Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2024

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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2024 [1].

John Pulman[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Pulman was an eight-time world snooker champion in a period when the sport was at a low ebb. He turned professional in 1946 and retired from competition in 1981 after breaking his leg when hit by a London bus. As ever, I am able to provide relevant extracts from sources to reviewers on request, and welcome all comments that help improve the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this nomination is not attracting attention, I'm pinging Amakuru and Rodney Baggins, who offered challenges and suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Davis/archive2, and HurricaneHiggins and Lee Vilenski who have a current nomination for 2023 World Snooker Championship, to see if any of them would like to contribute here. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:John_Pulman.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to identify the copyright holder and year? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria: I had a look around some sources to see if I could confirm whether it was published, but didn't find an example. The source has "This photograph originates from the International Magazine Services photo archive. IMS was a editorial photo archive in Scandinavia founded in 1948 but evolved from older archives that have images in the collection also .... The images in this archive where distributed in only 10-15 copies around the world at the time". The scan of the back of the photo does not give a date. Let me know if I should search for a diffrent image. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, would just suggest adding that context to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReviewSupport from Hurricane Higgins[edit]

I think this article meets all the criteria for a Featured Article. It's comprehensive, meticulously researched, detailed, and yet accessible to a non-specialist audience. The writing is fluid and readable. I learned a lot from reading it, and also enjoyed reading it. It beautifully illuminates an era in snooker that many will know little about.

If I were to revise anything about the writing, I'd rework the final two paragraphs of the "Later career and retirement section", with a focus on chronological order. They skip around confusingly between 1978 and 1998, mentioning his divorce twice, talking about his retirement and then the publication of a book 16 years prior to that.

In terms of content, was there anything notable about Pulman's life between his retirement from professional play in 1981 and his death in 1998? It might be useful, for instance, to know how long he worked as a snooker commentator. This article by Dave Hendon notes that Pulman commentated on the first officially recognized 147 by Steve Davis, which might be something to include. https://www.eurosport.com/snooker/he-can-see-the-pocket-closing-up-re-live-davis-history-making-first-ever-147-break-on-its-anniversar_sto8696729/story.shtml

Not much else of note here. I think this is an excellent article that easily equals or exceeds other snooker articles that have been awarded FA status. So more than happy to support its promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricaneHiggins (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodney Baggins[edit]

I've had a quick look. First comment would be: this is quite a short article, compared with some of the other featured articles we've worked on. Could it be expanded in any way? HurricaneHiggins has already noted some areas for improvement above, and I might suggest some more after I've had chance to read in more detail today.

I'll look forward to any suggestions for improvement. There is scope to expand on career history, but for personal life, playing style etc I think I 've pretty much wrung out the available sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead

I've copyedited this section for you – hope you don't mind. Suggest adding in the following links:

  • I'm grateful for the copyedits; I see you've also kindly copyedited some of the related tournament articles leads. Links suggested above have been added. 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Early life
  • Can we source his full name Herbert John Pulman?
  • The Times obituary is the source for this; I could add it directly after his full name. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Devonshire to Devon, as in infobox, or vice versa, as long as they're the same. I think Devonshire's just an archaic version of Devon.
  • Second sentence could do with swapping round... "His father was Ernest Charles Pulman, a master baker and confectioner, and his mother was Ernest's wife Gertrude Mary Pulman, née Kent."... or something similar.
  • "He was allowed to pick a cue from a selection at the venue," > "He was invited to choose a cue from a selection at the venue,"
  • "and used that cue for the rest of his career." > "and he used that particular cue for the rest of his career."
  • "In his first match with the cue" > "In his first match at the event" ? Might be trying to imply that it was because of the cue that he did so well in the match!
  • I think we should be calling Barrie Smith by his professional name John Barrie.
  • I've added "later known as John Barrie" as he was still known by his original name at the time. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a 200-up match" doesn't mean anything to me – could you perhaps explain it in a footnote?
  • It means "first to 200 points"; I've added a footnote but there may be a more elegant solution. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cue that Pulman chose" > "The cue that Pulman had chosen" (tense)
  • "included a metal plate mentioning Sidney Smith" – what do you mean by 'mentioning'? Was Smith's name just engraved into the plate cos it had belonged to him? Could just put: "included a metal plate with the name Sidney Smith engraved on it;"
  • The source has "The metal plate on the butt bore the name of Sidney Smith, a renowned professional of the day...". I imagine it was something like the examples here. Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "using a cue with another professional's name on it." > "using a cue inscribed with another professional's name."
  • "making Spitfire wings" > "making wings for Spitfires" ... brings to mind "four candles / handles for forks"!
  • Spitfire doesn't need to be piped because it's a redirect – just put [[Spitfire]]s
  • Can you say a bit more about the medical grounds on which he was discharged? Was it something that affected his later snooker career?
  • "In the Smith piece, Pulman says, referring to his Army service, that he had varicose veins, but not that this was the reason for the discharge; I've added this in. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transition from billiards to snooker: I have noticed that the Early life section makes no mention of him playing snooker. He only appears to have played billiards before the war. Then the next section kicks off with him winning the 1946 English Amateur (Snooker) Championship, and billiards is not mentioned again, so how/when did he make the transition to playing snooker?
Early professional career (1946–1955)
  • "At 20, he was the youngest winner since the event was..." > "Aged 20, Pulman was the youngest player to win the event since it was...""
  • "he became a professional player" > "he took the decision to become a professional player"
  • "within ten days of each other." sounds a bit awkward. Maybe change to "just ten days apart" or "the second just ten days after the first"?
  • "Pulman lived at the house of his patron" > "Pulman was living at the home of his patron" (tense) – was he in fact lodging there? If so, would it be better to put "Pulman was lodging at the home of his patron"? (prefer the word 'home' to 'house')
  • What exactly does "patron" mean here? Was Lampard sponsoring him in some way?
  • According to Williams & Gadsby, "[Pulman] was lucky enough to receive the backing of a Bristol confectioner and baker named Bill Lampard... [who] let Pulman stay at his house"; Everton 2012 has "[Pulman] lived at the home, with billiard room attached, of his wealthy patron, Bill Lampard, who launched him into the professional game." Lowe says that Lampard "agreed to sponsor" Pulman. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a baker from Bristol and..." > "who was a baker from Bristol and..." (without the "who was", it sounds as if we're listing three people: (1) Bill Lampard, (2) a baker from Bristol, and (3) a member of the BACC.
  • "Lampard built a billiard room" > "Lampard built a billiard room in his house" – or did he just "set up" a billiard room in his house?
  • added "at his house" - Lowe has "set up a billiards room"; Williams & Gadsby have "built a special billiards room"; Everton says the room was "attached" but doesn't mention it being made for Pulman BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clive Everton claims" > "alleges" might be a more fitting word here?
  • "seeking a level of consistency" > "in pursuit of a level of consistency" or just "pursuing"?
  • "due to influenza" – did he just have bad cold symptoms or was it a full-blown case of the flu?
  • The Scotsman has "due to influenza". Birmingham Daily Post for 27 January 1951 has "suffering from influenza"
  • The round-robin-with-points-handicaps format for the News of the World tournament had already been used for the Sunday Empire News Tournament the previous year, so the format description should perhaps be moved up to that previous event. Having said that, I can't see an easy way of doing it, so maybe leave it alone for now...

I've either commented above, or addressed the points about Early professional career. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World snooker championship contests (1955–1968)
  • Shouldn't Jack Rea be Jackie Rea? Or was he referred to as Jack back in the day?
  • Newspapers.com has 114 matches for "'Jack Rea' snooker" in 1957, and none for "'Jackie Rea' snooker". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest changing "along with Williams, Fred Davis, and Jack Rea," to "along with Fred Davis, Rea and Williams," (surnames in alphabetical order)
  • Should Blackheath be linked to distinguish it from the ones in London or Surrey? (there's even one in Australia!)
  • Is it necessary to mention that he took Harold Phillips out to lunch? Could just say "after talks with..." or "after an approach to..." the BA&CC chairman Harold Phillips.
  • "on a challenge basis" – might it be useful to link to [[Challenge (competition)|challenge]]
  • Is it accurate to say they "spun a coin"? – coins are usually "tossed" or "flipped". Pls check source.
  • Everton (2012) has "At one rural venue, no spectators showed up. Instead of playing, the players spun a coin." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that in the whole of this section, there's no link through to 1964–68 World Snooker Championships – that could do with working in somehow. One option might be to link it through "The championship was reinstated", i.e. [[1964–68 World Snooker Championships|The championship was reinstated]]...?
  • "between Pulman, the winner of the 1957 Championship, and Fred Davis" – it almost looks here as if we are listing three people: (1) Pulman, (2) the winner of the 1957 Championship, and (3) Fred Davis! Suggest changing to "between Pulman, who had won the most recent championship in 1957, and the challenger Fred Davis."
  • "Pulman defeated Davis 19–16 at Burroughes Hall in April 1964." – suggest appending: "to retain the title that he had claimed seven years earlier."
  • "in the deciding frame" – might be more impactful to change this to "in a final-frame decider"?
  • "where Pulman won by 25 matches to 22" – would it be ok to say "where Pulman won 25 of their 47 matches"?
  • "by seeing off the challenge of Eddie Charlton." – not sure about the phrase 'seeing off' – could this be changed to something like "by fending off a challenge from Eddie Charlton"? Or maybe that's not an improvement.

Amended the World snooker championship contests (1955–1968) section as suggested, apart from where comments above indicate otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later career and retirement (1968–1998)
  • Suggest changing: "In 1967, Pulman had toured snooker clubs as promotional work for..." to "In 1967, Pulman had spent time touring snooker clubs doing promotional work for..." and where were the clubs? All over the UK, or just England, or the London area?
  • Amended. I've added "across the Midlands" as it's consistent with Everton's article and I didn't find any mentions of venues outside that area. (Meanwhile, Jack Karnehm undertook a 27-venue Engish billiards tour in Guyana, and Fred Davis and Rex Williams were using tubular metal cues "for all their tournaments and exhibitions"). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The good attendances for the championship match" > "The good attendances for the Pulman/Charlton match" (possible alternative way of referring to it?)
  • "This championship is generally regarded as..." > "The 1969 event, with its updated format, is generally regarded as..."
  • "recovered in time" – might this be characterised as fully or sufficiently recovered in time?
  • The Park Drive 2000 was a series of tournaments, so it might be more accurate to put "the Park Drive 2000 series, which began less than two weeks later."
  • "an invitational event for four world champions." > "an invitational event with four world champions in competition." ?
  • First two sentences of 2nd paragraph appear to be unsourced. Are they both covered by Everton 1985, pp. 53–55? If so, maybe need to put ref tags at end of each sentence? I was actually thinking the 1st sentence ("Unable to defend his title, ...") might be best placed at end of 1st paragraph anyway.
  • I added the extra instances for the ref, and moved that sentence. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After 1977, he was unable to win another World Championship match." – Would it be possible to work in that he entered the championship up to and including 1981, but didn't win any matches? e.g. "After 1977, he was unable to win another World Championship match, although he continued to enter until 1982 when he had to withdraw..." + reason? + source?
  • I think it's more usual to say "declared bankrupt" rather than "adjudged bankrupt".
  • "with debts of £5,916" > "with personal debts of £5,916" (assuming he didn't have any failed business ventures?)
  • Do you want to put any equivalences in this article (using the inflation template)? Debts of £5,916 are equivalent to almost 32 grand in today's money, and his £400 prize money for the 1948 Sunday Empire News Tournament is equivalent to over 15 grand these days.
  • "Pulman and his wife Frances divorced around 1978..." – should really be placed before the bit about his bankruptcy in 1979. Then you could change the sentence "By this time he was recently divorced, suffering from severe motivational problems and living in a hotel in Bromley" to just "By this time, he was living in a hotel in Bromley and suffering from severe motivational problems."
  • "He retired from professional play in 1981..." – could you add something to this sentence about him having to pull out of the 1981 world championship (which turned out to be his last one) and why?
  • Why was he hospitalised for six months? Surely not just for breaking his leg. The London bus incident must have been quite serious, so it might be worth explaining a bit more here if you can.
  • Amended here and in the next para - not sure where the "six months" came from, so I removed it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to work as a television commentator" – do you mean snooker commentator?
  • Suggest moving sentence about his book to start of 4th paragraph, so it fits in chronologically: "His book... was revised and published as Tackle Snooker in 1974." followed by "Pulman and his wife Frances divorced around 1978; they had three children." followed by "On 7 February 1979, he was declared bankrupt with personal debts of £5,916. By this time, he was living in a hotel in Bromley and suffering from severe motivational problems." Then the chronology's right.
  • I agree with HurricaneHiggins, I'd like to know more about the length of his commentating career, and what he got up to in the later years before his death, but I see that you've noted above that there's not much more you can squeeze out of the sources. It would be nice to see the last couple of paragraphs expanded slightly if possible.

Amended the Later career and retirement (1968–1998) section as suggested, apart from where comments above indicate otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playing style and influence
  • I sometimes think it's best to write out simple conversions without using the convert template, because you can put non-breaking spaces in then (not provided by the template). {{convert|6|ft|2|in|cm}} > 6{nbsp here}feet 2{nbsp here}inches (188{nbsp here}cm) ... the template has already done the conversion, so you know the cm figure is accurate.
  • The clause starting "and adapted a stance..." needs to be broken up a bit, e.g. "and adapted a stance ... close together, meaning that more weight..."
  • "This enabled him to use his height and reach to his advantage while playing." > "This enabled him to take full advantage of his height and his reach while playing shots."
  • "In their 2005 book about world snooker champions," > "In their 2005 book, Masters of the Baize," (sounds more formal?)
  • ...wrote of Pulman that "If I ever > ...wrote of Pulman: "If I ever
  • "and a long-time snooker commentator" > "and was a long-time snooker commentator"
  • I tend to think it's best to give players' names in full when first mentioned in any new section: "Alex Higgins, the world champion in 1972 and 1982"; "praised by Ray Reardon"; "John Spencer admired"
  • Is it necessary to give the details of the Davis/Pulman match? You could just say something like "Steve Davis, who met Pulman in a *first-round* match at the 1977 Pontins Open, observed how..." (or whatever round it was!)
  • It was the last-32, which Davis refers to as the "first round proper", but even Snooker Scene doesn't say which round that was, so I've used "who met Pulman in a match at" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why were the conditions imperfect? Is there anything you could add that might clarify what Pulman and Reardon adapted to there?
  • Amended, as David ony talks about the quality of the tables. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need semi-colon before end clause, just put "...rather than bemoaning them, and he found this to be a valuable lesson."

Amended the Playing style and influence section as suggested, apart from where comments above indicate otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Career finals
  • Note [m] should surely read: "Pulman won the match at 37–28."
  • The 1955 match-play championship was won when the score reached 37–34, but this is not noted.
  • You forgot to note that the winning score for the October 1964 match was 37–23.
  • You also forgot to note that the winning score for the 1968 challenge match was 37–28.
  • I'd prefer to expand the notes to read: "?? won the match when the score reached ??–??." but I don't really mind either way!
  • At first sight, it's weird that there are two entries for 1964 and three for 1965. Might benefit from adding a note for the two 1964 WSC matches: "These were two separate challenge matches played in London in April 1964 and October 1964." and for the three 1965 WSC matches: "These were three separate challenge matches played in South Africa in 1965."
  • Amended. I've gone for a simpler note about challenges, with longer notes for those that were a series of matches. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there any dead frames played in the 1970 final that should be noted?
References
  • Refs 1 & 53 are dup cites (Independent obituary); refs 46 & 90 are dup cites (Snooker Scene: Higgins in top gear at Ford tournament); refs 49 & 84 are dup cites (Snooker Scene: Official rankings August 1976)
  • Refs. 15, 86, 87,88 lead to a British Newspaper Archive sign-in page so not particularly useful for most readers. Can the articles be found via Newspapers.com instead (like the two Guardian articles, refs. 47 & 52)? Are any of the other articles available to view, e.g. all the Times citations, The Scotsman (ref.18), The Age (ref.78), The Canberra Times (ref.79), etc.
  • Refs 15 and 86 (Western Daily Press) are available via British Newspaper Archive, so what about the other Western Daily Press refs (11 and 67a)?
  • Ref 88 (Birmingham Daily Post) is available via British Newspaper Archive, so what about the other Birmingham Daily Post refs (30, 41, 68, 75)?
  • Suggest unlinking The Glasgow Herald work param in refs 21–34 and 32–35 for consistency (none of the other newspaper work params are linked).
  • Is it possible to highlight SNOOKER rather than Swimming in the newspaper snippet for ref.35?
  • Is it possible to highlight SNOOKER rather than Weaver's Success in the newspaper snippet for ref.37?
  • Of the numerous Snooker Scene citations, only one (ref.51) cites Clive Everton as editor (inconsistent).
  • Ref.66: Is this book the same as this? It's compiled (authored) by Reg Perrin and published by BBC, isbn 0-563-20293-9. I can't find an Ian Morrison version.
  • No, it's the magazine Pot Black, not associated with the BBC. I've added the ISSN number. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links wherever I could, including swapping a couple of references. I couldn't find another online source for the winning margin against Williams (17 October 1964 source; other papers report the post-dead-frames score of 38-22); I didn't manage to repoint that link from the Swimming heading, which I think is due to the quality of the scan. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making progress. Well, you know I find it impossible to not be thorough, right!?... Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benny, one more section to check and we're done. I've been doing a bit of copyediting along the way too, which seemed easier while noting down my specific comments/queries for your attention, so you can use your own judgement for those. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done now – sorry it took me so long. I do hope this helps rather than hinders. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the thorough review, Rodney Baggins, I really appreciate it. Please let me have any further feedback once you've had a chance to digest my changes and replies. (Skip to 1:03 here for a glimpse of Pulman that you might not have seen before.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rodney Baggins, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and BennyOnTheLoose: Hi, I'm just going over it now. Looking good apart from one or two minor tweaks that I will note here later. Yes, it will be a Support from me. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments
  • You said The Times obituary is the source for his full name; I would quite like to see that tagged directly after his full name at start of Early life section.
  • There are quite a lot of multi-tags that could do with swapping round, unless the first is specifically more useful as a source for the tagged material, e.g. [4][3] > [3][4] in Early life section. Also [7][4]; [10][3]; [47][42]; [53][17][54]; [1][54]; [60][57]; [72][17]; [23][19]; [42][17].
  • I commented above that, while he seemed keen on billiards as a youngster, there's no further mention of it after the Early life section. Maybe amend next section heading from 'Career' to 'Snooker career', to make it clear that there's no billiards included in his main career? Just a thought – purely up to you!
  • You didn't respond to these comments for Later career and retirement (1968–1998):
    • I think it's more usual to say "declared bankrupt" rather than "adjudged bankrupt".
    • "with debts of £5,916" > "with personal debts of £5,916" (assuming he didn't have any failed business ventures?)
    • Do you want to put any equivalences in this article (using the inflation template)? Debts of £5,916 are equivalent to almost 32 grand in today's money, and his £400 prize money for the 1948 Sunday Empire News Tournament is equivalent to over 15 grand these days.
  • I was going to suggest that note [h] needs a citation, but looking back at what it's referring to, I realise that wouldn't be straightforward. It's just there to point out that the QF was his first match because there were only 8 players in those tournaments. I'm not sure if the note needs to be reworded to make that clear, or just removed altogether?
  • I've amended the note and added citations. I think that "QF" suggests some progression in the tournament,and so a note is worthwhile. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note [k] might be wrong. It says the winning score was 37–31, but according to wiki article, the winning score was 37–34 (to Fred Davis) and there were two dead frames played, bringing the final score to 38–35. Or maybe the main article has it wrong?
  • The source used in the 1955 article does have 37–34, but the source I used here has Davis leading 36-30, losing the first frame of the next session, but then "taking the second... to become champion in the 68th frame of the week." I'll check other sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note [t] is incorrect. His opponent in the final was Reardon not Davis.
  • The page numbers appear to be wrong for refs. 49 and 92.
  • The printed page number for ref 49 is 6. I've added an edition parameter but I'm not sure as it seems to be a sports ("Pink Final" Special") sold separately. For 92, the preceding page in the scan in 9, and the fron cover states "Ten Pages". The Newspapers.com scan includes different editions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding in all the newspaper clippings – I think they're fascinating! Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I'll have one final look at sources before amending the final score in the 1955 World Professional Match-play Championship final at that article and in other places such as here. I'll also rearrange the citations into numerical order. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Amakuru[edit]

First of all, I feel bad coming in to oppose here (and particularly since you pinged me into the discussion), as I appreciate a lot of good work has gone into this article, and I certainly applaud the work done by BennyOnTheLoose in bringing it to the state it's in now, which is very solid GA-level. The project is better for this and whether this passes or fails, I appreciate the effort that's gone in. This isn't a judgement on the editor(s) who've written this at all.

But unfortunately I'm going to have to oppose for the exact same reasons as I opposed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Davis/archive1. This is an eight-time world champion, presumably one of the greats of the game, similar to Davis or indeed more modern players such as Mark Selby. Yet when I run the page size tool, I find this article weighs in at only 15 kB (2664 words) of readable prose size. That's in comparison to Selby's GA-level article, which has 39 kB (6804 words) of prose and another FA-level snooker bio John Spencer (snooker player), which has 30 kB (5147 words). Ultimately, the main difference seems to be that articles such as Selby's have detailed blow-by-blow coverage of each and every season, with the highs and lows, and certainly a whole paragraph dedicated to each of his world title wins, whereas those for Pulman and Davis seem to only highlight the broad brush and big achievements, many lacking significant detail (for example his first defence of the world title is given one sentence "Pulman defeated Davis 19–16 at Burroughes Hall in April 1964 to retain the title that he had claimed seven years earlier".

Now I fully get the underlying reasons for this - Selby's career has played out int the Wikipedia age, and for better or worse, that means fans constantly updating with events as they happen... whereas for a player from the pre-internet age, we're reliant on bringing it all in from scratch. Hence why one of the all-time great tennis players Pete Sampras has an article that's 25% shorter than the less decorated but more recent player John Isner. I get that it's a lot harder to source the same level of information from sources for a bygone player and would likely require searches of resources that aren't just available online.

