                • Much of his work has seen subsequent revision, … revision has to be subsequent, it can't be prior.
                                                                • Removed.
                                                                • … in 1951 a young Larry Burrows was dispatched to the British Museum by Life, which subsequently published a full page photograph of the helmet alongside a photo of Maryon. Subsequently adds nothing here.
                                                                • Removed.
                                                                • Its importance had not been realized during excavation, however, and no photographs of it were taken in situ …
                                                                • Changed to "Yet its importance..."
                                                                • Other opportunities to vary the prose:
                                                                • frequently … frequently: Maryon was also frequently in conflict with the school's management committee, which was chaired by Edith Rawnsley and frequently made decisions without his knowledge.
                                                                • Now "often ... frequently".
                                                                • exhibited … exhibition: Maryon exhibited a child's bowl with signs of the zodiac at the ninth Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society exhibition in 1910
                                                                • Now "displayed ... exhibition". "Exhibition Society exhibition" remains a bit ugly, but perhaps unavoidable.

                                                                These are samples, to be checked throughout. More as I have time, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                Overcitation

                                                                Starting at the bottom of the article, with one sample, so we can work up to the lead. The "Personal life" section has five sentences of what appear to be basic fact, and fifteen citations:

                                                                In July 1903 Maryon married Annie Elizabeth Maryon (née Stones).[278][279][2] They had a daughter, Kathleen Rotha Maryon.[280][281][282] Annie Maryon died on 8 February 1908. A second marriage, to Muriel Dore Wood in September 1920,[2][283] produced two children, son John and daughter Margaret.[34][284] Maryon lived the majority of his life in London, and died in his 92nd year at a nursing home in Edinburgh.[34][285][286][287][288]

                                                                None of that looks controversial or difficult to source; is it? What are the excess citations adding? I cannot access many of the sources, but why add primary sources-- or multiple sources-- when secondary sources are available? Independently, is there a source for Annie's death date? Also, I can't find any mention of either her father's name or mother's name in Margaret Sawatksky's obit to verify who she is; possibly it's there and I'm just not seeing it, but that source doesn't seem to verify the text. Why does the final sentence need five sources? Several of the sources seem to say the same thing. If I can understand the citation here it might be a time-saver before digging in to other sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                None of that is controversial; rather, the different citations combine to provide extra information. The recurring theme here and elsewhere is citations used not just to support the facts in the article, but to provide a gateway to further information. See WP:CITE (noting the benefit of using citations to "help users find additional information on the subject").
                                                                Here, in the first string ("[278][279][2]") the first two citations are closer to the event in question, and (though there are no discrepancies), probably generally more reliable than the third, Who Was Who. The third nevertheless gives the imprimatur of a secondary source. In the second string ("[280][281][282]"), each citation provides different information; the first gives familial/occupation information, the second gives background information, and the third is a good secondary source with some added details. I've added the best source I can find (so far) for Annie Maryon's death. The third string ("[2][283]") is controlled by the same logic as the first. In the fourth string, ("[34][284]") 34 sustains the facts in the clause and 284 is background information on Margaret Sawatksky; among other details both sources mention her first husband's name (George Bowman), demonstrating that Margaret Sawatksky was the daughter of Maryon. The five-citation fifth string is hardly pretty, but it's a collection of all of the immediate notices of Maryon's death: two in The Daily Telegraph two days after his death (likely paid and unpaid notices), two versions of the story picked up by The Canadian Press, and Maryon's probate. It's somewhat interesting to see how his death was dealt with by the papers, and I figured that's the best place to put those particular sources, given that the later obituaries are more detailed retrospectives on his career and are thus included earlier. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Reliable sources

                                                                I have just come across this post, which leads to this chart, which calls into question whether ancestry.com should be used here. Are all uses of ancestry.com backed by a secondary source where appropriate, or can their use be minimized? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                We're lucky with Maryon that much of the information available in primary sources is also reflected in secondary sources. A prominent example of this from the article is the phrase Mildred Maryon, who the
                                                                Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                This article is about the wolf, one of the most well known and well studied carnivores and the ancestor of the dog. This article has been worked on for months and has been both peer reviewed and copyedited. Credit to William Harris and Mariomassone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                Image review

                                                                • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • What's the difference between lime and green?
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • File:Wolves_attack_moose_2012-04-12_001_(cropped).jpg is tagged as being of low quality
                                                                Its the best one we got of wolf tearing into prey. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Regardless, the image quality is admittedly quite poor. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • File:Capitoline_she-wolf_Musei_Capitolini_MC1181.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
                                                                I have not seen this required for other photo of pre-modern works. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                It should be fairly straightforward. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                I don't know what tag to use. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Not sure why I have to add another PD tag for a work created before copyright even existed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Freedom_of_panorama . Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • File:Dore_ridinghood.jpg has no copyright tag at all
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • File:Chinook2.gif needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Grenier_Saint_Martin_loup_MdlaC.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                When/where was the former first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                I don't understand. The image page states so. LittleJerry (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Not that I can see? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                It says it was made c. 1900 by Charles Marion Russell, an American. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Made is not the same as published. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


                                                                Comment from Tim riley

                                                                I'll have more comments later, I hope, but from a first read-through I wonder why in an otherwise BrE article the AmE "gray" is used throughout rather than the English "grey"? (The OED admits "gray" but favours the usual "grey"). – Tim riley talk 15:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                This is written in Canadian English with Canadian spellings. See talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Lead
                                                                • "...is a canine native to the wilderness and remote areas of Eurasia and North America." Not sure of the technical meaning of "native" in zoology, but the wolf was surely "native" to pretty much the whole of these continents until driven out by man (as said lower down)? I suspect there is a better way of putting this.
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • "is the largest extant member of its family," which isn't named or linked for a long time after...
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • Only 3 lead paras, none very long. Large tracts of this long article (141 K crude bytes) are not mentioned at all.
                                                                Will get to. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • There is talk of wolves in Mexico, but the distribution map has them nowhere near that far south, apart from a little dot in the southern US.
                                                                We only have the IUCN to give us the full wolf range. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • "Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed., 2005), a standard reference work in zoology, recognizes 38 subspecies of C. lupus including the domestic dog." Do we neeed to spell out the source in the 1st para?
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • "its highly advanced expressive behaviour" is there a link for "expressive behaviour"?
                                                                No. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Yes - Wolf communication. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • "long history of association with humans" is "association" the right word?
                                                                Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • "Although the fear of wolves is pervasive in many human societies,..." - nothing I can see lower down on societies where it was not "pervasive".
                                                                Pawnee? LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Description
                                                                • "Coyotes, jackals and wolves are isomorphic, with the size relationship between their bodies remaining constant.." The mathmatical link here is completely useless ; what does this actually mean?
                                                                Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • "to overcome the deep snow that covers most of its geographical range" needs "in winter" or something. The "most of" only applies to the last 1,000 years or so, presumably.
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Rest
                                                                • "Habitat use by wolves depends on the abundance of prey, snow conditions, absence or low livestock densities,..." wonky grammar in the last bit.
                                                                Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • more later Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Ok, resuming. Sorry for the delay. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • These paras are too long & should be split: "The wolf has very dense and fluffy winter fur ..." (? at "In cold climates,..") and "A wolf's coat colour is determined by its guard hairs..." (at "In North America..."?)
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Ecology
                                                                • "Wolves occurred originally across Eurasia above 12˚N and North America above 15˚N" this means nothing to most of us, so including indicative tips would be good - "including nearly all of India", "Guatemala and northwards" or something.
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • Some overlinking in the range description - eg this is about the 5th mention of Canada, yet only now linked. Does "forest" need a link, or "insect" in "diet"?
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • Probably split the "diet" section at "In North America..."
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • "The prey animals of North American wolves continue to occupy suitable habitats with low human density, eating livestock and garbage only in dire circumstances." something missing/ too much here - cut ""The prey animals of"?
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • "Wolf and tiger interactions are well-documented in Sikhote-Alin..." should better locate with "Russian Far East" or "Pacific Russia" or something. These are Siberian tigers, which should be linked.
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Behaviour
                                                                • Picture caption: "Italian wolf pack resting in a shade" - these are Italian wolfs (presumably), photographed in France (Monts de Gueret Animal Park, not even near the border). Is "in a shade" colloquial in Canadian English (as opposed to "in shade")?
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • Too long para "The wolf is a social animal...."
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • More later. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                Johnbod, anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                • Yup:
                                                                • "An Iberian wolf in the Community of Madrid trotting in summer fur." - reads a bit wierdly. This is just the local authority area round the city. Better piped to "near Madrid".
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • "Their vision is as good as that of humans" - including colour vision? Is so, should be said.
                                                                No. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • North America populations - I added Asian links - I think several states etc here need lks. plse check
                                                                • "having been exterminated in the British Isles in the 18th century" - the usual date given is 1680, in Scotland. In England they were extinct much earlier.
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • "In culture / Further information: List of fictional wolves" - better merge this with the "In fable and literature" hatnotes.
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • break para at " Isengrim the wolf,". The following para needs a break too, prob before Kipling.
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • "considered to have had more influence than any other literary work in forging the wolf's negative reputation in the western world." Seems very overstated! The wolf hardly had a positive reputation in 1696.
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • "memoir Never Cry Wolf is widely considered to be the most popular book on wolves" - evidently big in Canada, and published in Russia, but was it ever published in the US or UK? Perhaps needs qualifying.
                                                                Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • Break para at "The wolf is featured on the flags of the Confederated Tribes ..."
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • "Livestock depredation has been one of ..." another long para - brk at "The majority of losses..."
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • "Small farmers surprised by a wolf" - "Petis paysans" = literally "small/young peasants/country people" Use "Country children" or something?
                                                                Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • That's it. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                • Happy to Support. All points fixed. Article meet FA standards. Nice read.
                                                                  • Can anyone point me to the most recent discussion of "wolf" vs. "gray wolf" vs. "grey wolf"? I support the current article title, but I think the first sentence could use some help, probably in the form of a hidden comment linking such a discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  It was discussed here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Thanks much. I added a hidden comment, and I changed the first sentence to "... also known as the grey wolf or gray wolf". Normally we don't give both spellings for an alternative common name, but I'm arguing that this is an exception, because there are plenty of people who always write "gray" instead of "grey", but "grey wolf" instead of "gray wolf". That is, they think that's the correct spelling, not a language variant. - Dank (

                                                                  Here are my comments after a brief look through the article. I will keep adding over the next few days. Also, per the rules of WikiCup 2020 I declare my participation in it and that I will enlist this review in my submissions. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                  Lead
                                                                  • It is the largest extant member of its family would it be better to shorten it to "the largest extant canid"?
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • with males averaging 40 kg (88 lb) and females 35.5–37.7 kg (78–83 lb) Why do we provide the average for males and a range for females?
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Up to 38 subspecies of C. lupus Should we not stick to calling it "wolf" instead of bringing up its scientific name unless necessary?
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • its more social nature The sociality article gives examples of both solitary and gregarious behavior. Maybe link it to the appropriate subsection. Maybe "more gregarious" works better?
                                                                  There's not appropriate subsection to link to. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Link territorial, pathogens
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Although social animals, single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs I don't exactly see the contradiction here.
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • The global wolf population is estimated to be 300,000 Include the year this estimate is of
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • It has a long history of interactions with humans Should be "The wolf has a ...." looking at the previous line
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Looking at the infobox,
                                                                  • do we really need a ref for binomial authority if its already cited in main text?
                                                                  Sure. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • I think the range map needs a caption, and should mention the year the data is from
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Etymology
                                                                  • ' What do the asterisks in front of a few words mean?
                                                                  I assume it has something to due with the Germanic languages. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Taxonomy
                                                                  • Is the opening line on introduction of binomial nomenclature relevant enough?
                                                                  Made changes. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • The etymology of Canis probably belongs in the earlier section
                                                                  I disagree, the etymology section is on "wolf" and "lupus" which mean the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • on the next page is it a relevant point to mention?
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • under the wolf C. lupus similar to the lead instance, is the scientific name needed here? I feel wolf should do, and it maintains consistency. 38 subspecies of C. lupus This instance is understandable in the context of that sentence so no need to discuss this one.
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Does "some 36" imply an ambiguity in the published number?
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • more cranio-dentally robust links would be helpful
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • In Admixture with other canids there are some duplinks – golden jackals, dhole, basal, red wolf. "Gene flow" could use a link
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • that was 12-14% admixed —> that was 12–14% admixed
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • in the Caucasus Mountains. and in Bulgaria. an extra period?
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Description
                                                                  • Females tend to have narrower muzzles and foreheads, thinner necks, slightly shorter legs, and less massive shoulders than males Should we mention sexual dimorphism then?
                                                                  I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • The height should probably be included in the lead as one of the most common measurements
                                                                  Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Diet
                                                                  • In Europe, wolves eat apples, pears, figs, melons, berries and cherries This line appears to have a lot of common terms linked.. I get the point but maybe we can exclude a few like "apples" at least
                                                                  Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Like all land mammals that are pack hunters, across their range the wolf feeds predominantly on I think it should be "across its range", or the comma comes after "range", altering the meaning.
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • with a pack being capable of bringing down a 500 kg (1,100 lb) moose I would be curious how many wolves we are talking of here in a typical pack, but that section comes later in the text. If possible, an idea of the number that could be capable of doing something like this would be a good addition.
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Social structure
                                                                  • The wolf is a social animal A link to sociality would be good
                                                                  Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • covering roughly nine percent of their territory per day either one of "%" or "percent" notation should usually be followed throughout the text consistently
                                                                  Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • I see many instances such as these two lines The wolf can be found between sea level and 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and Scent marks are generally left every 240 m (260 yd) with different units and abbreviations. Needs consistency throughout the article
                                                                  The contexts are different. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  At least the "m" or "metres" (abbreviated/nonabbreviated) notation should be consistent for all unit types. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 20:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Wolves advertise their territories to other packs Display (zoology) would be a good link for "advertise"
                                                                  Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Scent marking involves urine, feces, and anal gland scents. Scent marking is more effective at advertising territory Two sentences beginning identically. Could be merged or reworded a bit to avoid repetition. The following lines also use "scent mark" frequently, which could possibly be shortened to "mark" as scentmarking is the only mode of marking we are talking about here.
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • This includes the use of vocalization, body posture, scent, touch, and taste. The phases of the moon have no effect on wolf vocalisation Two different spellings for "vocalization". Please check for other instances of variant spellings
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Disablement
                                                                  • deliver a bite force of 28 kg/cm2 (400 lbf/in2) A link for bite force would be good.
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • In the caption of an image in this section I guess it should be "white-tailed" deer per the article on the deer. Plus a link would be nice
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Infections
                                                                  • a hookworm known to infect wolf pups in utero "in utero" could be simply reworded to in the uterus.
                                                                  Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Status and conservation
                                                                  • Two duplinks – Mexican wolves, Rocky Mountains
                                                                  Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Relationships with humans
                                                                  • would face should they follow him.(Matthew 7:15, Matthew 10:16, Acts 20:29) There is a stray period in between
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • increased cortisol levels in instances Cortisol may be linked unless it is linked elsewhere
                                                                  It is. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • In the image caption "Small farmers surprised by a wolf (1833) by François Grenier de Saint-Martin" it would be good to add a link to the name of the artist. I find a French wiki article on him.
                                                                  Done. LittleJerry (talk)
                                                                  • "Dogs" is a duplink in "As pets and working animals"
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                  That is all. The article is wonderfully comprehensive and was a great pleasure to read. Amazing job! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                  Support on prose. All my concerns have been addressed and I feel the prose definitely meets FA standards. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                  FunkMonk

                                                                  • Support - I had my say at the peer review, which I conducted with FAC in mind. I wonder whether William Harris is co-nominator, as he is not listed? FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                  Johnbod and Sainsf, any more? LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                  Hey

                                                                  Great to see this here. First comments below, more to follow.