But this is FAC, nobody ever pretends it's easy... and I don't think we'd be doing our job properly if we nodded through articles of vastly different length and structure, simply because of how easy it is to find the relevant sourcing. Criteria 1b and 1c tells us that the article must be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and that it is "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". If we are to achieve those, we must delve into the sources of the days when Pulman played, and we must dig out the level of information which we see for Selby. Unless of course you can show conclusively that such sourcing simply doesn't exist, but I'm a bit sceptical on that point. So apologies once again, and I hold out the hope that this one or Davis will one day achieve the comprehensive I know they can!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, I invited you to contribute precisely becasue you had opposed at Davis' article - challenge is good! (Pulman might agree). Of course more can be added, but there just wasn't the anywhere near the level of coverage during Pulman's heyday. The result of a world final would typically get one short paragraph in most papers. Due to the dispute between the B&SCC and the PBPA, professional competitions got very little coverage in the 50s and early 60s in The Billiard Player. There were also fewer (albeit often longer) matches in Pulman's day. According to Cuetracker, whch we have to take with a pinch or more of salt, Pulman played 265 matches (5,920 frames) over 36 years, while Selby has played 1,547 matches (11,039 frames) over 26 years. Spencer played 433 matches (4,268 frames) over 29 years; many of which were after the mid-70s when coverage really picked up. Are there any books or other sources that you think are missing from consideration? I'm not sure how I can show that sourcing does't exist; but if you look at results on the British Newspaper Archive or Newspapers.com I think you will find that many of them offer little beyond scores. I'll see if I can add some more about the more important tournaments in Pulman's career. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looks like Spencer's article is a bit of an outlier in terms of number of words for snooker bio FACs. According to the Page Size tool we have Griffiths (2590 words), Donaldson (2608 words), Thorburn (2854 words), Reardon (3262 words), and Spencer (5147 words). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC) (By the way, I would expect articles on Steve Davis and Alex Higgins to be longer, as there is so much more commentary available on both of them. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Amakuru I added a little on the April 1964 match. Are there any others that you think are noticably lacking coverage, given my comments above? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amakuru, any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and BennyOnTheLoose: ooh I'm very sorry, I did get the pings above but was out and about and then it kind of slipped my mind. I'll try to circle back to this in the next couple of days and see if I can marry up the content with how I think an FA ought to look, in the context of what's available about Pulman. My general point is that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we should have two FAs on similar sorts of subjects with vastly different levels of detail. I guess nothing's perfect and it does happen, particularly if someone's poured what might be considered excessive detail into something (is Spencer's article an example of that?) The sourcing may mitigate that point, but the analysis needs to be thorough... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Amakuru, have you had a chance to take another look? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs: - what do you recommend me to do? It's true that I don't have a whole plethora of sources to show that the article is definitively not a representative summary of the literature, and it's not easy to access those at present even if I had the time to do so, as the British Library has been effectively out of action for the past six months. But I'm also not particularly minded to withdraw my oppose, as I genuinely don't think this is long or detailed enough to be considered an FA-level summary of this individual and his long career. For me, the career section should have detailed analysis of what he did every year. And if he genuinely didn't play tournaments for large parts of said years, then that should be indicated, with sourcing. It's a nice article and definitely a GA, the nominator has put in good work, but we don't hand out FA badges just because nominators are good editors, it needs to meet all of the criteria I'd have thought? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru I stand by my earlier comments about precedent with other snooker bio featured articles, and number of matches played, but now that the British Library Catalogue is back online (for most types of source, including books), is there any particular source you feel that has been neglected? I have access to a number of books immediately and can summarise their coverage of Pulman (see my Library). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Clive Everton's The Embassy Book of World Snooker (1993): "[In 1954/55] Nobody cared very much what the results were in professional snooker" (p.24); "Little notice was taken of any of Pulman's first five title defences, and not very much more of his sixth ... There was no snooker coverage in the national press and in the snooker world itself the talk tended to be of a new generation of amateur stars" (p.28); "[in 1968] Press coverage remained virtually non-existent" (p.29). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie (Support)[edit]

Going to give the copy a bath and provide a non-snooker-literate POV on the article.

  • "Pulman became a television commentator towards the end of his playing career, and retired from competitive play in 1981" Classic WP:CINS issue. There is one subject: Pulman. Remove the comma.
  • "In 1929, Ernest Pulman sold his bakery and confectionery business and the family moved to Plymouth, where he bought a billiard hall with two tables." Add comma after "business"
  • "John Pulman started playing billiards at the age of nine, and made his first billiards century break aged twelve. In his teenage years he also played snooker, and participated in local league competitions." More commas to excise
  • "In 1938, Pulman entered the British Boys Billiards Championship, but left his cue on the train on his way to the event at Burroughes Hall." Another CinS
  • "He lost his opening match in 1950, and withdrew from the following year's championship due to influenza when trailing 14–22 against Fred Davis in their semi-final match." Another CinS. Are mid-match withdrawls for illness normal?
  • Withdrawals for illness are uncommon, perhaps because they tend to lead to a loss of income from prize money (and, in 1950, loss of income from gate receipts). I think it's worth including as occasionally players withdrew for other reasons ("business reasons" is one rather vague one I remember seeing reported.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was runner-up in the 1950/1951 edition, and won in 1953/1954." CinS
  • "He defeated Rex Williams 22–15 in the quarter-finals and Alec Brown 37–24 in the semi-finals, before losing 35–38 to Fred Davis in the final, which was played at Blackpool Tower Circus." Remove comma after "semi-finals"
  • "In the semi-finals, Pulman was level at 12–12 with Williams before winning the match 19–16. In the final, he trailed Jack Rea at 2–4, 5–8 and 8–11, before equalising at 11–11." Another comma to excise after 8–11
  • Is "noticable" a correct British English spelling?
  • "The match was played over 73 frames, and took place from 12 to 17 October at Burroughes Hall." CinS
  • "He extended his lead to 31–17 after the fourth day of play, and won the match on the fifth day by taking a 37–23 winning lead." maybe "He extended his lead to 31–17 after the fourth day of play, winning the match on the fifth day by taking a 37–23 lead."
  • "Pulman eventually reached a winning lead of 37–28, and finished 39–34 ahead after dead frames"
  • "He reached the final of the 1970 World Championship, but lost 33–37 to Ray Reardon" CinS
  • "In October 1972, he was retrieved, unconscious, from a road traffic collision, but he had fully recovered in time to play in the Park Drive 2000 tournament that was held less than two weeks later." maybe remove "had"
  • "His opponent, Spencer, took a 5–2 lead, before Pulman won five of the next seven frames to level the match at 7–7 and force a deciding frame." Drop last comma
  • "After 1977, he was unable to win another World Championship match, although he continued to enter until 1982 when he had to withdraw because he had not sufficiently recovered after his leg was broken in five places when he was hit by a London bus in October 1981." Very long sentence. Consider rewording. Also consider layout with the bus item...which really should be the end of the career.
  • "Fred Davis reflected that Pulman's impatience and lapses in concentration had probably cost him frames in their world championship finals in the mid-1950s, and that as Pulman became more patient in his play, he became a stronger opponent" Move the comma from after "mid-1950s" back to after "that". You have a CinS error and an incomplete appositive.
  • "11 year" hyphenate
  • " humour "did a tremendous salvage job for the game when it needed it most." " logical quote for a sentence fragment demands period out of quotes
  • "Alex Higgins, the world champion in 1972 and 1982, whose popularity helped make snooker a growing sport in the 1970s and 1980s, wrote" consider dropping the comma after 1982 to have a longer, unified appositive.

The links to terms of art are good, and I wasn't left wanting. Just a bunch of CinS and a few places that baffle me (bus). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks, Sammi Brie. Hopefully I've addressed all of your points, but please do check the "Fred Davis reflected.." one in particular. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All my copy issues are addressed satisfactorily. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version, spotcheck upon request. Kinda think that with a name this generic we need better citations than "John Pulman". The Times. 31 December 1998. p. 25." Why is #74 formatted differently from the others? Are Alex Higgins, Spencer, John and Fred Davis Alex Higgins, John Spencer (snooker player) and Fred Davis (snooker player)? What make "Davis, Steve (2016). Interesting: My Autobiography. London: Ebury. ISBN 978-0-09-195865-7." and "Hayton, Eric; Dee, John (2004). The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker: The Complete Record & History. Rose Villa Publications. ISBN 978-0-9548549-0-4." a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for taking on the source review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've made some initial replies below which could need some actions after your advice. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should be added in the example of The Times John Pulman article? (It is not available via Wikipedia Library or free online sources. I have access to it through a library subsription to The Times Digital Archive.) No author is stated. I suppose one option would be to add in the location as London, to avoid any confusion with other publications listed at The Times (disambiguation).
    Some additional information so that it can be more easily told apart from other newspapers with that name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jo-Jo Eumerus I've added locations for The Times, The Independent and The Guardian references. Are there any others that need amending? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 74 - as multiple sources were used (for the different editions of the tournament), I used WP:CITEBUNDLE rather than having something like [74][75][76][77][78][79][80] appear to the reader.
  • Yes, Alex Higgins, Spencer, John and Fred Davis are Alex Higgins, John Spencer (snooker player) and Fred Davis (snooker player).
  • Steve Davis's Interesting: My Autobiography is only used to support "Steve Davis, who met Pulman in a match at the 1977 Pontins Open, observed how Pulman and Reardon both adapted to the poor quality of the snooker tables rather than complaining, and he found this to be a valuable lesson." The book is published by Ebury, an imprint of Penguin Books.
  • The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker (Hayton and Dee) is one of the standard reference works for professional snooker, in my opinion. CueSport was a UK magazine that was published from around 2000 to 2009. John Dee, who wrote the history sections, was the snooker editor of CueSport and a correspondent for The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers. The bulk of the book's 1000+ pages consists of statistics, compiled by Hayton, including player-by-player results histories. The book has been used as a source for featured articles including John Spencer (snooker player) and Ray Reardon.

Hey Jo-Jo Eumerus, do you have any follow-up on the Benny's responses and the source review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Just one comment from me:

  • "In October 1972, he was retrieved, unconscious, from a road traffic collision": "retrieved" is an odd word to use in this context - makes him sound like an old pair of gloves! - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose, Any thoughts on a replacement word here? - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat: apologies for the delay, and many thanks for reviewing. The Everton & Silverton (1973) source has "was carried unconscious from a car crash". I've amended it to "rescued, unconscious," in the text but I am, of course, open to better suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2024 [2].

Pseudastacus[edit]

Nominator(s): Olmagon (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fossil crustacean which lived during the Jurassic and possibly Cretaceous periods. Olmagon (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

  • though the placement of some species remain – "remains"
Fixed Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • late Cretaceous – here and elsewhere: "Late" and "Early" has to be upper case (except for stages, which are lower case).
Fixed Olmagon (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The carapace is usually uneven, with either small tubercles or pits across the surface. – Could be reformulated with "surface" in the first part of the sentence, otherwise it is not immediately clear what "uneven" refers to when reading.
"Surface" is now in the front half of the sentence. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • link "invalid"
Linked Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • change "et al." to "and colleagues" to make it easier for non-experts to understand
Changed Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1: pages are missing. Also, could you link to the exact page where the genus is named in the BHL?
Pages added and linked directly. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A year later, Münster described several fossils from the Solnhofen Limestone he believed to represent isopods, and erected the genus Alvis to contain the single species A. octopus, naming it after the dwarf Alvíss from Norse mythology. – Why is this relevant here? What is the point?
Alvis is a junior synonym of Pseudastacus, just added in the part where it gets synonymized (took me way too long to find out what publication lumped the two). Olmagon (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name Pseudastacus means "false Astacus" – from which language? If possible, provide the original word from which it is derived ("pseudo").
Seems to be a Greek word, added that now. Olmagon (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and that P. muensteri is a junior synonym of P. pustulosus – you could directly state here that they suggested they were female specimens of P. pustulosus, which would me more reader-friendly.
Now directly written. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • synonyms of Pseudastacus – (in the taxonbox): Why is "synonyms" in lower case, but the heading of the section in upper case?
All now start with capital letters. Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Oppel in the taxonbox?
Linked Olmagon (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fossils of Pseudastacus had been described prior to the naming of this genus, under other names which are currently invalid. – seems to be without a source?
The taxonomic history is explained within the section, by reading the years you will realize Bolina and Alvis (now invalid) were named prior to Pseudastacus. Olmagon (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The generic name references the nymph Bolina from Greek mythology. – Maybe add that she "threw herself into the sea" to give a hint for why the genus was named after her? (this hint is provided in the first description).
Added. Olmagon (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • some have since been moved into different genera after they were discovered not to be closely related to the type species. – should this be "after it was discovered that they were not closely related to"?
Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2020, Sylvain Charbonnier and Denis Audo published a study including a summary of recognized stenochirid species, which covered the reclassification of former Pseudastacus species and left the following as members of the genus – This could be more concise, e.g. "A 2020 revision by Sylvain Charbonnier and Denis Audo retained five species within the genus Pseudastacus" or similar.
Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • moved to Pseudastacus in 1861. – moved or renamed?
I suppose "renamed" works better. Olmagon (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and is a fragment of the pincer. The chela is very large, – if "chela" is just a synonym of "pincer", then please stick to one term. Always use the same term for the same thing, otherwise the reader assumes that you mean something different.
Changed to pincer.Olmagon (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pseudastacus is a small crustacean, with the carapace of P. lemovices reaching a length of 11 mm (0.43 in) excluding the rostrum, and a height of 6.5 mm (0.26 in).[6] The known specimens of P. pustulosus range from 4–6 cm (1.6–2.4 in) in total length. – Any reason why you cover lemovices before covering the type species?
Reordered to have the type species first. Olmagon (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • lateral – you could avoid this term by writing "on the sides".
Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • arch-shaped incision. – translate for the general reader
Changed "incision" to "depression". Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and long setae on the margins. – explain setae (just "bristles"?)
Now explained. Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in a wide variety of families by many different authors – I think it is better to drop the "wide" and "many" here.
Removed. Olmagon (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albert Oppel noticed that Pseudastacus fossils from the Solnhofen Limestone could be distinguished into two morphs – "divided" instead of "distinguished"?
Replaced with "divided" now. Olmagon (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a separate species which in 1862 he named P. muensteri. – suggest moving "in 1862" to the end of the sentence.
Moved. Olmagon (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually representing female specimens of the sexually dimorphic species. – I think this doesn't fit grammatically with the first part of the sentence.
Rewrote this part a bit. Olmagon (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly indicating the species exhibited gregarious behaviour, – needs a "that"
Added. Olmagon (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use a mixture of British and American English spellings (e.g., both "palaeo" and "paleo"). This should be uniform.
The 'a's are now removed. Olmagon (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pseudastacus pustulosus, the type species of the genus, is also known from the most specimens. – Why "also"? Is there another one that is known from "the most specimens"?
I think I originally meant that it is both the type species and most abundant, but yeah it seems better without the also. Olmagon (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • interbedded – explain or avoid the term
Changed to "embedded between each other". Olmagon (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like "alternating mudstone and clay layers" is better. Also, aren't mudstones simply the diagenetic form of clays? (i.e., clays turn to mudstones upon compaction). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Used "alternating" instead now. Geology isn't really my strong suit but the first sentence of the mudstone page seems to support that they come from clays. Olmagon (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does the source say precisely? Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the abstract: This is reflected through the marine interbedded calcareous mudstones and clays. Olmagon (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really understand this; usually you have interbedding of mudstones and sandstones, but mudstones and clays do not make sense to me; how would they have been formed? I just see that the source is a Bachelor thesis. These are generally not considered to be high-quality reliable sources per WP:Reliable sources, unless they can be demonstrated to have had significant scholarly influence, but I can't find a single paper that cites it. I fear this source has to be removed/replaced. Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found a whole different source now and rewrote that bit to match the new source. Olmagon (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

grungaloo[edit]

Marking my spot, will be back later. grungaloo (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "noted that the name Bolina was preoccupied" - would change to "was already assigned to" or something similar
Changed. Olmagon (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The name Pseudastacus combines the Greek word ψεύδος (pseudos, meaning "false") " - Greek spelling is probably not needed, having "pseudo" is good enough I think
I don't think it's too much a problem to have it there, the Greek spelling is also shown in some other paleontology featured articles like Tyrannosaurus and Megalosaurus. If you still insist though I suppose it could go. Olmagon (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His analysis also found that the specimen named as Alvis octopus by Münster is not an isopod" - is to was? Keeps the tense consistent throughout this section
Changed now. Olmagon (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lived in Lebanon during the Cenomanian stage." - switch to "found in Lebanon" so it's consitent with the other listings
Switched. Olmagon (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Individuals with smoother carapaces are also documented, though this may be due to abrasion" - was this abrasion caused during its life or during fossilisation?
Source doesn't say unfortunately, though I guess it might be difficult to tell. Olmagon (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will be back later with more. (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grungaloo, just checking to see if there will be more? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did a final read-through, nothing else stands out to me. Support grungaloo (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Man[edit]

Leaving this here just to mark my spot. Will be back with comments soon. The Morrison Man (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "of which one was from the Redenbacher collection of the Berlin Natural History Museum" - I would change the first words around to "one of which"
Changed to that. Olmagon (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but have now been moved to different genera." - Change now to since?
Done. Olmagon (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and actually represent female specimens of the sexually dimorphic species." - I still don't think this fits with the first part of the sentence. Maybe change to something like "representing female specimens of this species."
Tried to keep "sexually dimorphic" in the sentence since I was told by one of the other reviewers to link it in the section at least once but the sentence has now been changed a bit. Olmagon (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This sediment in this locality" - Change this sediment to the sediment
Done Olmagon (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mantis shrimps" - Should this not be mantis shrimp?
Fixed. Olmagon (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that initially was deposited during a period of low sea level" - Change the first part to that was initially
Changed. Olmagon (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all the notes I have. Apologies for taking so long to leave them here. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the changes made, I will Support

Coordinator note[edit]

The last FAC was archived due to lack of feedback, and I'd hate to see that happen again; Olmagon I would recommend following up with the editors who participated last time to see if they're willing to give input this time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just left a post about this on the WP:Paleontology talk page. Olmagon (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olmagon, don't know why I didn't think of this before at the GAN, but have you considered doing a life restoration? We have that for all other extinct taxon FAs, and since you do restorations yourself, would be fitting? Or one could be requested at WP:paleoart. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Had been using Oppel's 1862 recons which as far as I can tell are still accurate (not too surprising with how complete Solnhofen fossils get) but I suppose I could also make one, perhaps also one of P. lemovices in addition to P. pustulosus. Not sure about the other 3 since 2 of them have no remaining material and one is just a pincer, not to mention their status as members of the genus being questionable. Olmagon (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realise so many of them were already reconstructions (thought they depicted fossils). Perhaps this could be stated explicitly in the rest of the captions (instead of just "illustration"), I only see it in one? FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I read this comment I'm starting to question if those are recons or extremely well-preserved fossils. I had just assumed the former all along because they look so life-like, but Solnhofen seems like the type of place to produce fossils like that. Olmagon (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, from what I checked, it didn't seem to be labelled as a reconstruction. But it's a bit hard to check them all, because the Commons descriptions don't link to the correct pages. Could you fix those links, then I and Jens could maybe check their German captions? FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should've fixed the Sources sections of the images now. Olmagon (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can read, they all just seem to be illustrations of particular specimens, with no indication of reconstruction. Perhaps Jens Lallensack can confirm. FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they are interpretative drawings of particular specimens, not life reconstructions. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, Solnhofen preservation really is something. Well I have uploaded a reconstruction of P. lemovices now, waiting for approval on the paleoart review page. Could also restore P. pustulosus now thay those turn out not to be recons. Olmagon (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review[edit]

Some of the file have raw URL links, I think some information about what's in the link would be good lest link rot sets in. Also, File:Pseudastacus pustulosus Oppel.jpg isn't on the linked page. Images need ALT text. Spot-check upon request, and reviewing this version. Not sure that sources with DOIs need a retrieved on. There is some inconsistency in which sources have publishers and which don't (e.g #9). I have been always unsure if Frontiers in Earth Science and Frontiers... things in general are reliable or not, given what it says on Frontiers Media. Don't think that Google Books archives bring anything. Lots of oldish sources but I don't think that's wrong here. #7 needs a bit more information on what it is about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links on the image files should be fixed now, Retrieveds removed from DOIed sources, source 9 has a publisher. Not sure what more in particular you think source 7 needs. Leaving the Frontiers source there for now but if there's a consensus to get rid of it I could probably find another article on Lebanese Cretaceous squamates to put in its place. Olmagon (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how is this looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to have a discussion somewhere about the suitability of Frontiers in general, but that's not here. Do folks want a spotcheck here too? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck would be great, thanks Jo-Jo. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 Need a source that says Pseudastacus=Bolina. Where is the timing of the Solnhofen limestone stated?
Sources 3 and 5 at least, anything with a systematic paleontology section for the genus lists Bolina as a junior synonym. Olmagon (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 Needs a pagenumber since apparently you can't search this source.
Alvis stuff starts on page 20. Olmagon (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 That doesn't say that the name Bolina was already taken.
Sorry this took embarrassingly long but I finally figured out where I first read the name was preoccupied (in the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology), apparently I saw it and forgot to properly attribute that source assuming Oppel would write the same thing in German. Anyways adding this source has made all the source numbers afterwards shift by one so I am adjusting the number points below. Olmagon (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 It says "median-sized" and describes additional grooves? I am not sure that list in "Late Jurassic" always reflects species in the Solnhofen environment.
Extra grooves now mentioned, the list should all be Solnhofen since the whole paper was about Solnhofen taxa. I supposed it is median-sized compared to other members of its own family but 6 centimeters is still a small animal. Olmagon (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 Can I have a copy of this page?
Here Olmagon (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, where is "oldest known"? Also having some difficulty finding the "chelae" description. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion section says something about the pereiopod differences between the species and being oldest is said at the end of Conclusions. Olmagon (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 Searching for "mucronatus" doesn't find the information.
Weird thing, I don't think I see it either yet that paper is cited by anything else mentioning P. mucronatus as the publication that described it. However the "claw of a large species" mentioned on page 124 and figured near the end is the type specimen (according to the P. lemovices description paper). Olmagon (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to add source 7 in there as well since that paper does state the things written. Olmagon (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 Searching for "minor" doesn't find the information.
The P. minor stuff is right on the linked page. Olmagon (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 Can I have a copy of this page?
I think I need you to send me a wikimail so I can reply with the file attached. Olmagon (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, it checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15 OK
  • 19 Neither family name appears in the source.
Protastacidae is literally right in the title and the whole paper is about the establishment of that family, with Pseudastacus being assigned to it. Olmagon (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not sure how I missed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 Supports some of the information
  • 22 Not sure what information comes from this source.
Getting placed in Chilenophoberidae. Olmagon (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23 OK
  • 25 OK
  • 25 OK
  • 28 OK
  • 42 Doesn't mention "minor"
Well it's not about P. minor, it's just a reference for the Lebanese Cretaceous environment. Olmagon (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 43 OK
  • 45 Supports some of the information
  • 48 Supports some of the information

Gotta say, verifying stuff with sources that are 10s or 100s pages long sans pagenumbers is hard, especially when keywords don't help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm turning this into a list using "*" because it is easier to read as a list this way. Olmagon (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, is that a pass on all three? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, several things in the spotcheck are outstanding. Did I send that wikimail? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I did. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Olmagon, just checking, is Jo-Jo waiting on a response from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what exactly else is left unless "supports some of the information" needs me to do something about it. Olmagon (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that you have addressed all of Jo-Jo's comment you need to ping them to tell them that. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, @Jo-Jo Eumerus is there anything left to fix? Olmagon (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really keep forgetting to finish these reviews. It seems everything checks out now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wolverine XI[edit]

Reads well, don't have much to complain about though a life restoration would nice. Will add some suggestions if I spot anything. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 00:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those have now been added. Olmagon (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are labelled as "own work". In what way are they not OR? Where are they cited to "high-quality reliable sources"? This recent discussion is relevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did make mentions of the papers I based their proportions on. I guess I could make a note in the caption about color being hypothetical and all. Olmagon (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • References: some of the works cited have a publisher location and others don't. In the latter cases, are they not known.
I had been adding locations for the books since that was a parameter which automatically pops up when adding a book as a source and not any other form of reference. Leaving it like that for now unless there's consensus for locations to be added on more sources. Olmagon (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, and is normal practice. But isn't Palaeontologische Mittheilungen aus dem Museum des koenigl. bayer. Staates a book? Published in Stuttgart. And Aus dem Orient: Geologische Beobachtungen am Libanon. II? And Fossilium catalogus: Animalia.
Can't find a location for Aus, added them for the other two. Olmagon (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several works lack identifiers when they are available. Eg Garassino and Schweigert (OCLC 1104150486).
Added ones I could find. Olmagon (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hay et al, OCLC 40266857.
Added. Olmagon (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful if at the first mention of each age, era, etc how long ago - which may mean giving its age range - it was, for readers for whom descriptions such as "Sinemurian-aged" do not convey this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added age ranges in the Paleoenvironment section. Olmagon (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, in the text: "Garassino & Schweigert (2006)" and "Garassino and Schweigert (2006)". Could these be standardised. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the latter one. Olmagon (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 April 2024 [3].