                                                                  • Lead: fights over territory are among the principal causes of wolf mortality packs. – I don't understand the word "packs" here; the article body speaks simply of "wolf mortality", not the mortality of whole packs.
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Non-rabid wolves have attacked and killed people, mainly children, but this is rare because wolves are relatively few, live away from people, and have developed a fear of humans because of their experiences with hunters and shepherds. – This second sentence on attacks on humans seems to over-emphasise this aspect in the lead. This is much more detail and provided in the lead for all other aspects. Maybe include other highly relevant information instead, such as domestication and the origin of the domestic dog.
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • However, the classification of a number of these canines—including the domestic dog, dingo, and New Guinea singing dog—as subspecies or even separate species has recently been challenged by zoologists. Studies using paleogenomic techniques reveal that the modern wolf and the dog are sister taxa, as modern wolves are not closely related to the population of wolves that was first domesticated. – Aren't these two sentences contradicting? First it is stated that the dog may not be a subspecies or separate species, which can only mean that it is the same subspecies as the wolf. Then it is stated that both are not closely related.
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • link phylogenetic or maybe even avoid the term.
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • They are regarded as having been more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves – Grammar seems off? Maybe "They had more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves"?
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • The Himalayan wolf appears to be part of a lineage that is basal to extant Holarctic wolves. Modern Holarctic wolves – I would introduce/explain the term "Holarctic wolf", as it isn't clear why the Himalayan would not be one part of it since it occurs within the holarctic region?
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • An extinct Late Pleistocene wolf – Which one, and what is it, a species?
                                                                  It is linked. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • The wolflike canids are a group of large carnivores – "Wolvelike canids" is another vague term. What is included there?
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • dhole needs a link.
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • the African hunting dog – what is this? Can it be at least linked?
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • On average, adult wolves measure 105–160 cm (41–63 in) in length and 80–85 cm (31–33 in) at shoulder height. The tail measures 29–50 cm (11–20 in) in length, the ears 90–110 mm (3.5–4.3 in) in height, and the hind feet are 220–250 mm (8.7–9.8 in). – Why this mixture of cm and mm? Better stick with one unit, to make it easier to compare these numbers.
                                                                  Because ears and feet are smaller? Those are the measurements given in the source. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • The heaviest wolf to be taken by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service was killed on 70 Mile River in east-central Alaska on July 12, 1939, and weighed 79.4 kg (175 lb). – This seems to be, compared to the rest of the article, excessive detail. Not sure if the parts by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 70 Mile River is really needed.
                                                                  Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • The ears are covered in short hairs, which strongly project from the fur. – Are really the hairs projecting from the fur, or is it the ears? If the latter, than it sould be "and project from the fur" and without comma?
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • generally develop the smoothest overall coats as they age. – unclear: this means the fur isn't smooth in juveniles?
                                                                  I guess. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Apart from those wolves which are white or black, these tones vary little across geographical areas. – This does not make sense to me. If the color of "white" and "black" wolves vary (as indicated here), than these would no longer be "black" or "white".
                                                                  It doesn't say black and white wolves vary. It says that there are wolves that are black or white (the extreme ends of color) but otherwise they don't vary much in color tone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • has reduced the wolf's range to about one-third of what it once was. – I suspect that this is excluding Asia; could this be made clear?
                                                                  Not in source so no. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • the northern United States, Europe, and Asia from about 75°N to 12°N. – Restrict to eastern and northern Europe to avoid confusion? The "12N" only applies to Asia?
                                                                  Not there. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • while they disperse from packs to form their own or join another one. – Though the latter is supposed to be rare? Maybe add ", rarely,"?
                                                                  Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Does this mean that typically, a lone wolf first searches for a mate, and then for territory to fund an own pack? It does not become very clear through the text.
                                                                  Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Raised leg urination is considered to be one of the most important forms of scent communication in the wolf, making up 60–80% of all scent marks observed. – I would either word it "is considered to be the most important form of scent communication" or "is one of the most important forms of scent communication". Having both "one of" and "considered" seems overly careful.
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
                                                                  • Over what distances can wolf howling be heard? This seems to be an important practical information (people hearing wolves at night might want to know how close they might be).
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Content in the first paragraph of the "Reproduction" section overlaps with content from the second paragraph of the "Social structure" section. After reading that latter paragraph, important questions remain unanswered; this is only mentioned in that "Reproduction" paragraph. Other information is given in both paragraphs, leading to redundancy (e.g., Most foreign mature wolves are killed by the pack unless it needs to replace a breeder). Maybe it would be better to merge both together; maybe move everything related to wolf dispersal to the "Social structure" paragraph?
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Some wolves may leave the pack but remain in its territory, waiting for one of the breeding parents to die before they can breed. – But these can only be the offspring of the breeding pair? Or does this only apply to male wolves that have been adopted by the pack at young age? If so, maybe mention to avoid confusion.
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Females are capable of producing pups every year, with one litter annually being the average. – But this means that they are also capable to breed twice (or more) a year, since one litter a year is not the maximum but the average?
                                                                  Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • female wolves remain in a den located away from the peripheral zone of their territories, where violent encounters with other packs are more likely to occur. – should it be "less likely"?
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • As there are few convenient places for burrows, wolf dens are usually occupied by animals of the same family. – I don't understand; since one pack = one family, it seems self-evident that separate families/packs would not share the same den? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • However, the classification of a number of these canines as subspecies has recently been challenged by zoologists. – But "A number of these canines" seems now to refer to the "38 subspecies of C. lupus"? The cited source is only about the domestic dog (and its descendants). Furthermore, the source doesn't state that their status as subspecies has been challenged as far as I see.
                                                                  Fixed. The source was supposed to be the article section link for more information.
                                                                  • The optimal pack size for hunting elk is four wolves, and for bison a large pack size is more successful. Single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs – this seems to be contradicting? Assuming that elk and bison are representative prey items (elk was mentioned to be one of the most important), a pack size of four is more successful than single wolfs/pairs?
                                                                  It's saying that in general. And bison are not common prey. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • please link "lagomorph".
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • In August 2019, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented changes to how the ESA is applied. This allows the removal of species from being treated as endangered, including the wolf.[144] As a result, the State of Minnesota declared that of the 6,000 wolves living in the lower 48 states, half of these live in Minnesota – I don't understand. How is this declaration of the State of Minnesota related to the ESA changes? Can this be made clearer perhaps? Does the recent ESA change mean that wolfs can be hunted again in places like Minnesota?
                                                                  They were stating to the USFWS that their wolves no longer endangered. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Would inclusion of a map showing the historic range of the wolf be an idea (e.g., [12])? This would, for example, show that wolves existed in Great Britain but got extirpated there, something not mentioned in the text. Might be more helpful than the currently included "Wolf range in Europe" map, which is a bit redundant to the range map of the taxon box.
                                                                  See [page]. And wolves being killed off in Britain is in the text. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Another important practical information that could be included is tracks, as these can be commonly found. I could add a sentence if you wish, but I'm not sure where it would fit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Tracks are not important. No other FA mammal article describes them. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Tracks are arguably important, as you are much likely to find tracks then to actually see a wolf in the wild. But I don't insist; the decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                  Jens Lallensack anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                  Annoyingly I lost my notes. Will have to read the last part of the article again … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                  Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                  • For the Pawnee, Sirius was the wolf star – If we find the association with wolves in so many cultures, can it have a single origin?
                                                                  Or maybe independent people notice the constellation is shaped like a dog/wolf. This is more relevant to the article on Sirius. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Although portrayed as loyal, honest and moral, Isengrim is forever the victim of Reynard's wit and cruelty – So Isengrim is the good, and Reynard is the bad? This does not really reflect the poem, where Isengrim is also characterised as greedy and dumb.
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • The wolf in this story is portrayed as an allegorical sexual predator – only in a few very early versions there are elements of a sexual predator. I'm not sure if this interpretation is generally accepted, and the sentence "is portrayed as an … predator" is imo wrong. I would be more prudent and use "antrophomized" instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Being the most abundant carnivores, free-ranging dogs – this needs to be "the most abundant large carnivores", as there are smaller carnivores which are certainly more abundant. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  supporting now. --
                                                                  Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)

                                                                  The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were an Italian design begun before the start of World War I in response to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Had they been completed, they would have been the fastest and most powerful battleships afloat. Even before the Italians joined the war in 1915, shortages of steel and other material significantly slowed their construction and construction was suspended the following year to build ships that could be completed during the war. Italian financial difficulties after the war prevented their completion, although the navy flirted with the idea of converting the most advanced ship into an ocean liner or an aircraft carrier. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few weeks ago and we believe that it meets the FAC criteria. As usual we'd like reviewers to look for any unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

                                                                  CommentsSupport by CPA-5

                                                                  • Link knots in the body.
                                                                    • Done
                                                                  • Pipe Italy to the Kingdom of Italy.
                                                                    • Done
                                                                  • He originally called for a ship armed with twelve 381-millimeter guns Change "he" with "Ferrati" why because the sentences after this also use "he" which would make it 3 hes next to each other. IMO genders, names and the word "it" should be balanced in a paragraph. Of course if someone disagrees I'm happy to listen.
                                                                    • Works for me
                                                                  • They had a beam of 29.6 m (97 ft) and a draft of 9.5 m (31 ft) --> "The ships had a beam of 29.6 m (97 ft) and a draft of 9.5 m (31 ft)" Same reason as above.
                                                                    • Done
                                                                  • Metric tons vs tonnes.
                                                                    • Fixed

                                                                  That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                  Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  @CPA-5: - anything left to address? Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                  • Looks fine to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                  Source review - spotchecks not done

                                                                  • FN11: the References entry for this book lists only one author, while there are two here - which is correct?
                                                                  • FN12: References entry has authors in a different order
                                                                    • Fixed
                                                                  • Clerici and Ordovini are the same periodical but are formatted differently
                                                                    • I'm not seeing the difference
                                                                  • For consistency with Cernuschi, Sandler should also include state
                                                                    • I've removed them all instead - I don't see much of a use to including states and countries here
                                                                  • Be consistent in whether you include subtitles - you have it for Goldstein but not Friedman
                                                                    • Added
                                                                  • Romanych: both Worldcat and GBooks list a different publisher for that ISBN. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                    • Fixed - thanks Nikki.

                                                                      I'm beginning a review here, putting down some quick thoughts:

                                                                      • "(sentence) "The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were a group of four battleships designed for the Royal Italian Navy (Regia Marina) in 1913 and ordered in 1914
                                                                        • Isn't the page about the class? I'm a little confused here. Tiger, for example, is about the species—it doesn't begin with "Tigers are a group of 8,000 animals ... " I'm curious, not saying it is incorrect.
                                                                          • Well, that isn't exactly apples to apples - one would expect the definition of a small set of items to include their number, but not so in a very large set. The Sullivan brothers comes to mind - the obvious first question that comes to mind is how many of them were involved in the event that made them notable.
                                                                      • ... ordered in 1914; the first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year. The other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915.
                                                                        • semi-colons are used to separate independent clauses if they are felt (semantically or structurally) closer to each other than to sentences to either side of them.
                                                                        • Should the separation be: "... ordered in 1914. The first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year; the other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915."
                                                                          • Works for me.
                                                                      • (sentence) Armed with a main battery of eight 381 mm (15 in) guns and possessing a top speed of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph), the four ships of the class were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class.
                                                                        • Would "intended to be the equivalent of those in the British Queen Elizabeth class" be better?
                                                                          • Hmm, that's a good question - your suggestion would be slightly more parallel, but it's also a bit wordier, and the general rule of thumb I try to follow is, the tighter the prose, the better - let me ping @Dank: and see what his thoughts are.

                                                                      PS, on second thoughts:

                                                                        • "The" keel was laid," I imagine, is the more common, the more encyclopedic, and the more easily understood expression. (vs. (the ship) "was laid down."
                                                                          • IMO they're equivalent (and actually, a quick google of "keel was laid" vs. ship+"was laid down" shows the latter is significantly more common. Granted, those are quick and dirty searches.
                                                                        • Would it be better to write: The keel of the first ship, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid later the same year, and those of the other three, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini the following year." No semi-colons are needed now.
                                                                          • How about just trimming "were all laid down" to simply "followed"?
                                                                        • When were the ships launched? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                      Sorry I forgot about this review. Will return very soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                      @Fowler&fowler:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                      @Fowler&fowler:, I expect this review will be closing fairly soon. Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                      @
                                                                      • Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                      • Cannone da is duplinked.
                                                                        • Fixed
                                                                      • You don't state who it was named for or link him. I know that a specific ship was named for him, but since the class was too, and the ship doesn't have its own article, it should be stated here as well.
                                                                      It would appear to be Francesco Caracciolo. Anyhow, once this is addressed, I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                      Right, it's obvious who each of the four ships were named after, but there are differing opinions about WP:BLUE, so I generally only add namesakes if I have a source that explicitly addresses it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                      I have a source that identifies the namesakes for three of the four. Where's the best place to link them? A new column in the table?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                      Either that or when the ships are first mentioned each in the article body? FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                      I'd missed the entry for the fourth ship, so all of them are now cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                      • The intro is a bit dense, maybe break into two paragraphs?
                                                                        • Done
                                                                      • "Chief of Staff of the Regia Marina (Royal Navy)" State the Italian.
                                                                        • The Italian version of the title? I don't know what that'd be, so I'll again defer to Sturmvogel
                                                                      Oh, I meant say "Italian Royal Navy", as you say in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                      Ah, got it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                      • "381-millimeter guns and twenty 152-millimeter (6 in)" Why no conversion for the first number?
                                                                        • It's already converted earlier
                                                                      • "manufactured by Terni" In Terni?
                                                                        • Terni was an armor manufacturer, coincidentally located in the city - I'll remove the link to avoid confusion
                                                                      • The photo under Construction has an ugly watermark.
                                                                        • I found a better version of the image
                                                                      • "note incorrect aspects such as the single mast and ram bow" Do we know why the drawing is incorrect?
                                                                        • The drawing was prepared by someone in the American Society of Naval Engineers, so they wouldn't have had access to the plans and they were likely guessing based on the announced specifications. Or it might represent an earlier version of the design. These sorts of things are common, see for example the drawings in here
                                                                      • "and ordered in 1914" Should also be stated in the article body.
                                                                        • Added
                                                                      • "were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class" The article body is less specific.
                                                                        • Softened the lead a bit. Parsecboy (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                      • Support - the names were a nice last touch, looks good to me.