Raynald of Châtillon[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 12th-century French aristocrat who ruled first the Principality of Antioch, then the Lordship of Oultrejourdain, both by right of one of his two wives, in the Frankish East. Notorious for plundering raids and attacks against caravans, he is often held responsible for the fall of the first Kingdom of Jerusalem. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soonish. At first glance, the usual script[4] reveals a good deal of duplinks, not sure if they're all needed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for starting the review. A quick cheque shows that all duplinks are connected to individuals who are mentioned in section "Family" in addition to one reference to them in other sections of the article and in the lead. I think this approach is quite user friendly. Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but in 1989 Jean Richard demonstrated Raynald's kinship with the lords of Donzy." How? Could warrant at least a footnote, as it pertains directly to the subject of the article?
  • I do not have access to Richard's work.
Seems like it could be worth tracking it down, what is the citation? WP:RX usually works. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your suggestion. I reqested assistance at WP:RX.
  • "Raynald was born around 1123 or 1125." Do we know where?
  • None of the two cited sources name the place of his birth. Britannica indicates that Raynald was born in Châtillon-sur-Loing but I am not sure that this claim could be verified by a reference to a secondary source. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • William of Tyre probably only needs to be linked in the first caption he's mentioned in, but now he's linked all three times.
  • Yes, he is linked in each caption of the pictures. I think this is the usual approach.
But in three different captions, one should be enough in the first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Venetian?
  • Linked.
  • "The crusader states around 1165" State the colour of the area he ruled in caption.
  • Added.
  • Link excommunicated.
  • Linked.
  • Link Genoa.
  • Linked.
  • "Raynald made an alliance with Thoros II of Cilicia." Probably worth mentioning he was Armenian ("the Armenian lord"?) to show shifting alliances, since the previous paragraph tells of him fighting Armenians.
  • Added.
  • "orgy of violence" This sounds a little, err, loaded.
  • Reworded. I am curious how I could create this expression.
  • "Shaizar was held by Assassins, but it had been ruled by the Muslim Munqidhites who paid an annual tribute to Raynald." This seemingly implies that the Assassins weren't Muslims. Perhaps be more specific about what kind of Muslims the two groups were?
  • Reworded.
  • "On Manuel's demand, he and his retainers walked barefoot" I think you could name him instead of the confusing "he".
  • Modified.
  • Link Latakia.
  • Linked.
  • "horses and camels from the local peasants" State if they were Muslims for context.
  • None of the cited sources refers to their religion. I assume they were more likely local Christians.
  • A shame many of the old illustrations are so low res, I wonder if some of them can be updated with higher res scans?
  • Sorry, I do not understand your reference to "res".
Image resolution/size. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the size of most images. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I meant their sizes on Commons, as in the original resolution of the files themselves. But probably not much you can do about it without access to larger versions. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This[5] image has a copyright warning tag that is probably invalid.
  • I think the tag is obviously baseless but I cannot delete it.
Hmmm, that's an extremely annoying template, I'll ask around how to fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I brought it up here[6], and seems to have been fixed for at least this image. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link leprosy?
  • Linked.
  • "but he protested when Baldwin confirmed Raynald's position as "regent of the kingdom and of the armies"." Why?
  • Explained.
  • Link Beirut.
  • Linked.
  • Link Arabian desert.
  • Linked.
  • Link Medina.
  • I am not sure it is necessary.
  • Link Holy Roman Emperor.
  • Linked.
  • It seems Saladin needs a proper introduction in the article body, now he's just mentioned without any context, unlike for example "a talented Turkic military leader Imad al-Din Zengi".
  • Introduced.
  • The long quote under Kingmaker seems kind of isolated, but could benefit from some commentary, if available, or introduction for context.
  • "Saladin sent blaming him" Not sure what this means, something missing?
  • This is a quote. I checked, and the quoted text contains the same wording. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "against ships delivering pilgrims" Specify Muslim.
  • Added.
  • Perhaps link Saracen, though it is only used in quotes.
  • You spell out Bernard Hamilton many times, when his full name would only be needed at first mention in the article body. This may possibly also be an issue with other names.
  • Modified.
  • "of French origin... a French noble family" Should be stated in the article body as well.
  • Added.
  • "he was the only Christian leader to pursue an offensive policy against Saladin" This does not seem to be explicitly stated in the article body.
  • The first sentence in section "Fights against Saladin" verifies the statement.
  • Link Red Sea in intro.
  • Linked.
  • Have to say it's fun to read these real accounts of characters I mainly know from the film Kingdom of Heaven hehe... Hope to see more!
Thank you very much for your comprehensive review and for your suggestion. I think I addressed most of the problems you mentioned above but I need some days to deal with the pending issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, left some further replies about last issues. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FunkMonk thank you for your support. I added an explanatory footnote about Raynald's ancestry ([7]). Please let me know if further explanation is needed. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

  • He was released for a large ransom in 1176 but he did – maybe you can drop the second "he" for better flow.
  • Done.
  • He even refused to pay a subsidy to Raynald. In retaliation, he captured and tortured – the second "he" here does not refer to Raynald, but it should, right? Write "Raynald" instead?
  • Done.
  • Aimery excommunicated Raynald as a consequence between Antioch and Genoa – What does this mean, "between Antioch and Genoa"? I cannot follow.
  • Fixed.
  • and all other Christians prisoners – "Christian"
  • Fixed.
  • Manuel I Komnenos – Before, you referred to him as "Manuel" or "Emperor Manuel". I suggest to stick with one name, it makes it much easier for the reader to follow. There are already enough names that a reader need to keep in mind here.
  • Changed (now he is referred to as either Emperor Manuel or Manuel).
  • Hamilton proposes, these words suggest that Raynald led – "Hamilton proposes that"?

Thank you for your review and comments. Borsoka (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Raynald whose stepfather, Balian of Ibelin was Guy of Lusignan's opponent – needs a comma behind "Ibelin"?
  • Done.
  • Regarding the quotations, note that WP:QUOTE states Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. Readers should not have to follow a footnote to find out the quotation's source.
  • Done.
  • Saladin tried to seize Aleppo after As-Salih Ismail al-Malik, the Zengid emir of the town, died on 18 November 1181.[85] Raynald stormed into Saladin's territory, – a bit hard to understand how these actions are connected. Was Saladin's attack of Aleppo the cause of Raynald storming the territory? Or did those happen at the same time, independently?
  • Modified.
  • Thank you for your suggestions. Please let me know if any further modification is needed. Borsoka (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support, and also for your thorough review. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan[edit]

Hi, some minor comments on source formatting:

  • Sources #73, #121 and #156 will have to be formatted using sfn.
  • Reference style is consequent: primary sources are not cited by using sfn, whereas when citing other sources sfn is used.
  • Primary sources subsection: Consider linking to Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad, Al-Kamil Fi'l-Ta'rikh, Ashgate Publishing? Also, wouldn't the second source be listed first in the alphabetical order, which you have followed for the secondary sources subsection?
  • Alphabetical order introduced and the publisher is linked. I would not link names in the title of books.

Secondary sources subsection:

  • Why do some of the ISBN numbers use different formats? You should use just one, ideally the one you intend to use in the Primary Sources subsection and the Firther Reading section.
  • I converted all ISBN (10) to ISBN (13).
  • You should sort out the ISBN for Baldwin 1969. It leads to to another work, Setton 1969, in some catalogues.
  • The same works: Setton is the general edition of the series A History of the Crusades, whereas Baldwin is the editor of its first volume.
  • Could we have a translation for this chapter title from Makk 1994, Anna (1.); Béla III? Also, consider linking to Gyula Kristó and Pál Engel?
  • The translation would be the same because these are two names. The two editors linked.
  • The Jean Richard link leads to a disambig page. I gather you meant to link to Jean Richard (historian)?
  • Fixed.
  • Further reading section: Consider using the standard ISBN format you decide to use in the previous section. Also consider linking to Chase F. Robinson, Amin Maalouf, John Man (author), Random House, Gustave Schlumberger. As you have specified in the previous section if a work is in another language, you should also do thjs for Schlumberger 1898, translate the title and add the publisher name (Librairie Plon).
  • I converted all ISBN (10) to ISBN (13). Wikilinks and publisher name added. Title translated.
  • Consider linking to Donzy in notes, on first mention and in infobox?
  • I linked it in the main text, but I would not link it when it is part of a person's name. For instance, we would not link "Habsburg" or "Bourbon" when mentioning a member of the Habsburg or Bourbon family.

More comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for your source review and comments. Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, made some minor source formatting edits, hope those are OK. Will post more comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, some new comments. Made a few grammatical and sequential edits, hope those are alright.

  • Consider moving to the right the images you have oriented to the left, per MOS:IMAGELOC.
  • The pictures' orientation depends on the content: pictures depicting people looking to the right are placed on the left side. I moved the two exceptions accordingly.
  • Consider adding context to the mercy petition to Emperor Manuel? How was he captured? This is important to include in the lead.
  • Expanded in the lead.
  • "the only crusader leader who tried to prevent Saladin from unifying the nearby Muslim states": Consider adding the meaning of this, in that it prevented all out war and annnihilation of the crusader states?
  • I am not sure that any of the two statements could be verified: the crusader states had been warring against the neighboring Muslim states before they were united by Saladin, and we could hardly state that the crusader states would have survived if Saladin had not united Egypt and Syria.
  • Moved the Komnenos Emperors' and other links a little bit to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE. Hope that is alright?
  • Thank you for your edits.
  • Will you be creating pages for Lord of Donzy, Rainald II Masoir and Garenton of Saone? Otherwise I would suggest removing the redlinks.
  • I am not sure that I want to create pages for them, but red links may provoke other editors into creating the articles.
  • Consider linking to Saint-Valery-sur-Somme for Reynald of Saint-Valery?
  • I think linking settlements in an individual's name is not helpful.
  • For Raynald's seal, can we put the text on it in the caption? From what I can make out, the front says "EGAL DNS RENALDUS MONTI", the back says "CIVITAS + PETPACENSIS". But this seems flimsy, you might be better placed to read the text on there.
  • I have no access to reliable sources explaining the inscription on the seal.
  • When did Roupen marry Isabella? Do we have the date, as we do for the other other marriages mentioned?
  • Year added.
  • Link to Medina.
  • Medina and Mecca linked.
  • Link to prelates.
  • Added.
  • Is the Ashtara mentioned here the same as Ashtarak? If so, consider linking to it.
  • No, the two settlements are not identical, but expanded the sentence to help Ashtara's localisation.
  • Link to Ernoul on first use. You have added the link in the notes but not in the body.
  • Linked.

That is all for now. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comprehensive review and also for your edits. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matarisvan, is there any more to come on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec[edit]

Invited by Borsoka. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not reviewing the 'Background' section. I will note, however, that it is required reading to understand the rest of the article, which refers to figures mentioned there. I'm not sure I like this approach, since I think many readers will tend to skip the background.
  • The section was added during the article's peer review because the article needed some context for potential readers (billions of people). I think there are two approaches for providing our readers with a context: 1. distributing the information in other sections and footnotes; 2. expanding the article with a "Background" section. I preferred the second approach because it makes possible a more coherent summary.
  • Are the Palladii an actual Roman family? Or just a part of the Donzy's claimed genealogy?
  • Expanded.
  • Did he receive the lordship of Châtillon-sur-Loire from his father?
  • No information in the cited sources.
  • The last paragraph of 'Early years' is confusing. Did Raynald leave the siege of Ascalon to visit Antioch? Or are we certain that he had visited it before the siege? Why are we attributing the date 1151 to Runciman? The idea that Raynald settled in Antioch in 1151 seems in tension with Buck's theory that he was still in Baldwin's service in 1153.
  • I rephrased the paragraph.
  • Buck argues that William's report is obviously biased since ... according to Buck. These clauses could be removed without loss.
  • Rephrased and shortened.
  • I am thinking of creating a new article about the office, but I need some time.
  • I do not have enough source to create an article about the office. What is clear, the duke was one of the eleven highest ranking officers of state in Antioch. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the Armenians had recently captured. From whom?
  • Modified.
  • Sorry, I think it should be clarified that the Syrian Gates had belonged to Byzantium. I assume that's the case?
  • It is unclear from the sources. I rather guess they belonged to Antioch. Borsoka (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In context, the Armenians have risen against the Byzantines, who are asking Raynald for help.
  • Yes, but the territory seems to belonged to the principality. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should say so explicitly.
  • The cited sources do not say it explicitly, and I have not found further details in other sources either. Borsoka (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shaizar was held by the Shi'ite Assassins, but it had been ruled by the Sunnite Munqidhites who paid an annual tribute to Raynald. So it was held by the Assassins at the time, but had previously been held by the Munqidhites?
  • Modified.

More later. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am grateful for answering my invitation. Thank you for your suggestions and edits. Borsoka (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • Unlinked Majd al-Din was the governor of Aleppo and two paragraphs later it's Gümüshtekin, who is described as "independent". This leaves me with questions. I think some explanation of who Majd al-Din was and what was going on with Aleppo may be needed.
  • Context added.
  • Do we have a date, even approximate, for Baldwin IV's embassy?
  • Added.
  • Raynald married Stephanie of Milly, the lady of Oultrejordain, and Baldwin IV also granted him Hebron. I'd break this up into two sentences. And do we have date(s)?
  • Date added, but I would leave the sentence united.
  • Raynald's name was the first among the witnesses who signed most royal charters between 1177 and 1180 Hard to parse. Should probably say something like "Raynald signed a majority of royal charters between 1177 and 1180, with his name always first among signatories".

Looks like I'll be doing this in short bursts. Srnec (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • Perhaps a link to Caravan (travellers) should be added somewhere, although that's not the most informative article.
  • Linked.
  • I notice inconsistent treatment of sun and moon letters. Should be consistent within the article, probably in favour of al-. Also, the Arabic definite article should only be capitalized where English 'the' would be.
  • I think inconsistency in article reflects inconsistency in the cited books. I would prefer scholarly usage to consistency.
  • But I think scholars will be internally consistent (unless they are Lawrence of Arabia). I would be surprised to see a scholar switch back and forth between "al-Din" and "ad-Din".
  • No, scholars are not consistent either (see Buck) :), but I changed the text. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Saladin tried to seize Aleppo after As-Salih died on 18 November 1181 Constructions like this are always ambiguous between whether al-Salih died on that date or Saladin tried to seize Aleppo on that date. Consider rewording.
  • Changed.
  • His defiance annoyed the king, enabling Raymond III of Tripoli's partisans to reconcile him with the monarch. Raymond's return to the royal court put an end to Raynald's paramount position. Raymond III comes out of nowhere here. These two sentences need to be reworked to make more sense to the uninitiated.
  • Context added.
  • Saladin revived the Egyptian naval force No article for the Ayyubid navy, but we do have Fatimid navy. I leave it up to you if you think a link could be worked in here.
  • Linked.
  • We need a link to Hajj to explain Muslim pilgrims. Could go in the lead, where they are first mentioned or elsewhere.
  • Linked.
  • Baldwin IV, who had become seriously ill, made Guy of Lusignan bailli (or regent) in October 1183. Is this different from the office of regent previously mentioned? The whole concept of "regent" during the reign of Baldwin IV may need some explaining.
  • I deleted bailli because not the title but the position is relevant in the article's context.
  • Baldwin V, crowned king Should be "co-king", I think, or perhaps add "in association with himself".
  • Modified.
  • The bailli, Raymond III When did he become bailli?
  • Deleted the reference to his office because it is not highly relevant.
  • Ali ibn al-Athir and other Muslim historians record that Raynald made a truce with Saladin in 1186. This "seems unlikely to be true", according to Hamilton, because the truce between the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Saladin covered Raynald's domains. . . possibly because he regarded the presence of soldiers as a breach of the truce ... stating in the words of the Estoire d'Eracles that "... he had no truces with the Saracens". Saladin [took] an oath that he would personally kill Raynald for breaking the truce. Seems like a lot of confusion then and now over whether Raynald was covered by a truce! Not sure there is much that can be done to fix this, but I can certainly imagine a reader scratching his head.
  • Rephrased. I think now it is much clearer. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, moving that Barber quotation was a good idea.

More later. Srnec (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally,

  • The reliability of the reports of Saladin's offer to Raynald is subject to scholarly debate, because the Muslim authors who recorded them may have only wanted to improve Saladin's image. I find this sentence odd. Is there a reason for scholarly debate on what seems to me a minor point?
  • The story about Saladin's offer to conversion to Raynald has been frequently deleted by editors. To avoid further edit wars, I added this sentence.
  • She followed her husband to Hungary, where she gave birth to seven children before she died around 1184. Raynald and Constance's second daughter, Alice, became the third wife of Azzo VI of Este in 1204. Do these sentences imply that Raynald is the ancestor of much European royalty? If so, it might be worth stating so explicitly.
  • Yes, he is obviously the ancestor of much of European royalty, but this statement is not verified in the sources cited in the article.
  • Spelling is inconsistent between Oultrejourdain and Oultrejordain.
  • Fixed.
  • Saladin compared Raynald with the king of Ethiopia who had tried to destroy Mecca in 570 The Year of the Elephant article ascribes the attack to Abraha, an Ethiopian king but not a king of Ethiopia.
  • Hamilton writes of the "Christian king of Ethiopia".
  • I'm going to assume that the primary source says the same.
  • Peter of Blois dedicated a book (entitled Passion of Prince Raynald of Antioch) to him shortly after his death. I found this intriguing and wanted to know more.

I have now done a first pass of the whole article and will read it over once more before making some final remarks and assessing the lead. Srnec (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec, just checking to see if there will be more to come. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I do still intend to. I was waiting to see what changes result from Dudley's review. Srnec (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Srnec, do you think the article has a chance for promotion? Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A second pass...

  • Antioch was a crusader state in the Near East, Oultrejordain a large fiefdom in the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, and he ruled both territories by right of one of his two wives. I do not agree with the addition of this sentence. It is highly unusual to place this kind of background information in the second sentence of the lead.
  • Rewritten and shortened.
  • In fact, I find the entire background section excessive. It would be absurd to repeat it at ever crusader lord's article, so why Raynald's? For me, wikilinks is how to provide background beyond basic definitions. I'm not sure why the peer reviewers thought this necessary in a biographical article. It seems unusual to me.
  • Transformed into footnotes. I still need to check the wikilinks.
  • He received the lordship of Châtillon-sur-Loire, but a part of his patrimony was "violently and unjustly confiscated", according to one of his letters. I think you should lead with his claim and then identify his lordship. As it is, this sentence still reads awkwardly to me. It might require more research to flesh out.
  • Rewritten.
  • The paragraph beginning Raymond of Poitiers, the Prince of Antioch does not mention Raynald. The information should perhaps be moved elsewhere or its relevance made clearer.
  • Rewritten.
  • The historian Steven Runciman says that Raynald had already settled in Antioch, and was engaged to Constance before the siege began. In contrast, the historian Malcolm Barber says that their betrothal took place during a visit by Raynald to the principality before the end of the siege. This makes too much of a minor distinction between being betrothed before or during a siege. I'd combine it into a single sentence and leave out inline attribution. The sources seem to agree that he was betrothed before the end of the siege.
  • Rewritten.
  • duke of Antioch. Unless and until an article on the office is created, I think we need an explanation of this title. Could go in a note. I did find this.
  • I cannot open the link. Could you tell me the title?
  • Raynald captured and tortured him. I think "arrested" or "imprisoned" is the better word here.
  • Done.
  • Emperor Manuel sent his envoys to Antioch. This would be a good place for background.
  • Done.
  • According to Pharaoh's Island, "Ile de Graye" is a misnomer. We should probably avoid it.
  • Indeed. Done.
  • The title Kaisar needs some explanation (or wikilink).
  • I deleted because his title is irrelevant in context.
  • I notice inconsistent use of {{lang}} tags, although this is hardly a dealbreaker.
  • I think I fixed all.
  • I see no need to mention the opinion of a blogger associated with Breitbart. If this is the proper description of Delingpole—and his Wiki page suggests it is not—then he needn't be here.
  • Delingpole's opinion is verified by a reference to Cotts, the author of the sole monography about modern perceptions of Raynald. As Delingpole is a representative of a extremist view, I think we should mention his PoV.

In terms of comprehensiveness, sourcing and neutrality, the article is fine, although I would have sought out some academic papers. Compared to Henry IV, it is not as readable. I suspect it is hard to follow for the average reader. Srnec (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you propose some academic papers? I would list them in section "Further reading". Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I think I understand most of your concerns. I will be trying to address them through structural changes, mainly by the most intensive use of notes. Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Srnec, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images are OK except possibly File:IIIBelaFotoThalerTamas.JPG. According to Wikipedia, the reburial of the Hungarian king was in 1898 which means if the artworks in the picture date to then, we are probably OK for copyright status per the commons PD-old-assumed. However, I cannot confirm that the artwork in the photo also dates to 1898—if the artist died after 1953 it is still likely copyrighted. I would be inclined to remove the image as it is not crucial to the reader's understanding of the article topic. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture removed. Thank you for the image review. Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I added a new image ([8]). I would be grateful for your review. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not PD-scan because three-dimensional elements of the book are captured. The photograph could be copyrightable in some jurisdictions, so I cropped it. As long as it isn't reverted you should be good. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • The first paragraph could give more context with a few words. I suggest adding that Antioch was one of the Crusader states, and that Raynald's marriage made him rule of Antioch.
  • Expanded.
  • "he married Constance, Princess of Antioch, in spite of her subjects' opposition". This is not supported in the main text, which gives the impression that they only found out about it and complained afterwards.
  • Modified.
  • "Always in need of funds, Raynald tortured Aimery of Limoges, Latin Patriarch of Antioch who had refused to pay a subsidy to him." Attributing the torture to shortage of funds is also not supported below. You give the immpression that it was retaliation for Aimery's insult in refusing the subsidy in protest at the marriage.
  • I think the main text verifies the statement.
  • You say "Aimery of Limoges, the wealthy Latin patriarch of Antioch, did not hide his dismay at Constance's second marriage. He even refused to pay a subsidy to Raynald. In retaliation, Raynald captured and tortured Aimery in the summer of 1154,[33] forcing him to sit naked and covered with honey in the sun, before imprisoning him. Aimery was only released on Baldwin III's demand, but he soon left his see for Jerusalem." I do not see how this verifies the statement. You say below in a different context that Raynald was always short of funds, but not in relation to his treatment of Aimery. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expanded the main text to make it clearer, and less ambiguous. Borsoka (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "claiming that the truce between Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem was not binding upon him". You have not said that there was a truce.
  • Modified.
  • "born around 1123 or 1125". This sounds odd to me. I would say around 1124 or between 1123 and 1125.
  • Modified.
  • "The 12th-century historian William of Tyre, who was Raynald's opponent". This reads to me as if he was an opponent in single combat. Maybe "was an enemy of Raynald".
  • Modified.
  • "and engaged to Constance before the siege began". "and was engaged" or "and became engaged".
  • Modified.
  • You several times use "propose that" to mean "argue that". Dictionaries do not give that meaning of "propose" and I think it would be better to use another word.
  • Modified.
  • "Buck proposes that Aimery's previous debates with the papacy over the Archbishopric of Tyre explain why Raynald was not excommunicated for his abuse of Aimery. Instead, Aimery excommunicated Raynald as a consequence of a conflict between Antioch and Genoa on the demand of the papacy." This is unclear. Are you saying that the pope forbade Aimery to excommunicate Raynald for his abuse but permitted it as a result of a conflict? What was the conflict and what was Raynald's part in it? Was the excommunication later lifted or did it become void when Aimery left Antioch? In view of the great seriousness of excommunication this needs much fuller explanation.
  • Rephrased, but there is little information about the excommunication and its circumstances.
  • "Before the capitulation of the garrison, Baldwin decided to grant the fortress to Thierry of Flanders, but Raynald demanded that the count should pay homage to him for the town. After Thierry sharply refused to swear fealty to an upstart, the crusaders abandoned the siege. "You imply at the beginning that the garrison surrendered and at the end that it did not.
  • Rephrased.
  • "Raynald hurried to Mamistra to voluntarily make his submission to the emperor." Presumably Raynald did not have the soldiers to fight Manuel, but it would be helpful to clarify this - or what other reason Raynald had to surrender.
  • Expanded.
  • Thank you for your comprehensive review and suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ali ibn al-Athir and other Muslim historians record that Raynald made a separate truce with Saladin in 1186.[108] This "seems unlikely to be true"". "record" implies a true statement. As it is disputed, I suggest "stated".
  • Done.
  • "Saladin's mamluks". You show "mamluk" as an Arabic word, perhaps because it has a different meaning in English. It is not helpful to readers of English Wikipedia to have an untranslated word in a foreign language.
  • Changed to "soldiers".
  • "She was given in marriage to Raymond of Poitiers in 1136.[144] The widowed Constance's marriage to Raynald". It would be helpful to mention Raymond's death date for clarity.
  • Done.
  • "Their daughter, Agnes". You need to clarify that she was the daughter of Raynald and Constance.
  • Done.
  • 'Assessment'. From what I remember, historians also blame Raynald (and the Knights Templar) for the suicidal attack which led to Hattin. Should this be covered?
  • Mentioned in section "Capture and execution".
  • The last paragraph covers historians who argue on historical grounds and anti-Islam culture warriors such as Delingpole who glorify Raynald as an enemy of Islam. I think the use of Raynald in culture wars should be in a spearate section.
  • Title changed to "In historiography and popular culture". I think section should not be splitted because historians' views influence popular perceptions, and historians express their views about popular perceptions. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it is correct to refer to popular culture and popular perceptions. Out of the two people you refer to, Jeffrey Lee has a first class degree in Islamic history and he is the author of a guide to the Prayer Book published by the Society of St John the Evangelist. Delingpole is, as I said above, an anti-Islamic culture warrior. I do not have access to Cotts' essay which you cite as the source, but if it covers Raynald's role in the culture wars (which you hint at) I think it should be covered as a separate topic. "Historiography" and "popular culture" are both misleading headings for this aspect. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you think if I delete the reference to Delingpole? I would not split the section. Borsoka (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just seen that Lee's book was a biography, not a novel as you say. I think that makes the historiography heading (without popular culture) valid, but I think Raynald's role as a bogy to Moslems and a hero to anti-Moslems is important and worth spelling out in a separate paragraph. I would not delete Delingpole as his view is relevant to this aspect of the article. In the end it is your call. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing its cover and title, I was convinced that it is a novel. After reading some sentences from the first chapters, I came to the conclusion that I was not fully wrong. Of course, I will change the the sentence. I would prefer the present structure: modern Muslim terrorists' view is based on medieval Muslim historians' narration, and independent of modern anti-Islamic culture warriors' opinion, whereas anti-Islamic culture warriors repeat or exaggerate views expressed by western historians who regarded Raynald as a heroe of Christianity or anti-Muslim warfare. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2024 (UT
  • The last paragraph looks OK to me now, except for the description of Delingpole as a blogger, which does not tell us anything about him. Maybe quote his own self-description as a "libertarian conservative".
  • I would not use his self-assessment, so I added an alternative introduction.
  • "Historians such as Matthew Gabriele sharply criticised his approach". Gabriele is not listed in the sources. If you only have access to a quotation of his view, you could state the original source in a footnote.
  • I have no access to Gabriele's work.
  • It is very dangerous to state what an author says without checking the original source. There are many examples of academics copying misinterpretations of authors without checking the source. You could say "The scholar John Cotts states that historians such as Matthew Gabriele..." and add a footnote "Cotts cites Gabriele, his book, p. 00". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not remember that our policy requires us to evaluate scholars' interpretation about primary sources. Why do you think a scholar's statement about an other scholar's work is more dangerous? Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because sometimes they make obvious errors. I've seen articles by reputable sources using source X to argue that volcano Y was active when X was actually talking about volcano Z. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Wikipedia should be a summary of reliable secondary sources, not primary sources, so there is a reasonable expectation that we have checked what reliable sources actually say. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, more like "reliable sources" - this kind of error happens more commonly to secondary sources and is the reason why for some kinds of information, primary ones are preferred. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would apply to articles about volcanoes. I was thinking of medieval history, where is does apply. I have never seen a primary medieval source which does not have errors, which is why they need interpretation by historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section heading "In historiography and popular culture" is misleading as popular culture is not a significant part of it. Maybe "In historiography and culture wars".
  • I would rather return to "Historiography and perceptions".
  • Added.
  • It seems odd to list the only biography of Raynald in further reading and just quote a second-hand opinion of it. Lee is not a professional historian but as he has a First Class degree in Arabic and Islamic History from Oxford he is not simply a popular writer. (I wrote above that he is author of a guide to the Prayer Book but that seems to be a different Jeffrey Lee.) Dudley Miles (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a peer-reviewed book. Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it should not be in further reading. If you mention a book, you have to provide publication details in the sources. See how I have dealt with this issue in note 2 and references of Edmund Ætheling. If you disagree with my approach, I would be interested to hear what you think I should have done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted Lee's work from section "Further reading". Publication details of each book and article that are cited in the article are provided in section "Sources". Would you clarify what is your concern? Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection I agree that the sources section should only include ones that are reliable, but publication details should be provided of any work discussed in the article. What do you think of my revised note 2 in Edmund Ætheling? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your suggestion. Added both Gabriele (in a note), and Delingpole. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have got a copy of Gabriele which I can send to you if you email me. The journal is The Historian, not The History. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be grateful. You can send me an email from now because I changed my profile to allow correspondence. Sorry, I do not know how I could send an email.
  • If you go to my user page you will see an option 'Email this user' on the left. If I email you, Wikipedia will not allow me to attach a document, but if you email me I can attach to my reply. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sent you an email. Thank you for your offer. I changed the journal's title.
  • Thank you for the copy. I slightly expanded the article basedon on Gabriele's review. Borsoka (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see why you list Delingpole and not Lee in sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I am now totally confused. You suggested that Gabriele's work should be mentioned in the article, because his PoV is verified only by a reference to an other scholar's work. What is the difference between the two cases (namely, Gabriele and Delingpole)? A quote from Delingpole was earlier verified only by a reference to an other scholar's work, so I added a direct reference to his work. Lee's PoV is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Why should I cite him? Borsoka (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cases are different. Gabriele is an RS and the issue was that you cite his view but did not provide a reference. Delingpole is not an RS but you cite him. You said that you have not cited Lee because he is not an RS, so I was asking why you cite one non-RS but not the other. Personally, I think that they are both RSs for the use of Raynald in culture wars even though they are not for his life, but other editors disagree and you have to be consistent. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the three authors can be divided into two group: (1) Gabriele's and Delingpole's PoV are mentioned in the article, so - in accordance with your logic - their works containing their PoV should also be mentioned; (2) Lee's PoV is not mentioned anywhere in the article, so his book is not relevant. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand what you mean by saying that Lee's PoV (point of view) is not mentioned. You say "In 2017, the journalist Jeffrey Lee published a biography about Raynald, entitled God's Wolf, presenting him in a nearly hagiographic style as a loyal, valiant, and talented warrior." This is a summary of his POV. It is presumably another writer's description, so you should attribute it inline and provide a citation immediately afterwards. You also need to give full publication details of Lee's book in a footnote.
  • Done.
  • No, it is a summary of Cobbs' critic of Lee's work. I made it clear in the article.
  • You do not cite Cobb for this. You should add a citation at the end of the sentence. You also need to give the details of Lee's book in a footnote as you comment on it. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not clear why you do not quote Lee as a source directly, particularly as his book is the only biography of Raynald. You said that it reads like a novel so you have access to it. He is not an RS, but neither is Dellingpole, and you do quote him. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Lee's book "does violence to the study of the past", according to a historian's review of his book (cited in the article). No, I do not have full access to it.

Hi, Dudley Miles, did I miss something, do you suggest any more edit? Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am just back from holiday and will look again in the next few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among modern historians, Hamilton "attempts to dispel" Raynald's "bad press" (Cobb).[167] He describes Raynald as "an experienced and responsible crusader leader" who made several attempts to prevent Saladin from uniting the Muslim realms along the borders of the crusader states." This is confusing. You first appear to quote Hamilton, and then add (Cobb), implying it was not him you are quoting. For clarity, I suggest "Hamilton describes Raynald as "an experienced and responsible crusader leader" who made several attempts to prevent Saladin from uniting the Muslim realms along the borders of the crusader states." Cobb describes Hamilton's comments as "attempts to dispel" Raynald's "bad press". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "historians such as Matthew Gabriele sharply criticised Lee's approach." You cite this to Cotts, but you should cite to Gabriele himself as you now have access to it - or cite the comment inline to Cotts. You should always cite inline when describing one historian's description of another historian's views, not make it a bald statement of fact. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gabriele is directly quoted in the following sentence. The quote verifies that he indeed sharply criticise Lee's approach. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing Cotts for Gabriele's view is wrong and unncecessary. You can move the Delingpole citation to the end of the sentence about his view, delete the Cotts citation and cite all Gabriele's comments to himself. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cotts write of more than one historian's opinion about Lee's book, so I would not delete the citation. I moved the Delingpole citation. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with moving the Delingpole citation, but it appears to make him the citation for "In 2017, the journalist Jeffrey Lee published a biography about Raynald, entitled God's Wolf, presenting him, according to a fellow historian, in a nearly hagiographic style as a loyal, valiant, and talented warrior." I suggest changing "a fellow historian" to "the historian John Cotts" and citing the comment to him. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • No change needed unless historian has commented on the point, but it seems very unlikely that Baldwin of Antioch was Raynald's son. He would have to be born after 1153, which would make him very young to move to Constantinople in the early 1160s, become a senior adviser to the emperor and die in 1176. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, authors publishing recently came to the conclusion that Baldwin was Raynald's son. Even if he was born in 1153, he died at the age of 22. Perhaps, the elderly Manuel did not trust his Greek relatives, and he needed a loyal commander who would protect his young son by Baldwin's elder sister Maria, so he (or she) promoted Baldwin's career. Borsoka (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Is Paul Cobb unused? Looks like source format is consistentish and we are using university books and reputable historians as sources. I wonder if there are academic papers, too. Does this character have any presence in popular culture? I kinda wonder if basing Raynald's assessment mostly on a 1978 author is correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your source review and comments. I expanded the article, so Cobb is now cited several times. I have not searched for academic papers because I think the article summarizes relevant scholarly literature. I added two sentences about Raynald's presentation in the film Kingdom of Heaven, and also about a historic novel dedicated to him. In the article, Raynald's assessment was based on three historians' PoV, now a further historian is added. Hamilton's positive assessment from 1987 is still regularly mentioned in scholarly works. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, just checking if this is a pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the caveat that I didn't spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2024 [9].

Prostate cancer[edit]

Nominator(s): Ajpolino (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 1 in 8 men, some cells in a small gland beneath the bladder go haywire. They grow and grow, eschewing the checks meant to bind them in place, and evading the ever-watchful immune system. Some split off the growing tumor, settling most often in nearby bones. In their race to grow, they digest the bone beneath them, causing excruciating pain and bone fractures. 350,000 men succumb to the disease each year, making prostate cancer the second deadliest cancer in men (after lung cancer, the subject of a 2023 FAR). Many thanks to SandyGeorgia, Colin, and Femke for shaping the article with their suggestions and feedback. My intention is that the article be clear to the medicine-literate and medicine-uninitiated alike, so please have a look and let me know what you think. Ajpolino (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Former featured article: Reminder to update the page and numbers at WP:FFA upon promotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks Gog and DrKay! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards[edit]

Support My (few) comments were addressed on the article's Talk Page along with more extensive ones from other reviewers. In my view, this is a well written and well referenced medical article. I made a few very minor edits today for the nominator's consideration. Graham Beards (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: how well-covered in medical literature is the topic of prostate cancer in trans women? I see a couple sources from a quick Google search [10] [11] [12].‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 08:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. It's well enough covered that we should have something in the article. I'll add a bit. Ajpolino (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a short paragraph. Pardon the clunky euphemism "Special populations", it's a MEDMOS suggestion. If folks prefer, we could swap it for a more direct heading like "Transgender women" or "Transgender populations". Or the info could be split up into the article sections each fact corresponds to. Ajpolino (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you; I believe the current amount of information you've added is sufficient given the research around transgender people in medical contexts is still pretty recent. I think I prefer the last approach @Ajpolino, as having a dedicated section singles them out and would probably be frowned upon by our trans laypeople readers. Of course, I would like the opinions of other, more experienced medical editors in this regard if ever anyone disagrees with me. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 02:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I'm not familiar at all with medical stuff, but will try to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 13:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The sum of the most common two assigned numbers is the "Gleason score".[27] Gleason scores of 2 through 5 are no longer commonly used in practice, making the lowest Gleason score 6, and the highest 10. " - this doesn't entirely make sense to me. Is this saying that, for instance, a score of 2 and 3 is unlikely to come up?
    • I've rephrased this paragraph since Femke and Draken Bowser both found it unclear as well. Take a look and see what you think. I've added a footnote to answer your exact question. In short, it's a historical quirk. The "Gleason grade group" system (with grade groups 1-5) is meant to eventually replace the Gleason score. The old Gleason score system had scores 2–10; the current one has scores 6–10, and is living alongside its successor that runs 1–5. Despite both being five-point scales, the current 6–10 score doesn't map perfectly onto the successor 1–5 scale. I'm having trouble clearly communicating that part, so if you have any suggestions I'm all ears. Ajpolino (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " called castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)" - does this imply that castration is a potential treatment for this cancer? This appears to be discussed a bit in the history section, but the discussions on treatment leave this question unanswered
    • In medical jargon land, we call removing your testicles "surgical castration" and eliminating your body's testosterone with drugs "chemical castration". I've added (also called "chemical castration") to the first mention of the treatment. Do you think that would suffice to reduce a reader's surprise when they make it to "castration-resistant"? To your direct question, surgical castration is still occasionally used for prostate cancer, but its use is declining (3.5% and falling as of 2016). Most recent sources only mention it in passing if at all, noting only that patients tend not to choose it. As such, I haven't covered it in the article, but certainly could add a couple sentences if you think it would be helpful context.
  • "Depends on stage, five-year survival rate 97%" - if this is important enough for the infobox, should it be in the body of the article as well?
    • Swapped it to summarize the more detailed description in the text. The rates vary so much by stage, that I don't think a total number is a helpful summary for anyone. Ajpolino (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work; I expect to support. It perhaps says something that I have no issues writing content about horrible Civil War combat, but I spend most of the read-through of this article shuddering in horror. Hog Farm Talk 00:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for your time and feedback. I'm gratified that the article elicited any response besides boredom. FWIW, a glance at American Civil War's infobox suggests your chance of surviving a bout with prostate cancer (as one or both of us might) are better than a man's chance of making it through the war alive. Not sure if that reflects more positively on the prostate cancer experience, or negatively on the Civil War experience. Probably the latter. Ajpolino (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting; excellent work. Hog Farm Talk 19:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Femke[edit]

As I said at the end of my GA review, I believe the article now meets the FA criteria. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser[edit]

Just like the new and improved lung cancer i find that the article is readable and offers a nice balance between completeness and conciseness. I have but a few suggestions:

  • "Men with high PSA levels are often recommended to repeat the blood test four to six weeks later, as PSA levels can fluctuate unrelated to prostate cancer." I think it's perhaps of more interest to mention how PSA-levels spike in response to UTI:s and urinary retention, or do both sentences.
    • Recent reviews seem not to mention UTIs and urinary retention as PSA raisers, any idea why? I'm not familiar enough with the field to know. Carlsson 2021 mentions only BPH; the Harrison's chapter I use heavily mentions only prostatitis and BPH (Scher 2022); Rebello 2021 mentions only prostatitis and BPH; public-facing CDC site gives "certain" procedures/medications, BPH, and infection; similar ACS site gives a longer list but no UTI. To your more general point I've added two short sentences on what can raise and lower PSA levels. Hope you feel that improves things. Ajpolino (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why, in clinical practice I've regularly seen spikes above 20 in patients with a recent UTI, which then recedes to a baseline of ~1,5 within 2–3 months (just to be clear, I'm not the bozo ordering these PSA-tests :P). Maybe it's the good old case of experts refusing to repeat the obvious. Looks good now. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for a source. Ajpolino (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and lead to unneeded biopsies and treatments." I think this sentence should also follow up with the word "complications", to stress clearly that it is not only an issue of resource allocation and mental health, but something that carries a risk of physical health issues. This is of course already explained elsewhere, but I'd still make the addition here.
  • My brain shuts down trying to read the section on Gleason scores. While I'm not a native speaker I'm also concerned there is an accessibility issue.
    • Femke had a similar concern at GAN, and I see it was unclear to Hog Farm above as well. I've tried some editing to hopefully clarify. Is it any better? I'm not sure how to clearly phrase the part about Gleason scores of 7 being converted into Gleason grade group 2 or 3. The fact that there's so many numbers named Gleason makes it challenging to communicate clearly.
Yeah, it's better and the efn is a nice touch. If I get any ideas on further improvements I'll get back to you. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article should briefly discuss pre-biopsy MRI.

That's all and once again, excellent work. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and one more thing. The section on radiotherapy mentions the diagnosis bladder cancer as a complication, but lists only symptoms related to radiation proctitis, without mentioning the diagnosis by name. I'm not sure if adding it is an improvement, but I thought it was worth putting up for consideration. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Ajpolino (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback Draken Bowser. I've taken a stab at implementing your suggestions. I'm not sure the Gleason grading paragraph is quite right yet, and would appreciate if you could take a look and let me know what you think. Ajpolino (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either, but since I have no more substantial concerns, as far as I'm concerned, we're done here. Support. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I'm willing to do a source review, but I'd need a copy of Rebello . Draken Bowser (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Draken Bowser. Just emailed you a OneDrive link. Let me know if there's anything else I can send along to help. Ajpolino (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check
1 30 38 39 44 60 69 78 82 93 127.
  • 30: after reading the source several times I'm now convinced that it supports this claim. No wonder it is hard to make this make sense if professionals in peer reviewed journals are struggling. Should we add "Gleason patterns", or just cite the generic "Epstein 2018" (as one footnote) since the information is scattered under three headings.
    • Apologies. Trying to make the best of a dense topic. I've merged the two prexisting references into one (slightly inelegant?) reference with the three section titles. Let me know if you'd prefer an alternative. Ajpolino (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like this. /DB
  • 82 very close to the source, but I don't think there's necessarily a simple way to rephrase this, so it might not meet the threshold for creativity?
  • 127 while true, shouldn't we stress that GEMMs have mostly supplanted older methods at this point?
    • Yes, good point. I've just removed the chemical induced bit. If you think another sentence on mouse models is due, let me know and I'll happily generate one from the source. I'm not sure if your comment was also referring to PDX models. They've remained very common in the prostate cancer research world, particularly for testing therapeutic molecules. I'm not sure why the GEMMs haven't more fully supplanted them. Ajpolino (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nah, I like this solution. Less is more. /DB
  • 38, 44, 60 & 93 on hold while I figure out why I can't access it via the uni library, which it says I should be able to.
    • I'll email you that one as well. Our access to the textbook was always finicky. I think McGraw Hill has a heavy handed paywall. Secret knowledge for only the initiated (or well-resourced). Ajpolino (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes 1, 39, 69 & 78 raised no concerns. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is gonna be a bit confused, because I forgot that the combination of two notes moved all others down a notch. I will from now on refer to the current (new) numbers.

  • 43 & 44: the source says "into the prostate" and my clinical decision aid says "directly into the prostate gland", I think near the lesions would be correct though.
    • Changed to "into the prostate".
  • 37b these intervals seem to reflect clinical practice, but I couldn't find them in the source.
    • Must've got my wires crossed somehow. Replaced with the correct source.

Notes 59 & 92 raised no concerns. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Could I trouble you to say something about Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med and Cureus? I'm not familiar with them. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine is published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, the publishing arm of the non-profit molecular biology research institute Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. They publish nine journals, which are probably of mid-tier impact. Their two "Perspectives in..." journals only publish narrative reviews, so they're often useful for crafting Wikipedia articles. The publisher's director is a well known academic editor with a long history in prestigious science publishing. The journal's editorial board is mostly big shots at major research institutions.
Cureus, I didn't know much about. A quick Google suggests it has a checkered reputation. I struggled to find sources for a "Society and culture" section and may have reached too far. It was only referencing "and social media posts", so I'll remove that. Ajpolino (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites peer reviewed journals of repute, including top tier journals, and textbooks by established publishers. Thompson was published 17 years ago, which is a bit on the older side, but it's only used to verify content where practice hasn't changed in at least two decades and is unlikely to change in the next few years. It would be preferable to start replacing it, but I'm not gonna demand it. Spot check revealed one instance of very close paraphrasing, but I'm not convinced the sentence paraphrased reached the creative threshold for copyright. Apart from the tiny mistake on brachytherapy probe placement, there were no other discrepancies of concern. I'm going to call this a pass. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time, Draken Bowser. Ajpolino (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Gotta skip the source review here because it's a medicine article and these need more specialized knowledge than I am comfortable with assessing. With some of these images I wonder if we can source the information they present e.g File:Diagram showing T1-3 stages of prostate cancer CRUK 278.svg. Was File:Verlauf Prostatakrebs 2011-01 Posttherapie-Szintigramm.jpg published anywhere? File:US PC Inc by age 2016.tif seems to imply that the incidence falls off past 75 years - is that correct, and if so, the article should say it. ALT text seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you clarify your concern on sourcing the information the images present? If the image represents data (like the histogram) or comes from elsewhere (like the radiation cartoon) I cite those sources. But for images that don't fall into one of the above categories I think we typically don't attempt to source the underlying information (of course related claims in the text are cited). The image you mention as an example comes from Cancer Research UK. They've since made a slightly tweaked version which they display on their website. I could add a link to it to the file's description page?
  • File:Verlauf Prostatakrebs 2011-01 Posttherapie-Szintigramm.jpg has not been published to my knowledge. It was uploaded to Commons by a user who has uploaded numerous radiology images. I have assumed the user is a radiologist and is the copyright holder for those images. We host many such images at Commons and here on our articles, so I assume it's settled that a radiologist is considered the "photographer" of the images (s)he takes. But I can look into those assumptions if you have a concern.
  • File:US PC Inc by age 2016.tif I believe incidence falls because it's rare for men over aged 75 or so to be screened for prostate cancer -- the rationale being that the disease progresses so slowly that they're unlikely to die from prostate cancer before (sadly) something else takes them. I'm not sure I'll be able to find a source that clearly says "incidence falls for this reason" (though I will look presently!) but I can at least add mention of this in the screening section. Most national medical guidelines set an explicit upper age limit on screening recommendations.
    Didn't yet find a source that clearly addresses this, but CRUK gives a general note alongside their UK prostate cancer incidence data: "A drop or plateau in incidence in the oldest age groups often indicates reduced diagnostic activity perhaps due to general ill health." Not exactly definitive, but again suggests the drop in that graph is due to diagnosis. Ajpolino (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    Done. Ajpolino (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The bigger worry is that the article seems to say the opposite (i.e that incidence grows). Someone reading text and image may be confused. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I've added an explanatory footnote to that image caption. Does that address your concern? Ajpolino (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lengthy responses to your simple questions. Thank you for taking the time to review the images. Ajpolino (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

So happy to see this here; what a fine job you've done! Expect to support after I've had time to catch up here with nitpicks.