                                                                        All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                        Comments Support by L293D

                                                                        These are really just nitpicks, but:

                                                                        • Do we have the range of the secondary 6 inch guns?
                                                                          • No, unfortunately - though in checking Friedman, he lists them as 50-caliber versions, not the 45s carried by the Andrea Dorias - @Sturmvogel 66:, can you check Ordovini to see if they do have the 45-cal. gun?
                                                                            • Well, this is annoying. They specifically state 45-caliber guns, but the shell weight, charge weight and muzzle velocity is a better match for the 50-caliber gun listed by Friedman. Neither source provides a range for the 50-caliber weapon, though. Since Friedman specifically attributes the 50-caliber gun to these ships, I'm going to go with that and presume that Ordovini made a typo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                        • Do we have the range of the torps?
                                                                          • No, in part because it doesn't seem that the Italians settled on a version for the ships. Friedman has data on Italian torpedoes, but without knowing the size (and specific model), there's no way to include specifics.
                                                                        • Do we know if the ship would have had torpedo bulges?
                                                                          • Nothing I've seen, no. But it's not likely; bulges were first used in Britain during World War I.
                                                                        • I'm all for more line drawings, but the right-elevation drawing in the infobox really contradicts the line drawing in the body. In the top image, the turrets are far apart, whereas in the lower image, the cannon barrels from the superfiring turrets overhang over the lower turrets. If one of the ships was launched, surely the had already decided where the circular gun barbettes would be. L293D ( • ) 04:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                          • The infobox image is correct - and the caption for the other one notes that it incorporates incorrect aspects. This is fairly common with speculative drawings of ships that haven't been built yet, which is why I think it's useful to keep. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                            • Looks good. Supporting.
                                                                              Nominator(s): GirthSummit (blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

                                                                              This article is about a little-known 19th-century Scottish heiress and philanthropist, who inherited a vast fortune from her slave-owning planter uncle, and lived out her life with a female partner in the small town of Aberlour. I was drawn to the story of her life when researching an article about a church she founded - the source of her wealth, her lifestyle (which was very unconventional for the time), and the tragic circumstances surrounding her death at a young age were all very compelling subjects to research, and I think that many of our readers would be similarly interested. I've worked with another editor, SusunW, to find sources and make the article as detailed and reliable as we can, and Gog the Mild has been very helpful with reviews and suggestions for improvements. We'd all be delighted to receive any guidance on how we can take this to FA status - thanks in advance for any suggestions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

                                                                              Comments

                                                                              In general I feel like there's not a lot of detail in this article, particularly detail specific to the subject. Below are some unanswered questions and other concerns.

                                                                              • Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer
                                                                              • When/where was the lead image first published?
                                                                              • How many Proctors were involved?
                                                                              • For how long did she attend school?
                                                                              • When and why did the brother go to India?
                                                                              • What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?
                                                                              • Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce
                                                                              • "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?
                                                                              • "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?
                                                                              • What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?
                                                                              • Who ended up with the Grant arms?
                                                                              • How are you ordering sources without authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
                                                                                Nikkimaria, :Thanks for your review. I feel that I would be able to address most of these concerns by revisiting the sources and/or revising the prose. I'd appreciate any further thoughts you have on the Saunders source however, since I'd be returning to that to expand on some of your other points. It's a completed PhD dissertation, reviewed by a committee and supervised by Samuel Wilson, who I think would be considered a specialist in the field - that's what SCHOLARSHIP calls for with dissertations, is it not? We have tried exercise care and to avoid leaning on it too heavily, but information about the Jamaican estates was hard to come by elsewhere. Do you think that we are using it too liberally without additional sources? Also, with regard to the source ordering, I think that's just been done alphabetically based on the titles - is there a preferred method for doing that? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
                                                                              • SCHOLARSHIP lists several factors impacting assessment of dissertation reliability, one of which is supervisor. Another is citation - has this particular thesis been cited by other sources? As to source ordering, alphabetical is fine, but should be done consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
                                                                              OK thanks, much appreciated - I'll try to find out whether it's been cited in other scholarly works and get back to you. GirthSummit (blether) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
                                                                              Nikkimaria I haven't done a proper citation search yet, but Google tells me that the Saunders PhD is cited as a reference here (the UCL 'Legacies of British Slave Ownership' project), it's referenced in this review essay on the subject, published in Slavery & Abolition in 2017, and it's cited a couple of times in this book published by the University of Georgia Press. Does that give you any confidence in us using it as a source, or would you want to see some metrics? GirthSummit (blether) 17:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
                                                                              That seems reasonable, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
                                                                              Nikkimaria I've made some changes to the article. To go through your points/concerns (apologies if I should have done this in-line above, please feel free to refactor if I'm doing this wrong):
                                                                              • Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer
                                                                              I took a look at a couple of other FA biographies, and have expanded the lead to a similar length to theirs. Do you think this is better?
                                                                              • When/where was the lead image first published?
                                                                              I'm looking into that now.
                                                                              • How many Proctors were involved?
                                                                              Three - I've named them in the article now.
                                                                              • For how long did she attend school?
                                                                              The source isn't clear on this - it just says 'in her teens' - I've added a few words along those lines.
                                                                              • When and why did the brother go to India?
                                                                              Again, the source isn't clear - it tells us that he died there, but it doesn't go into any detail about what he was doing there. I haven't been able to find anything else to allow us to expand on this.
                                                                              • What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?
                                                                              Complicated. The source explains that it ended up as a legal mess, with multiple parties suing and countersuing each other. I' not sure how we could give a concise explanation of the final resolution without adding a lot more material about the other parties involved; my feeling is that this wouldn't really be due in an article about her life (there's probably a decent length article in the history of that court case...).
                                                                              • Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce
                                                                              Good call, I've reworded that sentence.
                                                                              • "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?
                                                                              The age of twenty was specified in the will, I've added that to the sentence.
                                                                              • "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?
                                                                              1780 - I've added that.
                                                                              • What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?
                                                                              The source isn't specific - and I'm not sure whether the lawyers were at the time. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd suggest that the principal problem was that an English document would not afford any income to an Edinburgh lawyer - a serious problem in Scots law! Seriously, I'm not sure we'll be able to get at that.
                                                                              • Who ended up with the Grant arms?
                                                                              I don't know - it's not mentioned in the source. It's likely that nobody inherited them - the Proctors don't appear to have taken on the name, I don't imagine they would have used the arms. Machpherson Grant's father had to apply for Royal permission for her to use the arms - my guess would be that if nobody applied for permission to use them following her death, then they would simply no longer be used by anybody, but I don't have any sourcing that would allow me to add anything to the article along those lines.
                                                                              As discussed above.
                                                                              • How are you ordering sources without authors?
                                                                              I've fixed a couple of inconsistencies there - is there anything else standing out?
                                                                              I'd be grateful for your thoughts on the work I've done so far - is this heading in the right direction? You mentioned initially that you feel it's short on detail about the subject. I'm not sure how much more we'll be able to do about that at present, we've squeezed as much as we can out of the sources we've been able to find - do you think we're going to be able to get over the line based on what we've got here? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
                                                                              It's definitely heading in the right direction, but things get tricky when there's not a lot of sourcing available - for me we're not quite there yet, but let's see what other reviewers have to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
                                                                              Hi Nikki, did you want to take another run through now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              Hi Ian, I don't have any further comments at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              Comments: I've read through this a few times, and it's looking pretty good to me. Here are a few detailed comments on "Early life and family" to be going on with. Just a few things to iron out so far, I think. I hope to return to review the rest of the article. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              • Sourcing looks good for this section, and spot checks on a few of the references revealed no issues whatsoever.
                                                                              • "Following their marriage on 30 April 1825,[3] her parents had their first child, Alexander Grant Macpherson three years later.[4]": Three little issues: 1) We use FamilySearch as a reference to a birth/baptismal certificate. I've no particular issue with this, but I'm never sure how much we should use these kinds of primary sources. If no-one else has any problem, neither do I, but how sure can we be that this is the right person. 2) Clicking the link to FamilySearch takes me to a sign in page. If registration is required to view it, I think that should be indicated in the reference. 3) The sentence is a little strangely constructed using "following" and "later". My inclination would be to replace "three years later" with a date such as "in 1828".
                                                                              SusunW has access to this source - perhaps she would be willing to comment on this? GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              Glad to answer Girth Summit limited use of primary sources is acceptable on en.WP and in this case, we used this record, the birth record for William Grant, and the will. Had no idea one could not see the link, though agreed, I have a free account with FamilySearch. The record lists his name "Alexander Grant Macpherson, sex M, christening date 18 Apr 1828, place of christening Aberlour, Banff, Scotland, date of birth 27 Mar 1828, and parents Alexander Macpherson and Anne Grant." Pretty straight forward stuff, no OR or interpretation required. Modified text as per request and affixed subscription required template. SusunW (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • "...and her mother, despite being the daughter of a farmer,[6] was from the influential Grant family, and the marriage was considered to be beneath her station." Perhaps I'm being a little dim (which is certainly very possible) but why "despite being the daughter of a farmer"? I don't think being a farmer and being from an influential family are mutually exclusive. And looking at the reference that is given for this, there's nothing that actually says Annie Grant (her mother) was the daughter of a farmer. Instead, it says that Macpherson Grant's uncle was "the son of an agriculturalist". This is presumably her mother's brother, but this is not entirely clear from the source (even though it has to be him really!). If there is no better source for this, perhaps explain this in the reference somehow? Someone checking blindly might question the sourcing (which would be kind of annoying as the sourcing is right, but is not obviously right... if that makes sense?) But in any case, I'd be inclined to cut "daughter of a farmer" completely as I don't think it adds much to the sentence and sets up the contradiction that probably isn't a contradiction.
                                                                              So, a couple of the sources comment on the idea that her mother had married beneath her (and it came up in the trial when she died intestate - the Proctors, who inherited her estate, were relatives on her father's side, so the estate was leaving the Grant family). I think we were trying to explain that she was from an influential family, but not a particularly wealthy branch of it. You're probably right that this isn't adding very much though, and we are indeed relying on the assertion that her uncle was the son of a father to assume that her mother was too, so I've removed this statement. GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • "Her brother travelled to India, where he died in 1852, leaving Macpherson as the only surviving child": A little nit-picky, but maybe specify that she was her parents' only surviving child.
                                                                              Good point - there were other children alive at the time! I've clarified.
                                                                              • We have quite a bit on Alexander Grant here, and I wonder are there any sources that comment on him? He seems to have got rich off the proceeds of slavery, which I wonder do we need to make more explicit? The easiest way may be to find something that comments on him, or gives an opinion. No worries if not, we can't add what the sources don't say. However, when we say "Grant claimed compensation for the loss of his slaves", it looks as if he was being particularly awful in claiming compensation, but this was what everyone did. Perhaps we need something on this, just so it doesn't look like his actions were unusual at the time, no matter how jarring it sounds today. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              I've reworded this a bit - is that better now? GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              I've taken the liberty of adding a couple sources which verify that indeed it was a government scheme. The ODNB merely says that he "involved in compensation awards", which could have been from anywhere. Feel free to revert if you disagree. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              A little more: Took a look at the "Inheritance" section, and did some light copy-editing rather than making a list here. A couple of little issues, but nothing major. I'm inclined to support this, assuming that the other sections are of a similar quality. But I'll stop here for now until the nominator responds, just in case my changes or suggestions induce angry spluttering! Sarastro (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              • I corrected a few spellings where I think we should be using the British variety (jewellery, labourers), but I may have missed some. It may be worth checking for more.
                                                                              Thanks - nothing's jumping out at me, but I'll read through it again with fresh eyes and see if I spot anything. GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • "For example, when Orange Vale was originally developed in 1780,[23] its main crop was coffee, which was supplemented by selling or hiring out its slave labourers until 1813.": I'm not sure this is quite correct. As written, we are saying that its coffee was supplemented by hiring out slave labour. I'd suggest something like, "For example, the original main source of income for Orange Vale from 1780 was its coffee crop, supplemented by selling or hiring out its slave laborers until 1813." I'd also be inclined to start the next sentence with "After 1850..." Sarastro (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              Reworded - is that better?
                                                                              Thanks very much for these comments Sarastro1, I'll have a go at responding either this evening (UK time), or over the weekend. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 07:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              Sarastro1 Thanks again for reviewing - I've been through your comments above and changed what I can, SusumW may want to comment on the first one since she has access to that source. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              Support: I've done a little more copy-editing, but nothing major. There was one little sourcing issue, which I think I fixed, but please do look at the edit summaries to make sure you're happy with everything. I did a little more source checking as well, and there are no issues. The only thing I wondered was if we know what happened to Charlotte Temple after Grant's death? Nice work overall. Sarastro (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              Thanks Sarastro1. I wasn't able to find much about Temple after her marriage, except the thing about their son being killed in the First World War. It seems like Yeatman was quite a common name in Dorset, I remember coming across a lot of references to Charlotte Yeatman, but they were either clearly not her, or I couldn't be sure enough. GirthSummit (blether) 08:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              Note for coordinators: I did a source spot check as part of this review and found no issues.