  • A score of 7 (Gleason scores 4 + 3) can be grade group 2 or 3 – grade group 2 if the less severe Gleason score (3) covered more area; grade group 3 if the more severe Gleason score (4) covered more area. A score of 8 is grade group 4. A score of 9 or 10 is grade group 5 (worst prognosis).[28]
    Things might have changed since my husband's prostate cancer, but isn't a Gleason 7 expressed as either a 4 + 3 or a 3 + 4, with the most prominent first, and would adding that info/distinction help explain the difference in grade group? Also, maybe replace the endash to make the whole construct less confusing? That is:
    • A score of 7 (with Gleason scores 4 + 3, or Gleason scores 3 + 4, with the most prominent listed first) can be grade group 2 or 3; it is grade group 2 if the less severe Gleason score (3) covered more area; grade group 3 if the more severe Gleason score (4) covered more area. A score of 8 is grade group 4. A score of 9 or 10 is grade group 5 (worst prognosis).[28]
    I think this important since there's a significant difference between a 3 + 4 and a 4 + 3, in the sense of it being a dividing line where worry starts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, I've implemented your suggested wording. Ajpolino (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vary wording to avoid additionally, additional? "Those with metastatic disease are additionally treated with chemotherapy, as well as additional radiation or other agents to alleviate the symptoms of metastatic tumors."[38] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed both actually, sentence seems to flow fine without. Ajpolino (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throughout the treatment course, blood PSA levels are monitored to assess the effectiveness of treatments, and whether the disease is advancing.[39]" I am unsure of the generalizability of this sentence ... at a top NCCN clinic, my husband's PSA was not re-taken after the biopsy and once the treatment course (radiation) was decided upon, and was not re-taken until some time after treatment was completed. As written, the sentence seems to imply PSA checks are ongoing during radiation treatment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's possible this has changed since your husband's treatment, or maybe the sentence is implying more frequency than intended. The current NCCN guideline (free, but you have to make a login to view) says "For patients initially treated with intent to cure, serum PSA levels should be measured every 6 to 12 months for the first 5 years and then annually. PSA testing every 3 months may be better for patients at high risk of recurrence... Similarly, after radiotherapy, the monitoring of serum PSA levels is recommended every 6 months for the first 5 years and then annually." (it's page 120 of the PDF; page MS-36 in their numbering scheme). The ACS website I cited says "Doctors tend to follow the PSA levels every few months to look for trends." Do you think I should tweak the wording to clarify the testing frequency? Ajpolino (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ajpolino we're both right then ... my husband's radiation treatment was every weekday for one month, and his PSA was first re-tested some weeks after treatment ended. That is, it was not re-tested "throughout the treatment course", and the source doesn't seem to say it should be ??? The source seems to deal more with after treatment than during; I guess that's where my confusion is ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Tweaked to "Blood PSA levels are monitored every few months to assess the effectiveness of treatments, and whether the disease is recurring or advancing." Hopefully clearer and more accurate? Ajpolino (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Works for me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vary wording to avoid monitor ... monitor ? "Men diagnosed with low-risk cases of prostate cancer often defer treatment and are monitored regularly for cancer progression by active surveillance, which involves monitoring the tumor for growth at fixed intervals by PSA tests ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for throwing this at you without doing the research myself (I could have misremembered this whole thing, so ignore as needed) ...
    "Those with a family history of prostate cancer are more likely to have prostate cancer."
    As I remember, a BRCA mutation in the family also increases risk across genders, so that a family history of BRCA-related breast cancer in the women would also indicate the men need to watch their prostates. And vica-versa. I could have that wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You remember correctly. Inherited variations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated with increased prostate cancer risk, though the risk increase isn't as high as it is for breast cancer. It's currently covered in Prostate_cancer#Genetics (a subsection of Epidemiology) as "The greatest risk increase is associated with variations in BRCA2 (up to an eight-fold increased risk)..." and "Variants in other genes involved in DNA damage repair have also been associated with an increased risk of developing prostate cancer... including BRCA1..." If you think that's too buried, I could move it to a Causes subsection, have a separate Risk Factors section, or just make the wording a bit punchier. What do you think? Ajpolino (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ajpolino, My main concern is that women know to watch their brothers, and men to watch their sisters :) :) There was breast cancer in my husband's family before BRCA testing was known. Methinks it would be optimal to somehow punch up that first sentence "Those with a family history", to reflect that it's not only the men and not only the prostate that increases risk; if there's BRCA breast cancer, need to keep an eye on that in relatives as well, and it goes both ways. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Punched it up a bit. Emphasized family history of any cancer is a risk, and snuck the word BRCA in there so it'll raise flags for folks who have heard it. It is the most substantial single gene risk factor, so I think it's due. Let me know if you think even more punching is appropriate. Ajpolino (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Excellent! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stumble over "often frequent" ... blood in the urine or semen, or trouble urinating – often frequent urination and slow or weak urine stream. Can we rewrite this whole thing as (or some such):
    As a tumor grows beyond the prostate, it can damage nearby organs, causing erectile dysfunction, blood in the urine or semen, or trouble urinating – commonly including frequent urination and slow or weak urine stream.[4] 21:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Do a ctrl-f on the word often? I'm stumbling over how often often occurs :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reduced "often"s 36%. Can probably trim a couple more if it's still bothering you. Ajpolino (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Looking fine now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "typically" (which implies there is a third option)? "Those who elect to have therapy typically receive radiation therapy or a prostatectomy." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiation (with pros and cons) is discussed. Prostatectomy (with pros and cons) is discussed. But we never get a comparison of the outcomes of the two. (My perhaps dated understanding was that they were about equal in terms of prognosis ... or at least they were in our case, and the NCCN group let us decide which way to go ... but something needs to be said about the relative benefits/outcomes of the two main treatments.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your understanding is up-to-date. Added. Ajpolino (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this "average" misplaced? "The average person who dies from prostate cancer is 77." The average age of those who die from prostate cancer is 77 ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to your wording. Not sure if you're also curious about the number itself, but yes that's a typical number you see. Idk where the textbook chapter's data came from, but our beloved SEER program also calculates a median age of 79 at prostate cancer death in their participants.[13] Ajpolino (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not worried about death stats :) :) Thanks, Aj! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once you are through my list, I hope we can get both Colin and WhatamIdoing to have a look to assure the bronze star is truly and optimally shiny!!! But I'll leave pinging them 'til you're ready ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actioned your first set of comments above. Thank you for taking the time to go through the article. It is, as always, much improved for your feedback. Ajpolino (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am at a support for Ajpolino's fine work, but because I was once accused of COI and reverted when removing dated and inaccurate information from a prostate-cancer-related article, I alert the FAC Coords to the need to weight my support accordingly if they believe my prior involvement, and my husband having prostate cancer, constitutes a troubling COI. @Colin and WhatamIdoing: this FAC is maturing to promotion, Graham has been through already, Hog Farm has given a layperson review, it has had a source and image review, and your once over and feedback could make it a truly shiny star! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • Several works need page ranges. Eg Dall'Era; Pilié et al; Stephenson; and others.
    • Added page numbers for Stephenson and Valier.
    • Dall'Era; Hessen; Pilié et al; Scher and Eastham are online resources and are not paginated.
    • Coleman et al; Mai et al; Pernar et al; Rebello et al are online-only and give a single "page" number that identifies the document
  • "Most men are diagnosed with tumors confined to the prostate"! Suggest 'Most men diagnosed have tumors confined to the prostate' or similar.
    • Oops! Went with your suggestion.
  • "Tumors that have metastasized". "metastasized" - why use "spread" at first mention and the unlinked, unexplained technical term at second?
    • Good point. Changed first to "metastasize (spread)" but am open to a more thorough rewording if you think it would help.
  • "As surgery became more common, prostate tumors were found". Perhaps 'more prostate tumors' or 'many prostate tumors' or 'increasing numbers of prostate tumors' or similar? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Went with "more" to keep it short and sweet.

Thank you for taking the time to leave comments. Happy to take any others. Ajpolino (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Dall'Era, or Stephenson, for example, do specify in which section material occurs which is OK for online sources without page nos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2024 [14].

270 Park Avenue (1960–2021)[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a former skyscraper in New York City, known for its main tenants: the chemical company Union Carbide, and the financial firm Manufacturers Hanover (now JPMorgan Chase). It was never the tallest or most famous, but it became the tallest building to be demolished by its owners in 2019. Aside from that, it was once the world's tallest building that was mainly designed by a woman. The tower may not have looked unusual, but it was built above the tracks leading into Grand Central Terminal, requiring some interesting modifications to its structure.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by Mike Christie, for which I am very grateful. I now think the page is now up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC[edit]

Putting myself down here to comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these done
  • No gripes through the lead and Site sections
Architecture to Form & facade
  • 2nd paragraph: I wish I knew the formal term for this, but it's written in a way that feels a bit like it starts at the end. First we learn that observers attributed the design to de Blois, then we learn that this is relevant because actually Bunshaft (side note, great name, I keep picturing bunnies in a mine shaft) took the credit. I might revise to start with Bunshaft presenting himself as the main designer, then give us the reveal about de Blois being the real brains
    • That mental picture is hilarious. But yeah, I've moved the second paragraph up to the first paragraph. I also moved the sentence about "Bunshaft claiming credit" to just after the first sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, I'm not sure we need to attribute this to "several publications", as it appears to be fairly accepted
  • It might be nice to have another photo of the building in the Form and facade section, if there are any unused in the commons cat (or maybe move the one up from Structural features? It feels weirdly placed there)
    • I moved that image up. Unfortunately there are no free images of the interior or even the structural arrangement on Commons. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was also one of the last skyscrapers" not sure "also" is needed here
  • "There were 6,824 spandrels and glass panels on the facade" it's possible that I'm just writing this at 330 am but this reads ambiguously as to whether it's 6,824 spandrels and a corresponding 6,824 glass panels, or 6,824 items total, in some unknown combination.
    • Actually, that is the number of glass panels alone. Good catch - I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break at Plazas
  • Para 1 under plazas goes from the sidewalk to the plaza size and flagpole then back to the sidewalk. I might rearrange somewhat - Plaza 44% of lot, containing a flagpole. It was paved with pink terrazo, similar to other bldg. Then go into the rest of what you have about the sidewalk stuff.
    • I've rearranged that paragraph to put the area first. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link terrazzo?
  • Who's Jack G. Dunbar? Was he also with SOM?
  • "The entrance to the building was from two entrance halls" "entrance" twice here. Maybe just "the building had two entrance halls at ground level"?
  • File:Hirschl and Adler, business at 270 Park Ave., New York City. LOC gsc.5a21885.jpg might be of interest for the offices section
  • Do we know why Union wanted the offices to be rearrangeable that fast? Seems like a weird requirement
    • I have no idea (the sources don't say). I assume that in case an employee left Union Carbide (or was fired), the company wanted a new hire to be able to use the office as soon as possible. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History to Sale
  • Threatening is such a fun word here! Why did they threaten this, and why did they change their minds?
    • The company wanted to provide additional space for its staff, and they felt a suburban headquarters was the best way to do this; at the time, many companies were moving their HQs outside NYC. I'm not exactly sure why this plan was abandoned, though, as the sources don't say. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you later mentioned in the article that this was part of a trend, maybe you could include that in this sentence to contextualize? Support not contingent on this, just a thought. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might flip the order of "Train service was..." and the following sentence.
  • "Union Carbide had initially planned" and then later in the sentence you have "planned" again
  • "moved from the building" maybe "moved out of" or "left the building"?
  • "into the former magazine offices" I might go with "the magazine's former offices", right now "magazine" sounds like it's an adjective modifying offices, which made me briefly wonder "what is a magazine office" before I realized
    • Oops, I didn't even realize that this phrase could be confusing. I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea why the Puerto Rican nationalists bombed this building specifically?
    • They wanted the US government to free political prisoners and recognize PR as an independent country. FALN was responsible for dozens of bombings in NYC around that time; they sought to attract attention to their cause by bombing banks and large corporations' headquarters. This was one of five buildings they targeted on that date. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah okay so not really specific. Maybe mention it was one of five targeted? Right now it kind of implies they picked on 270 Park specifically for some reason
  • "quality-of-life concerns" relating to the building specifically or NYC in general?
    • In NYC in general. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • May want to clarify that but I won't fight if you like it as is
Manufacturers Hanover & Demolition
  • Not mandatory, but as 383 Madison was first linked way up under "Site", I think you could squeeze in a duplicate link here
  • "SL Green Realty proposed that JPMorgan Chase swap" why?
    • The source doesn't say, but I suspect it might have something to do with SL Green wanting the air rights, as that company has previously proposed the same thing with other buildings. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had denied a request" should just be "denied a request" I think
  • "declined to consider protecting" this reads like there's two stages to this process. 1) accepting buildings for consideration and 2) actually considering and either protecting or not. Is that correct?
    • Yes, that's correct. The LPC has to first agree to host a public hearing on whether a building should be designated; the process of scheduling a hearing is called "calendaring". After the public hearing, the LPC can vote on whether to designate the building as a landmark. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotcha
  • "An LPC spokesperson said that several buildings by SOM were already landmarks" is it fairly typical for them to decline for this reason?
    • No. Generally, the LPC doesn't refuse to designate landmarks just because the same architect designed another city landmark. However, this building is part of the Midtown East rezoning district. If I recall correctly, the LPC had previously indicated that it would not designate any more buildings in this district after 2016, as the city wanted to encourage new development in the area. I think the architect explanation was merely an excuse for the LPC's refusal to designate any more buildings in Midtown East. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Curbed described..." when
Impact
  • Might link Seagram Building and Lever House here for similar reasons to 383 Madison
  • Link Architectural Forum
  • While most people through the article seem to have false titles, you've got a couple instances in this section where people have the "the", such as "The author Eric Nash" and "The architect Annabelle Selldorf". It should be consistent one way or another, I think.
    • I've added "the" before the false titles for consistency. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No concerns with sources skimmed for the above points. That's the end of me here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Thanks for the review. I've addressed all of your above points now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support another fantastic article. Good work! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC.[edit]

  • A marker for now. Will be here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Site
  • a six-building complex": per WP:NUMBERS this should be "6-building", given the use of digits in other references nearby
    • I've changed it, though I'm not quite satisfied with the wording. The guideline says that "integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words", and that might apply here. Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It also says that you shouldn't mix numerals and written out numbers - that's the bit I'm trying to get right. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Form and facade
  • "Measuring 707 ft (215 m) tall,[22][23][24]": Do we need three references for this one figure?
    • No, we do not. I've removed one of them. Emporis and Skyscraper Center sometimes disagree on figures, but since they agree on the height here, I've retained these two. Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Construction
  • "it was the highest heavy object to be hoisted": I think the grammar has gone a little awry here – and if we could find away to avoid the alliteration, that would also be better
    • It took me ten minutes to come up with a suitable wording for this one. This particular heavy object was lifted 707 feet, and no other similarly heavy object had been lifted to a higher altitude above ground. I went with "no other heavy object had been hoisted to a higher altitude". Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completion
  • "which were home to over 4,000 employees". No it wasn't: they went home after spending the day here, in the office (plus WP:IDIOM)
    • I have fixed this. I forgot that this was idiomatic (I was writing an article about an apartment building at around the same time, so it slipped my mind). Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina[edit]

To review soon. Ippantekina (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Sorry but I cannot commit unfortunately; real life schedules hit hard... I think it's best to strike this to avoid mismanagement of expectations. I wish you all the best with this FAC nonetheless! Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for the heads up. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Hirschl_and_Adler,_business_at_270_Park_Ave.,_New_York_City._LOC_gsc.5a21885.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the image review. I'll take a look at the alt text shortly. For the second image, I removed it - apparently, this image dates from 1953, which means it wasn't even an image of this building, but one of the Hotel Marguery. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now added alt text. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Is Intelligencer the same as The Intelligencer (Doylestown, Pennsylvania)? Don't think that newspapers usually get an ISSN? Is "Broadcasting, Telecasting" a reliable source? archpaper isn't a website, but a magazine, so it should mention the magazine's name. Who is the publisher of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I'll get to these on Thursday, but the Intelligencer is Intelligencer (website), published by New York magazine. Broadcasting, Telecasting is actually the former name of Broadcasting & Cable magazine, a trade magazine. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the other issues now:
  • I added the publisher of the SOM book.
  • I removed the ISSNs, as all three of these newspapers are well known.
  • I changed the The Architect's Newspaper cite.
– Epicgenius (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to add, with the caveat that I didn't spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC
  • Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks SC. Did you mean to review this article a second time? You left some comments a month ago further up - though I don't mind if you have further commentary. Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • 🤦‍♂️ sorry! Must be losing the plot! I took a break from FAC for a month and forgot what I had and hadn’t done! No more from me - the support above still stands. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • I see asbestos was used in the construction; is there any mention of how that was handled in the demolition?
    • According to this source, they did some unspecified asbestos abatement. Unfortunately, I could not find sources discussing the nature of the asbestos abatement. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have both "black matte finish" and "black-matte finish".
  • "Between the building and the lot line was a plaza": I think this must be the east side of the lot, facing Park Avenue, but it would help if we made that clear.
    • I clarified that the plaza actually surrounded the building on all sides (even on Madison Avenue where it was about 3-4 feet wide). Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The site of the plaza was supposed to be part of a northward extension of Vanderbilt Avenue to 49th Street": perhaps "had originally been intended to be", since presumably this was no longer the case by 1960.
    • I have reworded this to "The site of the plaza had been intended as a northward extension..." to avoid repeating "to be". Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial comments, Mike. I've done these. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • You mention there were air conditioning units on the roof and in the basement, but then say each office's air conditioning was supplied by a unit beneath each window.
    • My understanding is that both are correct. There were AC units both on the roof and in the basement for the interior offices. However, the offices at the perimeter were served directly by ACs below the windows. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Filing cabinets and clustered workstations were also designed around the 5-foot-square module": can you just confirm this is accurate? It would have been quite unusual to take workstation design into account in 1960. This would have had to refer to dumb terminals, which were rare until the 1960s.
    • The source does mention that it was highly unusual: "The typical office floors of Union Carbide accommodated an unprecedented degree of modular design in the ceiling grid, furniture, filing and storage systems, and introduced clustered workstations with low dividers." I have reworded this slightly. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Construction was complicated by the fact that there were only six platforms on the upper level that extended to 47th Street." I don't understand this. Is the issue that materials delivery had to come to these platforms?
  • "critics regarded Union Carbide to be much more bulky": suggest either "critics regarded Union Carbide as much more bulky" or "critics considered Union Carbide to be much more bulky". And perhaps the more straightforward "bulkier"?
    • I've changed it to "critics regarded Union Carbide as significantly bulkier". Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thanks for the further comments. I've addressed these now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support . Fixes look good; no other issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • Either all books should have publisher locations or none. (Schlichting)
    • I've now formatted them consistently. Thanks for the comment. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2024 [15].

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006[edit]

Nominator(s): Edge3 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 is a legal opinion of the Illinois Attorney General concerning the state's public records law. In the aftermath of the murder of Laquan McDonald by a Chicago police officer, several officers discussed the incident through their private email accounts, and CNN asked for copies of those emails. The police department denied that request, prompting the Attorney General to issue a binding ruling that required their disclosure. The opinion came several years after City of Champaign v. Madigan (recently promoted to FA), an Illinois appellate court case that addressed a similar issue involving elected officials sending private communications during a city council meeting. Edge3 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk, Gog the Mild, Elli, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and ZKang123: Thank you for your participation at the previous FAC for City of Champaign v. Madigan. Since this article covers similar subject matter and uses many of the same sources, I invite you to participate in this FAC as well. Thank you! Edge3 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the relevance of the photo of the cop checking his phone. Note WP:IMAGERELEVANCE: 'Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding'. I don't see how a cop on a phone is particularly relevant to a FOIR regarding emails, so how does it aid our understanding of the topic, which is primarily a legal judgment? I think this falls into the 'decorative' department. Is there a shortage of images? I see the article on the original murder is also pretty sparse, unfortunately. ——Serial 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129 Thanks for your comment. I don't think this photo is purely decorative because it illustrates a widespread phenomenon of public employees using their personal devices while carrying out their official duties. See also City of Champaign v. Madigan and Illinois Freedom of Information Act#Records on private electronic devices, where we show a photo of Mayor Rahm Emanuel using his cell phone, even though that specific phone call was unlikely to be the subject of any relevant FOIA requests.
    Indeed, there is a shortage of images relating to the murder of Laquan McDonald. But this article is notable not just for its relevance to the murder, but also for its significance as a legal opinion and its effects on the boundaries between personal and work lives. So the images don't have to be directly relevant to Laquan McDonald. Edge3 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk - Source review[edit]

Happy to review! Also, are you aware that you're eligible for another Four Awards for City of Champaign? Anyway, the review:

Thanks for the reminder! I've just nominated Champaign for the Four Award. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no concerns about the prose, so I'll do a source review

  • Ref 5 is missing a website/publisher
    Added. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 is missing volume/issue parameters
    Added. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put dead in ref 14's active parameter
    Done. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also ref 14: looking at the archive url, Associated Press isn't the author, it's the wire agency. There's a separate parameter for that, the author parameter should be empty
    Fixed. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Illinois Policy Institute reliable? Not sure what the standards are regarding think tank sources
    The Illinois Policy Institute leans conservative, but such a source is permitted under WP:PARTISAN so long as it's reliable for the context in which it is used. In this case, the Illinois Policy Institute is merely recounting arguments made by CPD and the decision of the Attorney General, and this reporting is easily verifiable by reading the opinion itself. If you'd like, I can add a citation to the opinion (as the primary source) to go alongside the secondary source citation. Edge3 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's all good here, thanks for clarifying MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck:

  • Ref 1: I don't see anything here about "Preliminary reports by the Chicago Police Department (CPD) suggested that McDonald was behaving erratically, and that the shooting was justifiable, leading to Van Dyke not being charged at the time." though this is a long article and I may have missed something
    Ah, good catch. Long ago, I copied and paraphrased text from Murder of Laquan McDonald without checking source-to-text integrity. I've revised that sentence now. Edge3 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2: all three uses good
  • Ref 5: good
  • Ref 10: good
  • Ref 14: all three uses good
  • Ref 17: good

Edge3, all done- great work on this and on getting the last article promoted! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support and pass source review- wonderful job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Elli[edit]