                                                                              Despite the level of commentary, we are creeping up on the one-month mark without sufficient levels of review and support. I've added this to the Urgents list but it will have to be archived in the coming days if it doesn't receive more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              SC

                                                                              • Marker down for me to comment - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              Early life
                                                                              • "£2,200,000 in 2020 figures". That's a little vague. See Notes G to K for an alternative format, but certainly more precise wording. (And ditto for the later inflation-adjusted amounts).
                                                                              • Associated with the above point: why do you have the source in a note, rather than in the sources ?
                                                                              So, I copied the style used in this article from that used at Battle of Neville's Cross - I wasn't sure if there was a preferred format for this kind of information, so just went with what I saw used in an existing FA. I'll be happy to change that to the style presented at Great Stink if you think that would be an improvement, although my slight concern is that by moving the inflation-adjusted value down into the notes, and removing from the actual sentences in the article, are we making it harder for the reader to understand the values we're talking about. Do you think it would be worth keeping the converted figures in the text, but expanding the wording around them along the same lines as the examples you've given above?
                                                                              The problem with things like this is that there is no "preferred format" written down anywhere I can find! Like most things, it's down to the preference of the main editor (as long as it doesn't break any MoS rules), so long as it is consistently applied. A hybrid version along the lines you suggest may be the best way, or having the "based on Consumer Price Index measure of inflation" etc bit in the footnote too, which means the prose isn't too disturbed by extraneous detail. Your call either way.
                                                                              Inheritance
                                                                              • "his twenty-year-old niece inherited his fortune": I struggled for a moment to remember that Margaret was the niece. It's a good rule of thumb to name the subject at the start of a new para, and that is doubly so at the start of a new section. Maybe "the twenty-year-old Macpherson Grant inherited his fortune"?
                                                                              Good point - I think that paragraph started life in a different section, I've changed this.
                                                                              With Charlotte Temple
                                                                              • "However, the scale of her wealth" The "However" sticks a little, as it's not pushing against anything. You may know that the conventions of the time frowned upon homosexual relations (if that's what it was), or eccentricity (particularly from women), but some readers won't necessarily know that. Is there a way that either this is re-worked, or we stick it to a source (i.e.: "According to the historian Rachel Lang, the scale of her wealth...")
                                                                              I've changed this to attribute it to Lang.
                                                                              • "Her father": whose? The last person mentioned was Temple – was it Temple's or Macpherson Grant's?
                                                                              I've clarified this (it was her own father, not Temple's)

                                                                              That's my lot: all very minor points in an excellent first visit to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              Thanks so much for reviewing

                                                                              I have made some input to the development of this article since I assessed it for GA and so feel reluctant to submit a formal review. However, I have had no input into either the sourcing or the images. I note that reviews of both seem to be taking place above, but if any help is needed, including the first-timer's citation spot check, I would be happy to assist if pinged. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              Gog the Mild, my review included a spot check of sources, which I have now made explicit, but did not include the source formatting review. However, I never touch images with a bargepole as they terrify me. (That's image reviews, not images in general. That would be weird...) Sarastro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              Thank you Sarastro. If you are OK with the idea, I shall do a source format review to round out the sourcing side. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              Absolutely fine with me! Sarastro (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              Cheers.
                                                                              • Could the hyphenation of ISBNs be standardised please.