Claiming a spot here to do a review later (sometime this week hopefully). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli Just pinging you for a quick reminder. :-) Edge3 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- will try to get to it soon. Sorry for the wait. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Edge3 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • First paragraph is fine and supported by source.
  • "Off-duty police officers reportedly discussed the incident on personal devices and accounts." not sure what part of the source is supporting this but I'm probably missing something. I don't like "reportedly" as it's a bit of a weasel word so I'd rather be clear about who was stating this and why they thought it was the case.
    The source says: "police officers who were off duty reportedly were sending and receiving messages via personal accounts on personal devices". The information is attributed to Ben Schuster, an attorney who had been interviewed for that article, but I'm not sure if he should be cited directly. Happy to hear your thoughts. Edge3 (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you've removed this now so considering it resolved. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "CPD provided a large number of emails from the police officers' CPD-issued email accounts, but CPD failed to search for the officers' private emails, despite CNN's request." Page 2 of the report doesn't explicitly say this.
    I've updated the citation to include pages 2–4. Edge3 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be ideal to use a secondary source for the parts currently only backed by the opinion itself, though I'd understand if no such sources exist.
    I'm mainly using the opinion as a primary source for the procedural history of the case, and also key dates. (e.g. the dates of the FOIA request, the request for review, the AG's decision, etc.) Since I'm using the opinion only to support basic facts rather than interpretation, it's appropriate under WP:PRIMARY. Edge3 (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's fair. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my only concerns in this section. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli Thanks for your comments! I responded above, so please do let me know if you have other feedback. Edge3 (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elli, nudge. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry to both of you for my lack of haste here. I got pretty run-down with IRL stuff the past few weeks and didn't have much time or energy to spend here. I should be able to finish reviewing the rest of this article in detail today though. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize! I totally understand that things happen IRL, and we all have our own priorities to attend to.
@Gog the Mild: I'm actually traveling internationally for two weeks starting today, so I'm happy to put this FAC on hold for two weeks, or at least move along a bit more slowly. Let me know if you have concerns about the speed of progress. Edge3 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid FACs can't be paused. Moving slowly but making progress is a different but not well defined issue. In order to try and avoid it timing out I have poked HF, and added it to Urgents to try and get more reviewers. I think you have had my standard advice on how to get additional reviewers. Elli, relax. If you get a full or partial review done, great. If not, RL is priority: Wikipedia is what we do for fun; we shall all no doubt somehow survive without it. ;) Take care of yourself. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you've said makes sense. I still have my laptop with me so can respond to queries and do light editing, albeit at a slower pace than I usually do. And as you say, RL takes priority anyhow. :-) Edge3 (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both of your kind words -- I took them to heart and took a week off. Finished review is below:
All good! I'm glad you took some time off, and I hope you feel better rested now. I'm currently on vacation anyhow, so it'll take me some time to respond to everything. Edge3 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Case law
  • Maybe link public records?
    Done. Edge3 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking the wording could be clearer about the quote; something like "records open to disclosure, including all emails..."
    I'm reluctant to combine those sentences because it would be very long. ("Public bodies in Illinois, including CPD, are required under FOIA to make all public records open to disclosure, including all emails 'pertaining to the transaction of public business, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been prepared by or for, or having been or being used by, received by, in the possession of, or under the control of any public body'.") Happy to consider a different version that's cleaner. Edge3 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph, moving the first sentence to the end might be clearer (with a slight rephrase: "This ruling, by the Illinois Appellate Court, was the first decision in Illinois to find that..."
    Rearranged in this edit. Edge3 (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion
  • Is there some reason in particular this one was binding? Was it something Madigan chose, or something CPD requested, etc?
    Madigan would have made that decision herself. The AG's office issues binding opinions only in very rare circumstances. You can see more info about the process at Illinois Public Access Counselor. Edge3 (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal
  • Per the source, the final result, with CNN not getting the emails, involved them going back to court again, maybe mention that?
    Added. Edge3 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions
  • Source also mentions the laws were in response to PAC Opinion 11-006 -- is that at all noteworthy?
    PAC Opinion 11-006 was the underlying opinion that was appealed in court and decided as City of Champaign v. Madigan. I don't think Opinion 11-006 needs to be mentioned separately. Edge3 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall

Feel comfortable supporting this as I only have a few minor questions/nitpicks that aren't very important. Would like to see your thoughts though. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I'll take a look at this. Not familiar with Illinois municipal law, but I do have some familiarity with one state over (Missouri). Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For starters - is Huffington Post really going to be a high-quality source as required by the FA criteria for the material that it is citing, in light of the cautions found at WP:HUFFPOLITICS? Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched to sources that are hopefully more reliable. Let me know what you think! Edge3 (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now. Hog Farm Talk 21:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Off-duty police officers reportedly discussed the incident on personal devices and accounts" - this is a bit weaselly worded. There needs to be some sort of attribution as to who is making this claim, if possible
    Elli actually brought up the same concern above. The attribution is to Ben Schuster, but as I stated above, I'm not sure if I should directly attribute this to someone who wasn't even involved in the incident. Edge3 (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the problem is that the article is written in a way that assumes the emails existed, although it doesn't seem like that can be proven beyond a doubt. All we get is a shadowy hand wave about unspecified people believing they existed for unspecified reasons. CNN evidently had reason to believe the emails existed. Is there really no other source that addresses this more directly than the one currently being used? Hog Farm Talk 21:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I might have found something written by AP. Take a look at this edit and let me know if you think it's better. I removed the sentence that sounded weaselly, per your and Elli's suggestion. Edge3 (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On January 28, 2016, Courtney Yager, a producer for CNN, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to CPD" - if this is through the state act, I'd indicate that within the article text, as I (and presumably other readers as well) assumed that this was referring to the better-known federal Freedom of Information Act (United States) before I saw where the link was going
    I've clarified that it's the "Illinois" FOIA. Edge3 (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but CPD failed to search for the officers' private emails, despite CNN's request" - my instinct is that something about the Champaign case needs mentioned before this, as without that previous ruling would there really have been any expectation for CNN to be able to receive this information?
    To me it feels like synthesis to link the Champaign case to CNN's FOIA request. CNN is a national publication, and Yager (the producer) and Shenkman (the legal counsel) are not from Illinois. I doubt that they specifically had Champaign in mind when filing the FOIA request. In the Attorney General's opinion, Champaign isn't even mentioned until page 6, and it appears that CPD didn't consider Champaign as authoritative until it filed its supplemental (i.e. second) response to the Public Access Counselor. Edge3 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. Hog Farm Talk 21:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Talk 00:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Hog Farm, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mike Christie[edit]

A very concise and clearly written article. Just two minor points, neither of which affect my support.

  • It was interesting to discover halfway through the article that the opinion did not lead to the provision of any of the personal emails covered by the opinion. The officers refused to comply, and the opinion only says the officers could be ordered to do their own search, not to give others access to their accounts. You cite a comment to the effect that the opinion should have made it clearer how access could be enforced. It's apparent that the opinion has limited effectiveness, and I wonder if it would be possible to make that point in the lead. If the sources don't discuss it in a way that lets you draw that conclusion, that's fine, but it seems a relevant point that the reader only gradually understands as they read the article. If not, could we at least mention in the lead that the officers did not comply?
    The sources tend to characterize the opinion more as a "victory" for public access advocates, despite the fact that CNN never received the emails it had requested. You're correct that this point would only be apparent to the astute reader. I've added an extra sentence to the lead. Edge3 (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "expired", in the last sentence of the article, is a slightly technical term that some readers may not be familiar with. Could we get a link that explains it?
    I did a quick search on Google, and most guides explain how a bill becomes law in Illinois, but very few talk about how a bill doesn't become law. Basically the idea is that the General Assembly sits for two-year sessions, and at the end of each session all bills automatically die if they were not already passed. I'll try to do some more digging and find a more detailed reference, such as a book or law reference on Illinois legislative procedure. Edge3 (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • "Issued in 2016 in the aftermath of the murder of Laquan McDonald by a police officer". Perhaps 'Issued in 2016 in the aftermath of the murder by a police officer of Laquan McDonald'? When I first read this, I couldn't work out why a police officer would be issuing the opinion.
  • CNN should be in full at first mention. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the phrasing to "police murder of Laquan McDonald". Does that work? I've also expanded CNN to its full name at first mention. Edge3 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2024 [16].

1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game[edit]

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After surprising many by simply being competitive the year prior, the football team from tiny Centre College returned to Boston for a rematch with football giants Harvard in October 1921. Led by star quarterback Bo McMillin, the "Praying Colonels" shocked the sports world by winning 6–0, a victory considered by many to be one of the greatest in college football history. After the game, a Centre professor remarked that Harvard had been poisoned by the organic compound "C6H0", giving the game a name that has stuck to this day. This article was super fun to rewrite and I look forward to any and all comments it receives. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Wikilink "rushed" and "touchdown" in the lead
  • Wikilink American football on the first use in the body
  • Wikilink Harvard on the first use in the body
  • Wikilink shutout on first use
  • Wikilink rushing and passing on first uses in body
  • "Centre was [singular] praised for its [singular] resiliency and for their [plural] unwillingness" - some grammatical disagreement here
  • "also an umpire for the National League" => "also an umpire for baseball's National League" for clarity
  • Link all the positions in the sentence starting "The starting offensive line" and the ones thereafter. I personally don't have a clue what any of them mean so links would be beneficial
    • Got a little sloppy here with linking, thank you for pointing this out. Added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are a "varsity squad" and a "freshmen team"? Are there suitable links?
    • A varsity team is the school's first-choice team, and a freshman team is just a team composed of first-year college students (since Harvard, at the time, did not allow college freshmen on its top-level football team. Varsity team link has been added and Freshman team redirects to Varsity team#Junior varsity so I've added that, and tweaked a few words here and there. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daily Messenger image caption does not need a full stop as it isn't a complete sentence
  • "and all around Danville students painted the so-called "impossible formula"," - I think "and Danville students painted the so-called "impossible formula", all around" would read more elegantly
    • the intended meaning was "students painted the formula all around Danville", not "Danville students" - never occurred to me that this was a confusing way to word that. Fixed so it's clear what I'm trying to say here. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A third game had been proposed" - a third game between Harvard and Centre? The sentence isn't completely clear
  • That's what I got Great work! I know basically nothing about American football and I was able to follow the article well -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Thank you for the time and comments as always Chris! Everything above has been taken care of. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Web/newspaper source check support by CactiStaccingCrane[edit]

Not so fast! Will review this article tomorrow. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this version, spot check one citation for every three. Skipping sources that I don't have access, would love to have someone else checking book sources:

  • 1: OK
  • 4: OK. Even though the source didn't say "Tournament East-West Football Game" explicitly, it is reasonable to assume that it mentions that game because the description in the newspaper largely matches with our Wikipedia article.
  • 6: Primary source, in order: a: OK, b: OK, c: cannot verify
    • 6c only covers the portion of the sentence that says Harvard had not been scored on in their first four games, using the scores in the schedule. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7: OK
  • 12: cannot verify, please give me the quote for the citation
    • I will have access to this source again on Saturday - as soon as I'm back with the book I will give you the quote. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CactiStaccingCrane: sorry, for some reason I saw it wrong and thought this was the book cite above it. I removed brought the team success since that was a little interpretative on my part; the newspaper source for the remaining bit uses a portion under the header "All-America football teams chosen by Camp", which has "Weaver, Centre" and "McMillin, Centre" listed under "First eleven" and "Roberts, Centre" listed under "Third eleven". I can reproduce the whole table for you if you like but those are the only bits that I used. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14: OK

By this point I have to acknowledge that I don't have access to books listed, but a source check on them should be performed to ensure verifiability. PCN02WPS, it would be great if you could ask somebody with access to perform a book source check.

@CactiStaccingCrane: I don't know of anyone specifically that has access - I am more than happy to provide quotes from book sources to any reviewer, however. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17: OK, OK
  • 20: OK
  • 24: OK, but I prefer that the clipping is smaller.
  • 28: Primary source. OK. The source said "At Harvard the cage-men evened up the defeat suffered on the gridiron last fall by gaining a 41-36 victory over the Crimson". The sentence should be a bit less ambiguous though.
    • Where does the ambiguity come in? Perhaps I'm blind to it but I'm having a hard time seeing it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 32: Seemingly OK, but limited access to the excerpt only
    • Yeah, I don't have NYT access so there's not much I can do about that (unless an editor that does have a subscription wants to lend a hand)
  • 36: Is "heaped 40 points" here in the first or second half?
    • I'm fairly confident it's the first half - I think all it's saying is Centre scored 40 before they took out their starters, and they got to 60 (a mistake on my part that I have fixed) before halftime. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 37: OK, OK, OK
  • 40: OK
  • 45: OK, OK, OK, OK. I prefer that you use {{rp}} to give more specific page number citations. It's not really vital in this case but it is a healthy habit to use it.
  • 58: Uh... with this huge clipping I have no idea where to verify the information. This seems to be a recurring problem with this article. You should either make the clipping smaller or use |at= template parameter to denote the sub-section names.
    • Sorry, for some reason I had it in my head that I had to clip the entire story instead of just the relevant parts. Fixed that; the relevant information here is near the bottom. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 61: OK
  • 66 (huge source): OK, OK, OK, suggest removal in favor of the other source, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, cannot verify, OK, OK, OK in footnote.
    • Removed fourth use as recommended; the bit about Covington uses this quote: Centre lost five yards and Covington replaced Captain Armstrong at left half back for Centre. It's in the last paragraph of the "Third Quarter" section. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 75: Again, the clipping is way too large. I literally cannot find the info on the page. See above
  • 78: OK
  • 84: OK
  • 91: OK

(skipping similar contemporary sources, moving to modern sources)

  • 99: Primary source. I prefer to see the original source of the news.
    • I think the ESPN list itself is offline but I replaced the Centre source with a clipping of the newspaper story that's quoted in the Centre source. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 101: OK, OK
  • 104: OK, OK
  • 106: OK, OK
  • 110: OK
  • 113: OK

I would say that the references need work on being more specific. Other than that, I see that there is only minor issues with source-text integrity. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane Thank you for taking the time to look through these - everything above has been fixed or responded to! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. This FAC receives a support in web/newspaper source check. Another book source check would be ideal but unfortunately I am very busy so I won't be the one that do it. If you want, you can help perform a source check at my Mars Society nomination. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I first knew about Centre College from this match 2 years ago :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I vaguely remember reading about this game as a kid, what stands out in my memory is declining the game ball after the first loss, pledging to be back the following year.
  • Wouldn't you refer to the location of the stadium as "Boston" rather than "Allston"?
  • I'd like to see your view on notability of this as an individual game per WP:SPORTSEVENT. \
    • I believe this game falls qualifies as extraordinary with a lasting impact on the sport; even into the twenty-first century, it still receives coverage as one of the greatest upsets in football/sporting history. The news coverage it received spanned from days/weeks before the game to days/weeks afterwards in papers around the country, and it was detailed in publications and books for the following 150 years. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get a little more info on how it was that a small place like Centre College was a major football powerhouse at the time.
    • I tried to add a bit of emphasis that it was mainly the players that Myers was able to bring over, but if you think this isn't apparent enough I can try something else. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any article that lists these pre-NCAA national champions?
  • "during which span" I would cut "span"
  • "was a matchup with Penn State, which they played to a 21–21 tie" I would add "in" before "which".
  • Was there press coverage in anticipation of the game? Both in Kentucky and Boston? Game predictions?
    • I have in the first paragraph of "Game summary" that Harvard was favored to win with 3-to-1 odds; I have added some more about this and some about the press coverage in the buildup to the game. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "followed the blocking of Roberts" I imagine from context that Roberts blocked ahead of the ball carrier on this play but it could be made clearer.
  • Did the MIT students root for Centre, as I'd expect them too?
  • Game analysis: I see some indication in the papers that the Harvard starters who did not play were injured, is that so?
  • Fair Park Stadium. Consider a link to Cotton Bowl (stadium)#History which at least mentions the previous stadium.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thank you for the review! Everything has been addressed/responded to. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good then. Support Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Dylan620[edit]

  • All images used in the article are categorically PD because they were published in the United States over 95 years ago.
  • All images add encyclopedic value to the article. I like the final image of "C6H0" spray-painted on the side of a building - having been taken earlier this year, it demonstrates the lasting legacy of this game.
  • Suitably descriptive alt text is present throughout, solely excepting the lack of alt text for the poster in the infobox; however, this is a case where any alt text would probably be redundant to the caption.
  • Support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I note with some embarrassment that I had missed the lack of page numbers on some of these images, but I've taken it upon myself to fix this issue over at Commons (see my recent edits there), so this should still be good to go on the image front. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dylan620 Thanks for the review! Thank you for adding the page numbers, I appreciate it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by RecycledPixels[edit]

I will review this article. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this version of the article. I'm familiar with American Football, but don't have much knowledge of College Football, so I'm approaching this as a typical reader unfamiliar with the sport would view it.

Lead

  • I'm a heavy user of the mouseover-the-bluelink method on Wikipedia to get a quick glance of what a wikilinked article is about when I encounter an unfamiliar term. The hover only shows the first few sentences of the linked article, which makes it super important to pack in the most important parts of the summary in the first few sentences. In this article, I'm happy with the first two sentences of the lead paragraph, but then it veers off into a discussion about the previous year's contest without answering the question of why this game matters. I'd like to see statements from the second paragraph like "Centre's defeat of Harvard is widely considered one of the greatest upsets in college football history" and "The game is often referred to by the shorthand C6H0; this originated shortly after the game when a Centre professor remarked that Harvard had been poisoned by this "impossible" chemical formula." appear much earlier in the lead as part of an overall summary before getting into specifics of the previous year's game and the details of this year's game, hopefully close enough to the beginning to get those two facts, or shortened versions of them, into the hover-text.
    • Reworked the lead into three paragraphs, keeping the first paragraph to more relevant information for the whole of the article as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The revised lead is a big improvement. It introduced a couple of issues. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The teams had played for the first time the year prior; Centre, led by Charley Moran, shocked many by taking a tie into halftime but ultimately Bob Fisher's Harvard squad took control in the second half and won the game. Change the semicolon to a period.
      • The conversion failed but the Centre defense held for the remainder of the game; Harvard threatened and even reached the Centre 3-yard line at one point but were unable to score. Change the semicolon to a period.
      • Their lone defeat came on January 2, 1922, to Texas A&M in the Dixie Classic, leaving them with a 10–1 record to finish the season. It's fairly clear that "Their" is referring to Centre, but since Centre and Arizona were both mentioned in the previous sentence, change "Their" to "Centre's".

Background:Recent years

  • Harvard finished their 1919 season with an undefeated record; they did not allow a point to be scored against them for the first six games of the season, until a 10–10 tie with Princeton. "Undefeated record" links (via redirect) to perfect season, with a hover-text that says "A perfect season is a sports season, including any requisite playoff portion, in which a team remains and finishes undefeated and untied." but then the rest of the sentence mentions the 10-10 tie with Princeton, so that's probably not a good wikilink to use.
  • and were retroactively named outright national champions by two selectors. I don't know what selectors are. Can you briefly explain the term in the article, or at least provide a wikilink? The term is used again in the next sentence about how only one selector chose them and the majority chose California instead. I don't understand what that means.
    • Added a bit explaining the selector system as best I can (it's tough, as well, because the NCAA didn't exist back then, nor did a real concept of a "national champion") PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • They went on to win the Tournament East-West Football Game against Oregon, 7–6, and were retroactively named outright national champions by two selectors; since there has never been an entity which has awarded a single definitive national championship in college football, the NCAA recognizes the retroactive picks of numerous national championship "selectors", who use different methods to determine their choice for a national champion. That ended up becoming quite a long sentence. But I still don't know what a "selector" is. Is it an individual, a publication, an elected body of representatives of various schools, sanctioning bodies, a poll of the general public, or what? How many of these selectors were there? RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Put the selectors explanation bit in parentheses since it's not directly relevant but good background information, and added a bit to make this a little more clear. Selector is a blanket term for "entity (either a person, or a publication, or a computer rankings system, etc.) which is recognized by the NCAA to pick a national champion which is then recognized by the NCAA as a national champion in FBS football for that season". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm still finding it confusingly worded, but less confusing now that I have read through the College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS article, which is already linked in the sentence. So when you write that the team was retroactively named outright national champions (it seems the word "outright" is inappropriate here, since there are multiple opinions), that might have included something like Parke H. Davis, who, in 1934, published a list of who he considered the national champions were for each year going back to 1869? If that's the case, it seems like it might be just clearer and easier to replace that who part by saying something along the lines of "In 19XX, so-and-so named the 1919 Harvard football team as the national champion in their publication Things I came up with one day" or something like that. My slowly growing understanding of the selector system then makes me question why the wording "a share of the national championship" is appropriate. In the paragraph about Centre, it looks like you've mostly done that with Jeff Sagarin, but it's not mentioned when Sagarin made that selection, and seeing that he wasn't even born until 1948 makes me understand that he didn't show up at the team's last game of the season and hand them a trophy, which is the impression that I had been under. Am I making sense about why I'm finding the current wording of the article confusing, and what might make it less muddied for me? I don't think we're that far off. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            @RecycledPixels It's not the most intuitive system to say the least. The whole selector system is a byproduct of the fact that football is unique in that the NCAA does not recognize a single national champion at the highest level (Division I FBS) and instead recognizes the winner of the FCS Playoffs (whose participants are picked by a NCAA selection committee) as the Division I football national champion. The concept of a "national champion" has not been in place for a good chunk of college football history (and the concept of a single definitive national champion, it could be argued, has only existed since the 1998 founding of the Bowl Championship Series). In 1919, Harvard was recognized as national champions by five selectors in total (CFRA, Helms, Houlgate, NCF, Davis) but was the only team selected as 1919 national champion (outright champion) by only two of the five (CFRA picked Illinois as co-champ, NCF and Davis chose Notre Dame as co-champ, Helms and Houlgate only chose Harvard). A "share" of the national championship just denotes that they were not the only team picked to be national champions by a given selector; in the case of 1920, the Boand System retroactively recognized Harvard and Notre Dame as co-champions.
            Your interpretation of a team being retroactively named champions is correct; all that means is that at least one of the NCAA-recognized selectors who picked champions after the fact chose them (some selectors' national championship picks are recognized retroactively, while some were contemporary). Are you recommending I replace the information about selectors in parentheses with the names of the specific selectors (like I did with Sagarin and Centre)? I'm happy to do that if so - in my mind the new wordings would look something like this: ...and were retroactively named outright national champions by two selectors, the Helms Athletic Foundation and the Houlgate System. and ...share of the national championship, though this time only by one selector, the Boand System as the majority chose... If those are clear enough I think that's a good solution. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            I think that would be a good solution to the problem without getting super wordy and taking the article completely off the rails (this information is just background information setting up the game that is the subject of the article, after all) but when I come across that unfamiliar concept, I can click through to those articles to find out what all that meant. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            @RecycledPixels: sounds good, that's been changed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team rebounded with a 7–1 campaign in 1917, earning shutouts in every win, Can you simply the wording of that, perhaps replacing shutout with a more understandable description of not allowing any of their opponents to score any points against them?
    • Maybe this is just from my perspective as a sports fan, but I think "shutout" is easy enough to understand as is, especially since it's a fairly simple concept and the explanation is given in the first sentence of its article, which is easily visible in its hover-text. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a sticking point for me, it's just that I think that the tone of writing of an encyclopedia entry would be different from the tone you'd find in a sports publication or news report, which is probably what a lot of the sources for this article end up being. After you spend so much time focusing on those sources, they become second nature to you and people who regularly read those reports. Some of what I do in real life involves translating highly technical jargon into something that somebody's 85-year-old grandmother could understand, so I realize that the process is challenging. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three players were named All-Americans by Walter Camp. I'm unfamiliar with who Walter Camp was, and the article hover-text didn't mention anything about his publishing a list of All-American teams until I eventually clicked through to that article and found it in the second paragraph of the lead. Can you rephrase the sentence, either to explain that Walter Camp was a widely respected sports writer who was recognized as the official selector in the early years of the 20th century (from the College Football All-America Team article) or something like that?
  • Centre finished the 1919 season undefeated and untied and were retroactively recognized by one selector, Jeff Sagarin, as the season's national champions. In the previous paragraph, Harvard was named national champions of the 1919 season by two selectors. Again, I'm confused about what these selectors are, and why there are multiple teams who are national champions.
    • Hoping this is cleared up by the earlier bit about selectors; if not, I'll see what I can do to make it easier to understand. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They attracted attention with their win over West Virginia in November 1919; the Mountaineers had defeated Princeton in a shutout the week before and went on to finish the season 8–2 I had to hover over the West Virginia wikilink to find out who the Mountaineers were, but I don't know why defeating Princeton the week before was important. I'm assuming Princeton was a good team at the time, but this can use some clarification. Another use of shutout which could possibly be rephrased to make the article easier to understand by non-sports fans.
    • Added a note about Princeton being a Big Three school and one of the better CFB programs of the day. See above regarding the use of "shutout". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centre won a further eight games in 1920, capping the season with a 56-point win over TCU in the Fort Worth Classic MOS:CLICHE for "capping the season".
  • he went with former Harvard halfback Eddie Mahan to scout the Colonels. Earlier, the team was identified as the "Centre Praying Colonels". The article on the team seems to shorten the team name to the "Praying Colonels" as well as "Colonels" but when I was reading this article I had to go back and figure out what team was being scouted because the article had generally been referring to the football team as "Centre" up to this point.
    • The use of a team's nickname alone to refer to the team is very commonplace in college athletics, including football; I used "the Crimson" to refer to Harvard in the (now) second paragraph of the lead. I tend to use both the name and nickname when talking about a team to avoid letting the article get too repetitive in that aspect. I am very open to suggestions, of course, in the way of making the article more easily understood but I am hesitant to change uses of "Colonels" to "Centre", if that is what you suggest. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being unfamiliar enough with College Football, I tend to prefer that a team's name remain constant throughout the article because it's easier to keep track. Whether it's Centre, the Colonels, or the Praying Colonels. I glanced at 1998 NFC Championship Game, another featured article about American Football, and I note that each time a team was mentioned the first time, the city and the team name were used together ("Minnesota Vikings", "Atlanta Falcons", etc.) and each subsequent mention consistently only used the team name ("Vikings", "Falcons") and never mentioned any team by the name of the city alone. However, 2005 Sugar Bowl, another football article, switches back and forth between referring to the teams by their team name and their college name. So there does not appear to have an MOS standard, just editor preference. I think the 1998 NFC Championship Game is easier to follow. I also tried to look for general style guidelines on the Internet and did not find anything to help, but the SABR Style guide appeared to have the most complete guidance. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the difference in the NFC championship and Sugar Bowl articles is a byproduct of the fact that one is NFL and one is college. In the NFL, teams are primarily known by their nicknames, while the name of the team itself is secondary, whereas in college the team name is most known and the nickname is secondary. From what I've seen, switching back and forth is sort of the norm for college, since the team is easily identifiable by both and introduced with both, and all college football articles I've written switch back and forth since it's super helpful to avoid repetition. This does create problems when both teams have the same or similar nicknames (e.g. Clemson Tigers vs. Missouri Tigers or Harvard Crimson vs. Alabama Crimson Tide), but I don't think that sort of issue presents itself here. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of time for today, I'll continue tomorrow. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RecycledPixels: Everything above has been taken care of or responded to! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still using the same revision as above, although by the time I finished this, additional edits had been made to the article which I have not yet seen.