                                                                              Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              • Gog the Mild Question - where I've got physical copies of the books this is no problem, but for the Cant (2003) source I accessed it online. Annoyingly, the URL it used to be at no longer seems to work, Internet Archive can't find it, and any online reference to it (e.g. WorldCat) gives the ISBN without any hyphens. I could standardise the ISBNs by simply removing all of the hyphens in all of the ISBNs, but that seems to go against WP:ISBN which says you should use the hyphens where they are known. So, what's least bad - no hyphens at all, or inconsistency? If we definitely need hyphens throughout, I could take a trip out to Boston Spa where I see the BL outpost has a copy, but I don't know when I could manage that - certainly not in the next week. (As an aside - if I have a ISBN as well, is it also worth putting in a WorldCat number, or is that overkill?) Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              I'm not Gog, Face-smile.svg but Girth Summit "The thirteen digit number is divided into five parts of variable length ... The current ISBN-13 will be prefixed by "978" ; Group or country identifier which identifies a national or geographic grouping of publishers (English ISBNs start with either 978-0 or 978-1); Publisher identifier which identifies a particular publisher within a group; Title identifier which identifies a particular title or edition of a title; Check digit is the single digit at the end of the ISBN which validates the ISBN."[13] Knowing 1st 2 and last 1, seemed logical to find the publisher code (which I couldn't find here), but looking it up here would appear your number would be 978-0-9505994-7-2. SusunW (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              I think that my better-than-the-real-Gog doppelgogger has put it well. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              Thanks both - I've done the Cant book as you describe, and I've followed the groupings of McKean and Pevsner from the books themselves. GirthSummit (blether) 07:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              Source formatting - pass Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              Support from Cassianto

                                                                              • Why do we refer to her as Macpherson at the start and Macpherson Grant later on?
                                                                              Because her name was Macpherson when she was born, and she changed it as one of the conditions of her inheritance. Is that not the correct approach to take?
                                                                              No. I would stick to "Macphearson Grant" throughout to avoid confusion. We are only talking about a few lines anyway, but it is right at the point that you are talking about her father, who you refer to as "Macphearson". CassiantoTalk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              OK - I've changed this and refer to her as Macpherson Grant throughout. GirthSummit (blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • Why is there a map in the lead section showing where she lived? Why is this important?
                                                                              That was added during the GA review, as it was felt that her connection to Aberlour as a place was significant enough to be worth showing the reader where it is. I'm not wedded to it, if others feel it's irrelevant it could come out.
                                                                              I'd lose it. We don't have one of Buckingham Palace for Elizabeth II so we certainly don't need this. CassiantoTalk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              In fairness, I think the average reader is more likely to be more familiar with locations in London than Moray, but I take your point - I've removed it. GirthSummit (blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • Check the start of the "Early life and family" section for confusing use of pronouns.
                                                                              It's not jumping out at me, can you be specific?
                                                                              Where Macpherson Grant is mentioned alongside other females, call her "Mcpherson Grant". CassiantoTalk 08:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • "Alexander Grant had been involved in business in Jamaica with Alexander Donaldson (died 1807) and Alexander Thomson (died 1818), who both predeceased him" -- we could comfortably lose "who predeceased him" as not important, not relevant, and leave the reader to do the fathoming out using the dates you provided.
                                                                              I'll have a proper look at this in the morning, and reword accordingly.
                                                                              Reworded.GirthSummit (blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              I'm not entirely sure this meets the criteria at the moment, if I'm honest, as the writing seems a bit shabby and could do with a copy edit. Was this peer reviewed? CassiantoTalk 21:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              Thanks for the review Cassianto - I've replied above, and will look at what I can change tomorrow. I'm afraid I can't do much about generally shabby writing without more specific advice. The review history is all on the article's talk page. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 00:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              Shabby was perhaps a bit harsh, but it certainly does need more work. Let's see if we can get it where it needs to be. CassiantoTalk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • Do we need "£300,000 (worth approximately £29,000,000 in 2020 figures)" in the main text? It's awfully jarring. Suggest relegating it to a footnote.
                                                                                Took me a while to figure out how to do this, but I think I've done it correctly now. I haven't converted every single sum of money in the article, but when there is a significant change in date I've put them in - happy to go through and add them to all of them for consistency if you think that would help.
                                                                              • "He also left her an outright settlement of £20,500 payable at his death provided she had attained a majority of twenty years of age, an annuity of £1,500..." -- yet, you don't do the same here? Consistency is best.
                                                                                I've added footnotes in for all mentions of currency now - as you say, better to be consistent.
                                                                              • "For example, when Orange Vale..." -- "For example" is too conversational and not what I would expect to see in an encyclopaedia.
                                                                                Agreed, removed.
                                                                              • "In accordance with her uncle's will, her father applied on her behalf for royal approval..." -- Was it in his will that someone apply on her behalf? If not, I'd lose that and just say that his wish was for the name to be combined.
                                                                                Agreed, reworded.
                                                                              • Why the red link to "Salmon fishing"? I think most will guess what that is.
                                                                                Gone.
                                                                              • "...and drew up a new will. This directed..." The will doesn't direct, the person does. The will instructs.
                                                                                Reworded.
                                                                              • "She is reported to have then met Temple" -- reported by who? See WP:AWW
                                                                                Reworded.
                                                                              • "Macpherson Grant and Temple returned to live in Aberlour House, spending their time in field sports and stock raising." -- "and spent their time playing field sports and raising live stock." -- This sounds better, but am I correct in what I'm saying with regards to "live stock?
                                                                                You're correct - they bred livestock, exhibiting in country shows and the like. Reworded.
                                                                              • "Macpherson Grant promoted and supported various charitable causes, especially those involving the church. Their life together was described as being much like a marriage" -- I know what you mean, but some can be "wedded" to the church. Please clarify that you're talking about Temple.
                                                                                Reworded.
                                                                              • "Macpherson Grant drank heavily during the late 1860s." -- Again, I know what you mean, but some may question it. Alcohol, I presume, and not because of an overly-salty diet?

                                                                              Would it be fair to say that she became an alcoholic? Or she relied more so on alcohol?

                                                                              • Reworded.
                                                                              • "Alexander Macpherson, her father..." One or the other here (the latter), not both. We've already had an introduction.
                                                                                It originally said 'her father', but an earlier reviewer suggested that it was ambiguous as to whether we meant MG's or Temple's father. I've gone with Macpherson Grant's father.
                                                                              • "After his death, and as her aunt Margaret Gordon had died in 1866..." clumsy. Suggest: "After the deaths of her father and her aunt". Do we need to say when she died? If so, reduce it to a footnote, if you can.
                                                                                Reworded.

                                                                              Cassianto - thanks again for these detailed comments. I think I've addresses all of them now, hopefully haven't broken anything else in the process. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              Thanks, GS, seen those. I'll continue with it later, if I get the chance. CassiantoTalk 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • "Around this time, Harry Farr Yeatman, a retired commander of the Royal Navy,[40] visited Aberlour." -- around what time? New para, new section, new date.
                                                                                Reworded.
                                                                              • See this copy edit. If you disagree, please revert.
                                                                                Agree with your change, thanks.
                                                                              • See this copy edit. If you disagree, please revert.
                                                                                Agree with your change, thanks.
                                                                              • "Shortly before the marriage, Temple had written to Simon Keir, a partner of Macpherson Grant's agents at Milne & Co., directing that his accounting of sales no longer be sent to Macpherson Grant directly..." -- close succession of "directing" and "directly".
                                                                                Changed 'directing' to 'requesting' (which is possibly a better choice of words, since I'm not clear she actually had the authority to direct him).
                                                                              • "Dissatisfied with this new arrangement, and with what he saw as Temple's interfering in his affairs..." -- was there ever any likelihood of him being satisfied? I doubt it. I would change "dissatisfied" with unhappy.
                                                                                Done
                                                                              • "By this time, with Temple gone, Macpherson Grant was depressed, mentally unstable and drinking heavily. → "With Temple now gone, Macpherson Grant became depressed, mentally unstable and drunk heavily." Also, depression is depression, drunk heavily (as we've said earlier), yes, means she drunk lots of alcohol, but how was she mentally unstable? One is left questioning this, unlike the other two you mention.
                                                                                Reworded per your suggestion. 'Mentally unstable' was a reference to Lang's assertion that she was going through a psychotic episode. I've reworded this so that we're attributing it to Lang - do you think that's OK, or should we cut this (since Lang is an historian rather than a psychiatrist)?
                                                                              • "She died on 14 April 1877..." Who did? We mention both Temple and MG in the preceding sentence.
                                                                                Do you think this is really necessary? MMG is the subject of the previous sentence, with Temple just mentioned in an aside - don't you think it would be awkward to use her (rather lengthy) name again here? (I'll make the change if you really think it woule be better).
                                                                                If fact, we also mention Lang, so that's three females in the preceding sentence. I'll leave it up to you, it's certainly not a reason to oppose. CassiantoTalk 19:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • "She was also entitled to receive a gold watch that she had gifted to Macpherson Grant, and a diamond brooch that had belonged to Macpherson Grant..." → "She was also entitled to receive a gold watch and a diamond brooch that had belonged to Macpherson Grant..." Cuts our the awkward repetition of MG's name.
                                                                                Done.