Background: 1920 meeting

  • "the scoring machine of the football universe" by The Dayton Herald after totaling 241 points in their first three games combined less clunky to phrase it as something like "scored a total of 241 points" rather than using "total" as a verb.
    • I used "totaling" to avoid repetition of the word "scoring" - if you think use of "totaling" detracts from the reader's ability to understand, I can figure out another wording to use. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still like my suggestion, but it's not going to hold anything up if you disagree with me. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attendance was estimated to have been at least 37,000 people (and was reported to have been closer to 40,000 or even 45,000); ticket sales were stopped the night before when the contest sold out and as many as 10,000 potential attendees were turned away at the gates. I'm confused by this sentence for a few reasons. The first, is a minor nitpick about the use of the passive voice "was estimated to have been" which doesn't say who was making the estimation. If it was the ticket office that made the estimate, I would assume they knew how many tickets were sold, but if it was a reporter in the stands trying to eyeball the crowd, I'd want to know who was making that estimation, especially since there were so many wildly varying estimates. Next, the Harvard Stadium article's infobox stated that between 1904 and 1928, the stadium had a capacity of 42,000, so I don't understand how there could have been estimates of 45,000 spectators, or how 10,000 people would have been turned away if there were 37,000 spectators. Finally, it doesn't really make clear if the people who were turned away were people who were just trying to buy tickets, or if they were people who had been sold tickets but refused entry, and if it was the latter, why was the stadium so oversold?
    • The 37,000 figure comes from The Dayton Herald, which uses a similar wording: "it was conservatively estimated that no less than 37,000 persons would witness the game." Added them into the sentence, removed the 40k figure, split the sentence in two, and added "as a result" to clarify that the people were turned away because they couldn't get tix after the game sold out. As for the capacity of the stadium, I don't know whether they sold general admission tickets or standing room or what their solution was, but then again I have no idea what it was like to buy a football ticket and attend a game in 1921 (as cool as that would be). It is not unheard of, though, for the attendance of a game to exceed the stadium's seating capacity, so I assume that's what happened. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ticket sales were stopped the night before when the contest sold out[21] and as many as 10,000 potential attendees were turned away at the gates as a result. Move reference from the middle of the sentence to the end. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor, and totally optional nitpick, not limited to this section but I just noticed it. I like how nearly every sentence is cited. It makes keeping the attribution easier when editors come along later and add uncited material in the middle of cited material. To keep the visual appearance of the article cleaner without repeating footnotes appearing all over the place, consider the advice given at WP:OVERCITE: "If consecutive sentences are supported by the same reference, and that reference's inline citation is placed at the end of the paragraph as described at WP:CITETYPE, an editor may want to consider using Wikipedia's hidden text syntax <!-- --> to place hidden ref name tags at the end of each sentence. Doing so may benefit others adding material to that paragraph in the future. If that happens, they can uncomment the hidden citations and switch to citing references after every sentence. Having hidden citations could cause confusion, especially among inexperienced editors, so the approach is strictly optional and should be used cautiously."
  • The Praying Colonels surprised many simply by taking a 14–14 tie into halftime. Why "simply"?
    • I have removed this; I think my intention was to stress that the very fact that they were tied was the surprising part, rather than the score or something else, but I think that meaning still comes through without the extra word. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harvard scored one touchdown in each quarter, adding a field goal in the third quarter, and held Centre scoreless in the second half to finish 31–14 winners.. Awkwardly worded, how about "... to win the game 31-14" instead?
  • McMillin finished the game having tallied 151 rushing yards and 131 passing. Needs "yards" after passing. McMillin needs to be identified further, since he was only introduced in the previous section, and only by name, and what position he plays was never identified. In this sentence, it is not clear which team he was playing for.
  • During the game, Harvard used nine of its substitutes while Centre used three. That needs explaining, since when I watch football, I see substitutions happening all the time. Were there rule differences back then that limited the number of substitutes in a game, like soccer, or was it just not done, or what. Were those substitutions due to injury, fatigue, or a change in strategy?
    • Football is fundamentally different today than it was 100 years ago, so any modern-day game will be a poor standard of comparison (both with regard to rules and athletic ability) for any game in this era. Your question is a good one that I cannot answer unfortunately - the source only lists the names of the substitutes but doesn't give any reasons as to why they were brought on. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Boston Globe described the game as the most interesting to watch as had ever been played in Harvard Stadium The wording isn't identified as a quote from the source, but the way it's worded sounds like that early-20th century style of twisted writing that seemed to be so popular. Since it's not a direct quote, can you make its meaning easier to understand by changing it to something simpler like "described the game as one of the most interesting games ever played in Harvard Stadium" or something like that?
    • Good catch, I guess that's what happens when you read too much 1920s sports journalism. Simplified the wording a bit. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centre was praised for its resiliency and unwillingness to give up; after the game, the Harvard team hosted Centre's team, coaches, and president for dinner. Another minor nitpick about the passive voice and not identifying who was praising Centre. The sentence seems to be made up of two fairly unrelated items, is a semicolon really appropriate here, or should it just be broken into two sentences?
  • Despite this loss, Centre was still seen as a strong team; the southern football historian Fuzzy Woodruff said that they entered their next game against Georgia Tech as an "unbeatable team",[26] though Centre ultimately lost this game 24–0. More passive voice. The use of "the southern football historian Fuzzy Woodruff" tripped me up, perhaps because of "the". Wikilink Fuzzy Woodruff, maybe simplify his title as "football historian Fuzzy Woodruff" since I'm not sure southern is really relevant. Who was calling Centre an unbeatable team? Was it Woodruff as a sportswriter, or was it someone else? If it was Woodruff, he should be identified as a sportswriter instead of a historian, but if it was someone else, then Woodruff isn't really relevant here and who wrote it should be mentioned instead.
    • Somehow never thought to see if he had his own article; modified southern football historian to sportswriter, though I am choosing to leave in "the" to avoid a false title. I tried to express that Woodruff's opinion was being presented without making it sound like WP's voice. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • McMillin and captain Norris Armstrong played basketball for Centre in the offseason, during which the Colonels defeated Harvard by five points. How relevant is this?
    • I included it because it was another Centre–Harvard game including some of the same players as the football games, which in my mind shows that the Centre vs. Harvard "rivalry" of the early '20s was not limited to football exclusively. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • McMillin was made a Kentucky Colonel by governor Edwin P. Morrow around the same time. The timeframe is vague here, can it be more specific? I assume it refers to the basketball game, but it doesn't mention if the honor was bestowed upon him as a result of the football game, or as an athlete in general. If it's not specific to the football game, I'd question its relevance in this article.
    • The source says that the honor was given to him in "Spring 1921", which I would use in the article if I could. Instead, I tried to express that it was early-ish in the year, closer to basketball season than football season for sure. The source doesn't give a specific reason why he was given the award. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background: Starting the 1921 season

  • Centre defeated VPI at home by the same score the following week[34] before traveling to Cincinnati to take on St. Xavier College, a 28–6 Centre win.[35] The placement of reference 34 in the middle of the sentence is awkward and disrupts the flow, move to the end of the sentence.
  • The Harvard game was their third consecutive road game and Centre entered with a 4–0 record "their" as a pronoun is not immediately clear since the previous sentence mentions both Centre and The Transylvania Crimsons and this sentence also mentions Harvard. It's probably technically ok, but I had to reread it a few times to understand the meaning.
    • Clarified. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Harvard game was Centre's third consecutive road game and Centre entered with a 4–0 record. How about replacing the second use of "Centre" in the sentence with "the team" or something like that? RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last of Harvard's four consecutive shutout victories came against Indiana by a nineteen-point margin, though they continued their winning ways against Georgia the following week by a score of 10–7. I'm not sure why "though" is used here, which generally means "but". Maybe drop the "though" and break it into two sentences.
  • The Centre–Harvard matchup captivated media attention in the weeks leading up to the game; on October 21, Boston Post reporter Howard Reynolds arrived in Danville. Probably better to split this into two sentences rather than use a semicolon.
  • During the buildup numerous publications assigned reporters to Boston, including the... needs a comma after buildup.

Players and personnel

  • Harvard started two halfbacks: Francis Rouillard was on the left, and Vinton Chapin on the right. Grammatically correct, but would flow better as "Harvard started two halfbacks; Francis Rouillard on the left, and Vinton Chapin on the right"
    • I removed the comma and "was" to try to make it flow better. I feel like the colon works because I'm listing the halfbacks, rather than talking about some kinda-related other thing. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game Summary

  • He was assisted by a crew of three other officials: umpire W. R. Crowley, linesman J. J. Tigert, and field judge W. G. Crowell; Maxwell and Crowell, both from Swarthmore College, had also been part of the officiating crew for the Centre–Harvard game the year prior. Replace the semicolon with a period to break this long sentence into two sentences.
  • Entering the contest, sportswriters and pundits gave Harvard 3-to-1 odds to win, though some felt that Centre had a better chance to win than they had the year prior, especially given their improved line play. Explain what "improved line play" is to the reader.
  • Tickets sold for $2 apiece (equivalent to $34 in 2023); the game was sold out and attendance was expected to be around 45,000 people. Replace the semicolon with a period and break this into two sentences.
    • Changed as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The game was sold out and attendance was expected to be around 45,000 people. The game began at 2:30 p.m. ET. The second use of "the game" could be changed to something else, like "the match", or similar synonym. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't forget this. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Whoops, thank you for the reminder. I changed the first use to read "The stadium was sold out..." since I think that is technically more correct anyway, if that works for you. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centre won the coin toss and chose to defend the north goal. Coin toss is wikilinked to coin flipping which would not adequately explain the context of why football teams are flipping coins to someone unfamiliar with the sport, including the fact that they elected to receive the opening kickoff as a result.
    • I don't know that there is an appropriate link to replace it, unfortunately. I'm not really willing to explain that a football game starts with a coin toss and what consequences of said toss are on this article since that seems a little off-topic and very specific about something not specifically related to this game. If you have suggestions for how to remedy this I'm open to them. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 2005 Sugar Bowl article phrases it as "Following the ceremonial pre-game coin toss, Auburn elected to kick off to Virginia Tech to begin the game, ensuring the Tigers would have possession to begin the second half." 1998 NFC Championship Game uses "The Falcons won the coin toss before the game and elected to receive the opening kickoff." 2000 Sugar Bowl uses "Actor John Goodman performed the ceremonial pre-game coin toss to determine first possession of the ball. Florida State won the coin toss and elected to kick off to Virginia Tech to begin the game." 2006 Gator Bowl uses "Virginia Tech won the ceremonial pre-game coin toss to select first possession and deferred its option to the second half; Louisville elected to receive the opening kick." RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added "ceremonial pre-game coin toss" and clarified that Harvard got the ball first. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harvard was unable to capitalize on the miscue and punted; Centre reached the Harvard 11-yard line by the end of the third quarter. Eliminate the semicolon and split into two sentences.
  • Centre's ensuing drive ended with a turnover after McMillin's pass fell incomplete in the end zone; under the rules in place at the time, this resulted in a touchback rather than a simple incomplete pass, and Harvard took the ball on its own 20-yard line. Eliminate the semicolon and split into two sentences.
  • General comment about the game; There seemed to be a lot of missed kicks in this game but that might have just been how games were played, or it could have been a result of bad weather or bad field conditions, for example. Was that normal at the time?
    • From reading recaps of the game, the weather and field seemed to be good, so it likely was not a result of either. I'm guessing it was just a byproduct of the fact that kickers then weren't as good as they are now, so comparing 1921 kickers to 2023 kickers gives the impression that the former must have had something preventing him from performing better when in reality the comparison isn't really fair. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Around ten thousand fans descended from the stands and gathered on the field after the game, including students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in support of Centre, who tore down the goal posts. A long sentence that could probably be broken up to improve readability. A reader unfamiliar with the sport would probably be confused about why the Centre team tore down the stadium's goal posts.
    • Broke this sentence up and clarified that the MIT students (who were attending the game to support Centre) were the ones that tore the goalposts down. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:Game analysis

  • Centre surprised sportswriters with its own offensive plan, involving far more rushing and fewer passes than were expected, in spite of their fewer numbers and smaller size, though this was intentional as Centre had intended to conceal some of the more elaborate parts of their gameplan until the second half so as to avoid giving Harvard the opportunity to make adjustments at halftime. This is a very long sentence that should be split up.
  • McMillin, in his own analysis of the game, complemented the performance of his offense; he praised the offensive lineman as "heroes" and said that "no better blockers ever played football". Eliminate the semicolon and split into two sentences.

Aftermath:Immediate impact and reactions

  • Once the game ended, McMillin was carried off of the field on the shoulders of fans. I understand the context here, and this is another nitpick, but this should probably be clarified that this was a celebration, and that he wasn't carried off because he was injured or unable to walk due to exhausion or other issues.
  • the Centre team was met by large crowds, as they had during much of both of their visits to Harvard Reword to eliminate clunkiness.
    • Changed "much of both of their visits" to "their previous visit". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the game, Harvard coach Bob Fisher said "In Bo McMillin Centre has a man who is probably the hardest in the country to stop." Needs a comma before the quote. Needs a comma after "McMillin" within the quote as well.
    • Added first comma. I am more hesitant about adding punctuation to a direct quote however. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an Associated Press wire article, and the ommission of the comma from the quote was a mistake on the part of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which was used as the source in this case. Look at other newspapers that use that article, such as the Hartford Courant (page 6Z, or page 42 on Newspapers.com for Sun Oct. 30, 1921). They include the comma. It was likely a quote of a spoken statement by Fisher, so it should have the comma. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Centre team returned to Danville on October 31 and were greeted by a homecoming party which included Governor Morrow, the Danville chamber of commerce,[81] the superintendent of education,[29] and 10,000 citizens. Citizens is an unusual word to use in this context, perhaps "local residents", "fans", or something like that? Chamber of Commerce should be capitalized. per MOS:PEOPLETITLES, Superintendent of Education should be capitalized.
  • Upon exiting their train, the team was paraded down Main Street. Passive voice not necessary here. Identify who paraded the team down main street, or say that the team paraded down Main Street, or that they participated in a victory parade.
  • Classes were cancelled at Centre and the local school district on the day of the team's return[83] and "Victory Day" was observed in nearby Harrodsburg on November 6, where another parade was held for the team. Move the citation to the end of the sentence so it does not disrupt the flow. I'm not that bothered by the two instances of passive voice here since it's pretty obvious who the actors were.
  • The phrase by which the game is most commonly known, "C6H0", originated from a comment made by a Centre professor shortly following the game: that Harvard had been "poisoned" by the organic compound with that formula. The colon seems inappropriate here, and since the sentence is already pretty long it's probably best to split into separate sentences.
    • I'm hesitant to split this because the bit before the colon introduces the bit after the colon. Starting a sentence with "Harvard had been 'poisoned' by..." risks misinterpretation since you don't have the reference back to the professor and his comment within that sentence. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It stuck, and students painted the so-called "impossible formula" all around Danville,[30] including on various buildings around campus[29] and on the flank of a cow. The citation after the word "campus" should be moved to the end of the sentence.

Aftermath:Concluding the season...

  • The Centre victory was a shock, but perhaps not a fluke; the team finished the 1921 regular season 9–0, with shutout defeats of Kentucky, Auburn, Washington and Lee, and Tulane; this last game was scheduled as a replacement for their original opponent, Georgetown College, who backed out prior to the season after determining they would be too outmatched. Run-on sentence that should be broken up, ideally eliminating the multiple unnecessary semicolons.
  • McMillin was married on the morning of the game; the wedding was attended by members of the Centre team who afterwards went to the stadium to play. Be a bit clearer which game that refers to. I don't love the semicolon.
    • Changed "the game" to "that game" to point the reader to the most-recently mentioned game. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • No concerns

Overall

  • The article has several sections where there is a heavy use of the semicolon to join smaller sentences into longer, more complicated sentences. This decreases the readability of the prose and in many of the instances I've called them out above. There are others that I chose not to nitpick about, but in general, I'm not a fan of the use. There are other segments of the article that don't use any semicolons, probably a reflection of some of the different editors and writing styles that have come through the article. There aren't any "deal-breaker" objections that I have, most of the comments relate to needed clarifications and improvements to the prose and I've tried to highlight each issue without being overly bossy about "you much change it to this wording".
  • There's a decent amount of sports jargon present in the article that will be familiar to readers who are used to reading sports recaps, but in many cases the jargon can be simply be reworded to be more easily understood by someone unfamiliar with the jargon, keeping in mind that the target readership of Wikipedia is a general audience. Examples like "suited up", "shutout", "took the field", etc. Technically accurate and definitely not deal breakers, but areas that I think could be polished. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary, using WP:WIAFA as a guideline.
    It is:
    well-written: Yes
    comprehensive: Yes
    well-researched: I have not performed a source check and verification, a different reviewer has, above.
    neutral: Yes
    stable: Yes
    compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy: Source check not performed, search for close paraphrasing not performed.
    It follows the style guidelines, including:
    lead: Yes
    appropriate structure: Yes
    consistently formatted citations: Not checked
    Media: Image check not performed, a different reviewer has, above.
    Appropriate length: Yes
    Conclusion: I support this nomination. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I don't think that Harvard University and Texas A&M University are a website, but rather the publisher. Ditto "College Football at Sports-Reference.com" which isn't the website. While less certain, I am not sure that "Grace Doherty Library." should be referred to in the website parameter, either. Otherwise I see no issue with the sources, but qualify that local US newspapers aren't my area of expertise. I kinda wonder about the reliability of "The Wonder Team: The Story of the Centre College Praying Colonels and their Rise to the Top of the Football World", given this review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus All four website parameter issues have been acted on; first two switched to "publisher" and last two removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One question about "The Wonder Team: The Story of the Centre College Praying Colonels and their Rise to the Top of the Football World" still outstanding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus I believe the book to be reliable with respect to the information I used from it. The book was independently published by Butler Books out of Louisville - they publish plenty of history-related stuff (at a glance, a good number of biographies) - and it is cited by the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society journal article, which is peer-reviewed. The review you linked does raise some good points, though I recognized when writing the article that the quotes were likely not entirely genuine and as a result did not include any quotes or information derived from the quotes. I also did not echo the viewpoints Robertson made about Centre's 1919 team as the greatest in football history (I placed information about that team in context and mentioned their undefeated record, the one selector who recognized them as national champions, and highlighted one win from that season which multiple sources - not Robertson - mentioned as being among their best), nor did I reproduce his rather grandiose opinions about the Centre-Harvard three-game series being the best in the sport's history. I agree that the book is a little long but when using it I did my very best to use only the information that would not be reasonably challenged, were devoid of the opinion of the author in any way, and did not place either team or the games they played on any sort of pedestal using a superlative of any kind, so far as I can tell/remember. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's all, unless folks want a spotcheck too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 April 2024 [17].