                                                                              That's all from me. I can see me supporting this once these have been addressed.  CassiantoTalk 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              Thanks Cassianto - that all looks reasonable and doable. Something has come up at work that means I'll have very little time for a couple of days, but I hope to be able to get this done towards the end of the week, or over the weekend at the latest. GirthSummit (blether) 19:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              Thanks Cassianto - I've made all the changes you suggested bar one - let me know if you really think that one is necessary. Thanks again for the very detailed review, most appreciated. GirthSummit (blether) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              Support based on the above fixes. I have really enjoyed reading this article and I hope to see you back here again soon, Girth Summit. CassiantoTalk 19:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                                              SupportComments from Tim riley

                                                                              The prose has not been as carefully checked as it could have been. I agree with Cassianto that a peer review would have been a good idea. A few points:

                                                                              • William Roberston? As the link takes one to William Robertson something is not right here.
                                                                              • Sorry, I don't quite understand this point - what's wrong with William Robertson? (Apologies if I'm missing something obvious.)
                                                                              • Two letters were the wrong way round in "Roberston". I've amended it. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • Mrs Yeatman becomes Mrs meatman at one point – ignore that: a computer glitch at my end. All is well on this point.
                                                                              • Mrs Yeatman is sometimes Yeatman and sometimes Mrs Yeatman – confusing
                                                                              • I think there were instances where I thought it would help differentiate between her and her husband, who had been referred to in earlier sentences. I've removed it if you think it's clear enough without.
                                                                              • The AmE "convince to" (three times) is out of place in a BrE article. One convinces that and persuades to.
                                                                              • I didn't know that - thanks, I've changed it.
                                                                              • MacPherson or Macpherson? We have both.
                                                                              • The sources aren't consistent. I've tried to maintain consistency within the article, I think the only instance of McPherson is in one of the sources.
                                                                              • "To do so, she employing A & W Reid" – this is not English.
                                                                              • Fixed.
                                                                              • A & W – much as I dislike the absurdly outdated use of full stops after people's initials, that is what the Manual of Style requires. (Uncle Sam is still in the early 20th century in this regard.)
                                                                              • Fixed
                                                                              Well now. This is the name of an organisation, a commercial partnership. Should the name not be given as it was used at the time? However that was - I have no idea whether messrs A and W styled themselves A. and W. respectively. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              Behave, Gog! The MoS bids us silently amend non-WP formatting and punctuation in such cases, and in any case I'll bet you a large glass of red at the Wehwalt Arms that in the 19th century this, like any other firm, would have put full stops after initials. We didn't start getting rid of them till the 1960s. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • "the nephews of its original architect, who had continued his practice" – ambiguous: it was the nephews who had continued the practice. Better to turn the sentence round and write something like "A. & W. Reid, Robertson's nephews, who had continued the original architect's practice in Elgin after his death in 1841".
                                                                              • fixed
                                                                              • "ball room" – one word, according to the OED
                                                                              • fixed
                                                                              • "leaving all of her wealth" – more Americanism. In BrEnglish "leaving all her wealth", without the otiose "of" is wanted. (It also avoids the repetition of "of".)
                                                                              • Another one I didn't know - fixed.
                                                                              • Throughout there are instances of the pointless AmE practice of putting commas after temporal references - "in 1854, Margaret", "While on a trip to London in 1864, Macpherson", "Later that year, Temple visited", " After 1850, the main crop", "Around this time, Captain Harry", "at times, she seemed positive", "After expansion, it became" and so on. I know of no BrE style guide that condones this silly practice.
                                                                              • Chipping in here... (I'm not bothered either way, but I tend to use them myself like this) I'm sure that Tim will be delighted to know that this silly practice is explicitly taught in UK schools, and on grammar tests (which are a thing now), NOT putting a comma in such a case would result in the loss of marks. I know that will make you very happy... Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • God in Heaven! All this and chlorinated chicken, too. We are colonised (sorry, colonized) by the USA! Poor old God would have had marks deducted too: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made". Not a comma in sight. Tim riley talk 10:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • Thanks for your comments Tim riley - I'm going to start going through them, and Cassianto's, now. But just to add to Sarastro's point here - I'm afraid it's true. I am a primary teacher, and am required to teach children that the omission of these commas would be a mistake. I'm so used to teaching kids to use them that I do it myself now. (Perhaps you will take comfort from the fact that brighter kids often notice that the authors of their favourite novels routinely make this 'mistake', and they seem still to be able to understand the sentence.) GirthSummit (blether) 11:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • Can cattle be classified as "produce"? Not sure about this, but it looks rather odd to my eye.
                                                                              • I've seen this before, and it seemed ok to me. But perhaps I can blame my terrible geography teacher or my worse memory if it's not a thing! Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                                I struggled to think of a better word - can they be goods? Thinking about it, I'm not sure that the sentence added anything, so I've removed it and made a slight change to the following one.
                                                                              • "Alexander Macpherson, her father, also tried" – we have already been told the name of the subject's father. Perhaps better to make this "Macpherson's father also tried".
                                                                              • I've reworded this sentence.
                                                                              • "Captain Harry Farr Yeatman, a retired commander" – as commander is a rank below captain in the RN surely this can't be right?
                                                                              • Chipping in again, this is the fault of the source more than the nominator. (To make clear, the source is definitely high quality and appropriate but suffers from a little bit of Victorian convention) It says that Yeatman was a retired commander, but also calls him a captain. Without digging too deeply, I suspect that what has happened is that the source refers to him as "Captain" when talking about him pre-retirement as I believe a commander in the RN was given the courtesy title of captain. So the source is tripping itself up here, and the simplest solution is to remove captain (which I've done). Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                                Thanks - agree with Sarastro's change.
                                                                              • "There was a report in the London Standard" – a citation?
                                                                              • Added (Lang supports this, although it might be better to dig out a ref to the original report?)
                                                                                • I plan to toddle along to the British Library on Friday and can have a look in the Evening Standard archive if you'd like me to. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Afterthought: I should add that I don't think your present source is in any way inadequate. Tim riley talk 14:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • Tim riley If you're going there anyway, that would be brilliant, thanks. According to Lang, it's 14/08/1875, Issue15928 p. 3. Not having read it myself, I didn't want to cite it directly, but if you can check it easily that would be very helpful. GirthSummit (blether) 14:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • Will do. I'm down there researching one of the founders of the National Trust. I may try to press-gang you into peer reviewing that article in due course, and you can get your own back for my nitpicking here. I'll report back here on the citation, or on your talk page if the article is promoted by Friday. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • If I can be of any help at your article I'd be delighted. I'm not sure how useful I'll be, since I think you've already demonstrated that your copy editing skills far surpass my own, but if a pair of fresh eyeballs attached to a semi-functional brain would be of use, they're at your disposal. GirthSummit (blether) 00:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              • The date and page are correct. The article (unsigned) is headed "Grouse Shooting: The Scotch Moors". It says that Captain Yeatman "bagged 26 brace of grouse, two hares and two plovers". Plover butties, anyone? Tim riley talk 13:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
                                                                              Thanks for digging that out Tim riley - much appreciated, I've added the citation to the article. GirthSummit (blether) 15:45, 2 February 20