Munsey's Magazine[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a magazine that revolutionized the magazine publishing industry. Munsey's Magazine cut its price from twenty-five cents to ten cents in 1893, and became the first magazine to derive its revenue primarily from advertising, by driving circulation up with a low price, and reaping the rewards in high advertising rates. The magazine was a stable-mate of Argosy, which I brought to FAC a couple of months ago: Argosy was much more influential in the world of genre fiction, but Munsey's had a much greater impact on the industry as a whole. The publisher, Frank Munsey, had a rags-to-riches life: half the story of how he became a millionaire was told in the article on Argosy, and this is the other half. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa[edit]

I'll try to find the time to review this. TompaDompa (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments
  • I have added italics in a few spots where they seemed to be missing for magazine titles and done some other minor copyediting as well; please check to see that I did not introduce any errors.
Lead
  • Any particular reason to give his name as "Frank A. Munsey"? Our article is at the title Frank Munsey.
    I think when I started working on the article I used this form because the business was the "Frank A. Munsey Company", but I agree there's no need. Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Originally launched as Munsey's Weekly, a humorous magazine, in 1889, it was not successful, and by late 1891 had lost $100,000 ($3.39 million in 2023), and Munsey converted it to a general illustrated monthly in October of that year, retitled Munsey's Magazine and priced at twenty-five cents." – this is a rather lengthy sentence with a high number of commas, which impedes readability.
    Split. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the American News Company, which had a monopoly on magazine distribution" – a near-monopoly, going by the body.
    Some sources describe it as a monopoly; I believe it was effectively a monopoly for national distribution but there may have been some local distribution options in some areas. No need to go into those details, though, so I've made it "near-monopoly". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other magazines, notably McClure's and Cosmopolitan, quickly followed Munsey's example" and "another magazine, Everybody's, managed to outstrip Munsey's" – are those "Munsey's" as in "Frank Munsey's" or the magazine? If the latter, "Munsey's" should be in italics.
    I meant the magazine and have italicized it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For both? Only the latter is italicized now. TompaDompa (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant the person (or company) rather than for the magazine, but I've now italicized it as I think it reads OK either way and this avoids any doubt in the reader's mind. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many well-known writers appeared in its pages, including O. Henry, H. Rider Haggard, Arthur Conan Doyle, Bret Harte, Frank R. Stockton, Max Brand, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and Ella Wheeler Wilcox." – I don't know if these examples were picked for any specific reason or if it's just a more-or-less arbitrary sample, but here are at least my thoughts: Henry should definitely be mentioned due to his deal with Davis. From a pure name-recognition perspective I would certainly keep Haggard, Doyle, and Burroughs, and I would consider adding, or replacing one of the others with, Joseph Conrad for the same reason. It's probably a good idea to strive for some amount of variety/diversity.
    I took out Stockton and added Wodehouse and Conrad. I'd like to keep Brand -- he was enormously prolific and a famous pulp writer. Harte I put in because I think he shows up in American curricula, but I'm OK with cutting him if you think he's not well enough known. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no strong opinions on the individual authors beyond the above-mentioned inclusion of Henry, Haggard, Doyle, Burroughs, and Conrad. That being said, this is now a list of eight men and zero women, which seems unlikely to me to be the proper balance. TompaDompa (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I put Wilcox back in. There were definitely women writers who were popular at the time, but as far as I can see it's mostly the male writers whose reputation has survived. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was not until 1904 that another magazine, Everybody's, managed to outstrip Munsey's, reaching a circulation of almost a million" – does "outstrip" here mean outsell (higher number of sales) or outgross (more money)?
    Circulation. I made it "managed to outstrip Munsey's circulation, reaching a figure of almost a million". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publication history
  • If there are appropriate links for "quarto" and "saddle-stapled", they should be added.
    Both linked: Bookbinding#Stitched_or_sewn_binding and Quarto#Quarto_as_size. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the same market as Life. and Munsey hired" – stray period; or was some other punctuation intended?
    I don't remember, but I did a little rework of that and the following sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at 18% interest" – annually?
    The source doesn't say, but I would assume so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. This seems like a high interest rate to me (not being familiar with typical interest rates at the time). If the sources comment on whether they consider this steep (or whether it was viewed as such at the time), that should be added for context. TompaDompa (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's implied that it's high, but not stated directly. Britt quotes Fogler: "He told me afterward that he had to pay 18 per cent for money to take up the loan"; I think "had to" implies it was an unpleasantly high rate. As you say, a reader will consider this high without being told, so perhaps we don't need to make the inference explicit? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Stronger sourcing would be needed to comment further upon it. TompaDompa (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They agreed to pay five and three-quarter cents, but Munsey stuck to his seven cents price." – should probably be rephrased to say that they offered to pay the lower price; I initially parsed "they" as "Munsey and ANC" rather than just ANC.
    Good point; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pulp paper for the signatures that did not include any illustrations" – maybe I'm just revealing my ignorance here, but what does "signatures" mean in this context?
    Linked to section (bookbinding). Modern paperbacks are usually perfect bound, but if you've ever looked at an old hardback that's falling apart you may have noticed the pages are in groups; those are signatures. It's relevant in this context because a signature had to come from a single paper source (it would be folded and cut), but two different signatures could be from different paper. So you could save money by using cheap paper for signatures with no images, and only using the more expensive paper for signatures with images. An editor might deliberately move material around to minimize the expensive signatures. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "circulation was down 64,000 by 1924" – down to 64,000 or down by 64,000, and if the latter from what?
    The former; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contents and reception
  • "a gossip column about Washington society and politics" – probably shouldn't have to check the link to find out if that's D.C. or Washington state.
    I can add the "D. C." but the source doesn't say -- I think Mott probably thought it was obvious, given the state only joined the union that same year, and probably didn't have society gossip or politics of interest in New York. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the inference that it refers to D.C. is probably fine. If not, we would need to remove the link. That being said, we should think about how best to serve the readers here—if we leave it unlinked they may be unsure as to which is intended (they may not be as familiar with the overall context). The best option is probably to make it explicit in the text. TompaDompa (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added "D. C." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Few of the contributors were well-known, except for Horatio Alger [...] at first the other fiction came mostly from little-known writers" – is there something I'm missing or is this a bit repetitive?
    Yes; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the policy probably gave the circulation another boost" – is this an uncontroversial supposition or should it be attributed?
    What Churchill says is "Munsey astutely sold his new magazine for ten cents. Even so, another innovation assisted him more in his climb to forty millions. He was the first publisher to make a steady policy of putting a picture of a pretty girl on the front cover of his magazine." I put "probably" in because Churchill gives no hard evidence that this happened. I didn't want to weaken it further to "may have given" because Churchill is unequivocal about it. It's not mentioned by other sources and I don't think is controversial in the sense that other sources would disagree, but I also don't know if Churchill was aware of evidence that it was definitely so -- perhaps some essay of Munsey's that I haven't read. I don't think it's necessary to attribute this inline, given all that -- I think the "probably" avoids giving the reader too strong a sense that this must have been so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable. TompaDompa (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is possible to provide a short gloss to explain to the reader what muckraking is, this should be done.
    Done with a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Munsey's obtaining a head start in circulation because it had taken the first move to the lower price" – I might link to first-mover advantage.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliographic details
  • I have to say that a fair amount of the second paragraph seems rather WP:Original research-y.
    I wondered about that. I decided to include it because Reed explicitly makes that comment, so I felt it was OK to indicate what other information supported or contradicted him. Worldcat shows that Harvard has one issue and part of another, and that's about it. The Library of Congress card indicates which issues were copyrighted, and I think that's a legitimate way to say those issues did appear -- it's the same as consulting an index. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Having thought about it:
    1. Reed's comment should obviously be included.
    2. The internet sale thing I think falls on the wrong side of WP:Original research.
    3. I am not familiar enough with WorldCat to say whether this is an okay way to use that source. I'll have to defer to someone else, though unfortunately I don't know who might be knowledgeable about it.
    4. Using the copyright records in this way is definitely okay.
    TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TompaDompa. Removing my coordinator hat and speaking just as an editor, I am happy to consider WorldCat a HQ RS for this limited purpose. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that seems fair. I've cut the internet sale comment. I also changed the sentence cited to Worldcat to say that almost no institutations "have any copies", rather than "have copies", to avoid the implication that any institution has a full set. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A British edition of Munsey's Magazine was begun in 1899, printed in New York and distributed in the UK by Horace Marshall & Son." – is this all that is known about it? Were the contents identical?
    Almost nothing is known of it, unfortunately. I can't find any references to it except for Galactic Central, and as you can see there they only know of three issues. It seems likely that more appeared but that's just speculation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a shame. Oh well, sometimes we just have to accept that the information/sourcing we want is not available. TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Mike Christie. TompaDompa (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review -- replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious and conditional/preliminary support. As stated above, I would like somebody more familiar with WorldCat to weigh in on whether its use as a source is appropriate in the context it appears in the article. The article looks good otherwise—though as usual with these magazines, I'm not sure I would be able to tell if there are disqualifying issues. TompaDompa (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

UC[edit]

Saving a space. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
  • Suggest reworking the first sentence per MOS:FIRST: something like "Munsey's Magazine was an American publication founded by Frank A. Munsey. Originally launched as Munsey's Weekly in 1889..."
    Yes, better; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • both fiction and non-fiction departments: don't magazines generally have sections: when I see department, I think of a shop -- or was this the term used at the time?
    It's a fairly standard term in modern histories -- see here, for example, or search Google Books for 'magazine "nonfiction departments"'. I don't think it was current at the time, though I can't easily find evidence either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munsey became one of the first publishers to put on the cover a picture of a pretty girl: this is not quite supported by the article, which says that Munsey was one of the first to do that regularly. More generally, I was tickled by the implication that other publishers had only ever used ugly girls: is there a way to rephrase?
    Added "regularly" and rephrased slightly; does that avoid the "ugly" implication? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and although this became less common later in the decade the reputation took some time to die out: could do with a look for prose and elegance: the reputation, in particular, could/should be expanded to something like "its reputation for low-brow smut".
    I don't think I can be as definite as that. As far as I can tell the evidence for this is primarily the Wilkes-Barre Public Library story (which is known because Munsey printed a response ridiculing them in the magazine). I say "as far as I can tell" because going through the sources has been a bit of a game of "telephone". I am pretty sure that at least half the sources have relied on Mott and Britt for nearly all their information. I don't know for sure there is more evidence than is in Mott. What Mott says is "[after 1895] ... anatomical display was toned down greatly; but the reputation for naughty pictures that it had gained was hard to shake off. Libraries sometimes reacted unfavorably to such reader-lure; and as late as 1898 the Wilkes-Barre Public Library cut Munsey's off its list "because of the many illustrations ... which are on the nude order". Mott then describes Munsey's responding editorial. I don't think this is enough to say "low-brow smut"; in fact these were very often (I haven't looked at all of them!) classical nudes, so "low-brow" would be misleading anyway. The body gives the story in sufficient detail, so how about if I cut the lead to just "... women, though this became less common later in the decade", and leave the reputation issue to the body? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good plan. Perhaps something about how some libraries refused to stock it -- the reputation change seems significant? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cut the reputation phrase from the lead. All Mott says is that libraries "sometimes reacted unfavorably to such reader lure" and I don't think we can definitely assert any library other than Wilkes-Barre refused to stock it -- Mott might have been referring to libraries' attitudes to any magazine that carried nudes, rather than to Munsey's in particular. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The change from a price of twenty-five cents to ten cents was the start of a revolution in magazine publishing: I'd rephrase the start of a revolution (at least in WikiVoice) per MOS:IDIOM and perhaps WP:PROMO. If someone has called it this, I'd name them and keep the phrasing.
    I think it's a commonplace in the field that it was a revolution. Mott (1957) has (p. 7) "What was the appeal of these ten-cent magazines, which caused a revolution in the field of periodical publishing?" Schneider (p.76, here says "The development of the popular general interest magazine, driven by advertising revenue ... has been described as a "magazine revolution". This view, common among magazine historians, ..." Searching Google Books for '"ten cents" munsey revolution' finds half a dozen more. I would be hesitant to attribute this to any single author, but I could use Schneider to say that it is common among magazine historians to say this. Do I need to, though? I don't think we'd need to attribute a statement that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was "catastrophic" for the Ottoman Empire, would we? We'd just have to source it, and I was hoping that that would apply here. Or perhaps just add a couple more citations to support the language? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
    I'd definitely be in favour of "has been described as...": "catastrophic" literally means "really bad", which is true, whereas revolution literally means "folks in short trousers building guillotines", which isn't, so the MOS:IDIOM argument is there. More importantly, I think it's the sort of phrase that's appropriate in a magazine article or popular history, but not in an encyclopaedia: this is one of those cases where we have different editorial goals than our sources, and so shouldn't sound exactly like them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the lead wording to be "is considered by magazine historians to be the start of a revolution". The body has ""revolutionized the popular magazine market". I'd argue that neither is really an idiomatic usage; for the latter, Merriam Webster gives "to change fundamentally and completely", with "revolutionize an industry" given as the example usage. The body text is supported by three citations, not including Schneider's "common among magazine historians". I'd like to leave that as is -- it would feel finicky to, effectively, say inline that the sources all agree with what they source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy with that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before 1893, magazines made money by selling subscriptions: needs nuance: they still did this after 1893 (and indeed by selling to non-subscribers). Suggest something like "the bulk of most magazines' income came from the sale of subscriptions".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was not until 1904 that another magazine, Everybody's, managed to outstrip Munsey's circulation: Munsey's peak circulation? We earlier mentioned that things began going south, though that might not have started by 1904.
    I think you're asking if Everybody's exceeded Munsey's circulation as it was in 1904, or exceeded the peak? As it happens it was both: Munsey's never got close to a million circulation, but Everybody's did in 1904, and passed Munsey's on the way. Perhaps if I add the "almost a million" that would settle it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that would work well. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The magazine was not initially profitable, and for years Munsey was under immense financial pressure. An advertising campaign in 1886 brought a surge in circulation: I'd like to see some detail here, if it's known: how much money was Munsey losing? How many readers came in 1886, and how did that compare to its previous circulation?
    The story is told in detail in Argosy (magazine); it's a long story and as far as Munsey's is concerned it's the preface, so I didn't want to give too much detail. There's no simple number to quote, unfortunately -- Munsey was losing money, then he got credit with his suppliers because of his support for Blaine's presidential campaign, then he lost more money, then he had a brief success via an advertising campaign, then that circulation shrank again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are the circulation figures not at least known? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added; unfortunately this is a case where the secondary source disagrees with the primary source so I had to add a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bangs found Munsey to be so energetic as to be a difficult man to work for: better and simpler as difficult to work for?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this time Munsey had written several novels for his own magazines, and he submitted one, titled A Tragedy of Errors, to Bangs: does "his own magazines" mean "magazines he edited himself"? He also owned the magazine that Bangs edited.
    I checked and all his serialized novels had appeared in The Golden Argosy, so I changed the sentence to say that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • of pay rates of different magazines: part of a long sentence: I think this clause could be cut without sacrificing much (it's all obvious from what immediately follows).
    Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • $163.00: recommend losing the decimal places as false precision.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munsey was forced to borrow the money elsewhere, at 18% interest: I get the sense that that was a lot, but there's nothing here to contextualise it.
    There's nothing more in the source; the context says it was high, as you say, but I think most readers would feel that 18% would be a high interest rate almost anywhere and any time, so I was hoping this could stand by itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He notified about ten thousand dealers that ANC would not be carrying Munsey's Magazine, but that it could be had directly from the publisher for seven cents in New York plus the cost of shippingto the dealer: cuts for brevity suggested.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • seven cents price: compound modifier, so hyphenate.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A trickle of orders: consider a rephrase per MOS:IDIOM
    Done. This is one part of the MoS I dislike; I understand the reasoning but it can make the language unnecessarily bloodless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • began to be used in magazines: for magazines? We wouldn't say "soldering irons began to be used in computers", though we might say "in computer manufacture".
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Blood'n'Thunder Guide: spaces around 'n', as if it were and? I'm not sure here.
    Done -- I checked a couple of mentions elsewhere on the web and it seems that's how it's usually rendered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • from ten cents to fifteen cents: consider cutting the first cents.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Argosy had merged with another of Munsey's magazine: magazines
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the combined magazine was now far outperforming Munsey's, with a circulation of 500,000: which one had a circulation of 500,000?
    Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UC, gentle nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was not a completely new idea: the Ladies' Home Journal had been launched at a price of five cents in the 1880s, and was by this time priced at ten cents,: a story of a magazine raising its prices is an odd choice as the first data point to show that lowering prices was a tried-and-tested idea.
    The most notable thing about Munsey's is that it started the ten cent magazine revolution. The LHJ was not a general magazine, so it doesn't really count as a precursor; Mott mentions it in this context because it had an enormous circulation and had started at five cents -- when it went up to ten cents it was still far cheaper than the general monthlies. Mott mentions it so he can dismiss it: despite the price and success it wasn't competing in the same arena as Munsey's. I think it does have to be mentioned. The point the paragraph is trying to convey is that it was the particular combination that was new -- a cheap general magazine, funded by advertisements rather than subscriptions. I think to cover that the predecessors have to be covered. Perhaps if I reverse the order? E.g. "This was not a completely new idea: the Ladies' Home Journal was priced at ten cents (and had been launched earlier in the decade at only five cents)"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that phrasing more effectively shows what you're trying to. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • though it was targeted at women rather than a general audience: just looking at the Munsey's cover in the infobox, I wonder how "general" the audience was -- particularly given our previous conversation about cover girls. It sounds like it was really targeted at men. More generally, don't most magazines have a target audience in some sense?
    The sources don't cover this explicitly, but I think the point of a "general magazine" is that it tried to appeal to all possible buyers. Certainly to men, but there are a couple of mentions elsewhere in the magazine histories that the buying power associated with the readers of advertisements in general magazines was thought to be mostly held by women. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK: if the sources consistently call Munsey's "general" and nobody has written about its specific appeal to men, then we're good here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More (hopefully) to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these; all replied to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UC, just checking to see if there will be more to come. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not until next week, though I don’t have any issue with Mike’s replies above and would not wish to be an obstacle to promotion if it is felt that consensus has been established for that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • about Washington, D.C. society and politics: comma after D.C. (MOS:GEOCOMMA). Presumably, DC politics were also national politics, so perhaps "about politics and the society of Washington, D. C."?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does A. E. Fenner rate a redlink?
    I don't think so -- I can't find any other references to them. I included the name because Mott mentions it, and his work is a survey so apparently he thought the illustrations were notable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest giving the date of the Alger portrait in the caption, as it's a lot older than his appearances in the magazine: he didn't look like that when he was writing for them. Alternatively, can we find one from closer to 1892?
    Added the date to the caption. For more recent portraits there's this, but it not very near the relevant date and the quality is not great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munsey's own novel Derringforth was part way through serialization when the first monthly issue appeared: I'm not quite clear on the implication of this: I'm mentally adding "... and so had to stop being serialised", but don't really have anything to hold onto with that. What, if anything, happened to the novel after the change? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In checking the references for this I discovered I had misremembered Mott's point when I added that; it was partway through serialization when the first ten-cent issue appear, not partway through when the schedule changed to monthly. I've fixed that. I mentioned it mainly because I think it's interesting that Munsey published his own writing -- that paragraph is "what were the typical early contents of the magazine". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An early contribution from a well-known writer was Hall Caine's The Christian: we just said that the "initial" (=early) writers, apart from Alger, were not well known. I'd suggest changing the framing of this sentence to be clearer that something is changing here in 1896.
    Changed to "In 1896 another well-known writer appeared: Hall Caine's The Christian, serialized from 1896 to 1897 ...".
  • which was very popular: a bit limp (and arguably unverifiable): what are we basing this on?
    Mott says it "was a great hit"; presumably he's referring to reader reaction in letters, but he doesn't say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The covers were initially simply a table of contents for the magazine: as phrased, it sounds like we're talking about the "Etchings" column here. Suggest "the magazine's covers were initially simply a table of contents".
    Done; and that's more concise anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fiction from the early monthly issues was heavily used to provide The Argosy with reprinted fiction to fill its pages when it began its fiction-only policy at the end of 1896: this is a bit clunky. Suggest something like "When Argosy began its fiction-only policy at the end of 1896, Munsey heavily re-used reprinted fiction from the magazine's earlier monthly issues."
    Yes, much better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most style guides would write numbers under twenty in words, but there's no problem here as long as consistency is observed.
    MOS:NUMERAL allows a choice for these numbers, but I've no strong opinion myself, though as I have a maths background I probably have a bias towards digits rather than words. I can change these if you think that would read more naturally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the middle of the 1890s Munsey's became known for printing images of "half-dressed women and undressed statuary". This would seem to fit more naturally with the pretty girls on the cover: presumably they were at least part of the reason? More generally, the paragraph above this is a bit short, and I wonder if some reorganisation could/should be done around here. I'd also attribute this quote as being both an opinion and, more relevantly, important at least as much for its creative phrasing as for the information conveyed.
    I've moved a couple of sentences around; how does that look? And I've attributed the phrase inline. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • , a natural vehicle for numerous halftones: I found this a bit unclear: perhaps "a natural vehicle for illustrations"? We've mentioned that they were halftones a few sentences ago.
    I used "halftones" instead of "illustrations" because of the importance of the halftones -- as this editorial points out ("Cheap Magazines") the halftones were an advantage the cheap magazines had acquired, and the ability to print a lot of them while keeping costs down was key to Munsey's' success. I don't like "a natural vehicle for including numerous cheap halftones" as it appears to mean that there were also expensive halftones. If you think the point is already clear to the reader I can make it "illustrations", as you suggest. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think any of these solutions are better, and reading again there's enough mentions of halftones around that readers should understand that they're pictures. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etchings" (now including poetry): perhaps related to the organisation point above: the now reads oddly since we mentioned Ella Wheeler Wilcox contributing poetry to this section two paragraphs ago.
  • "Literary Chat" and "Etchings" (now including poetry) were joined by "Impressions by the Way" (editorials): from the order of things here, it sounds like this should have something to do with nudity, but I'm not seeing it. Perhaps a further thing to look at in (re)organisation? Could we perhaps put a halftone illustration somewhere down here, as we're talking a lot about how attractive they were?
    I haven't found a halftone from that era that I think is good enough quality. See this, for example; the left hand page is the sort of thing The Independent was commenting on, but it's a poor reproduction. Re the order: "Literary Chat", "Etchings" and "Impressions by the Way" were generally text only and didn't carry nudes as far as I've seen. I don't want the mention of the nudes to overwhelm the paragraph -- Mott treats the magazine's contents at greater length than I've given here, and separates out a half-paragraph to talk about the temporary emphasis on nudes. In this shorter length I'm finding it harder to keep that discussion from being connected to the sentences that relate other changes in the content. Perhaps '"Literary Chat" and "Etchings" (now including poetry) were among the departments not including illustrations; they were joined by "Impressions by the Way" (editorials).' The "not including illustrations" could be said to be original research, I suppose (i.e. the secondary sources don't make that comment), but it's not very onerous or speculative research. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the Spanish–American War began in 1898: in April 1898 -- any reason not to be precise?
    No -- done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munsey himself argued: I would cut himself here as needless and arguably WP:PUFFERY.
    Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Republican to the political party.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaving Titherington in overall charge: it's been a while since we mentioned him: suggest "the editor, Richard Titherington" or "Titherington, as editor, in overall charge".
    Took the first option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In return Davis agreed to pay ten cents a word for everything he bought: from Henry, or from everyone?
    Amended. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • all of Munsey's magazines: I'm not quite sure on the AmerE here, but the article has generally gone for all the magazines rather than all of the magazines. BrE would go strongly for the latter: unless there's some rule I'm missing here, I think we should try to be consistent, one way or the other.
    I'm fine with "all of the magazines", and like you I'm unsure what the AmEng would be (my Engvar is now mid-Atlantic, meaning both sound right to me after decades on each side), but I don't see any examples of "all the magazines" -- can you point me at one? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War I brought more articles on military topics: per WP:POPE, I would suggest giving a date here (also possibly ambiguous: do we mean 1914 or 1918?) Could also link WWI.
    I think WWI is typically thought of as an overlink, but I've linked it here as better than adding a date, which wouldn't be precise anyway -- the war starts towards the end of the year, and so the first articles might have been in 1915. Mott says "With the coming of the First World War, the successive numbers of Munsey's were very martial" and goes on to give details, without dates. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link science fiction? Is there a point to be made here about the (lack of) esteem in which the genre was held?
    Linked. I don't think so -- it wasn't really considered a separate genre until the mid-1920s, and the sources don't mention anything like that. I think the low opinion of sf as a genre derived from its origins in the pulps; pre-war sf that was written outside the genre magazines, such as Last and First Men or Brave New World, was not derided. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section headers on "Contents and Reception" read oddly to me. I think we really need a subheader for the C19th to balance the one for the C20th: otherwise, the reader might expect the first part to cover the magazine in general. I think the Assessment section could stand alone as a "Reception" section: it's longer than the L1 "Bibliographic details" section that follows.
    Added a 19thC section heading. I've promoted "Assessment" to level 1, but I'd like to keep the title as it is -- the most important point made in that section is that it revolutionized the magazine industry, which is not really a point about its reception. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost none of the academic institutions and libraries that have holdings of Munsey's Magazine have any copies of the weekly issues: presumably, the ones that don't have holdings of the magazine don't have any of its weeklies either, so we could just have "Almost no academic institutions or libraries have any copies of its weekly issues".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surviving copyright records indicate that Munsey's Weekly appeared on a regular weekly schedule: I think the second weekly should be cut as obvious. Could we do a routine calculation to say how many lost issues there should therefore have been?
    Cut the second "weekly". There were probably no missing issues. The history of the Weekly is so obscure that no indexes exist that I'm aware of, but Mott (who clearly examined issues) mentions no break in publication, and nor does Munsey in his 1907 account. I found a reference in another contemporary magazine that said something like "Munsey's Weekly is resuming publication", implying a break, but I have lost the reference and in any case as I recall it was vague, with no dates given, and so I was unwilling to use it. The copyright card cited from the LoC is the only source I know of that gives specific dates of issues, but it certainly doesn't list all of them, since Mott would definitely have commented on a year's break, and contemporary sources would have regarded it as restarting the magazine, not simply changing the frequency to monthly. The upshot is that I don't want to assert there were any missing issues, but I want the reader to know there is surviving evidence only for these issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titherington is still listed as editor in September 1928: should this and the following be was?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes FictionMags Index Family a high-quality (or indeed necessary) source?
    The site is run by Phil Stephensen-Payne, a professional bibliographer who is highly respected in the field. Other material on that site comes from William G. Contento, who was an amateur bibliographer who published some of the most important bibliographies in the field. The site is only used for bibliographic details, not for opinions in any way -- for example, I often use it to get exact dates for issues in which an item appeared, as the secondary source may just give a year. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, the cite to WorldCat for the claim that few institutions have copies is close to the line for WP:OR (or at least WP:PRIMARY) -- it's entirely possible that collections exist which, for whatever reason, aren't on WorldCat, are misfiled under another name, or so on. At the moment I'm happy it's on the right side of that line, but has anyone else put this claim into print to help us be convincingly over it?
    TompaDompa's review above also brought this up. I think Reed's comment needs to be mentioned, and once I say that I need to qualify it since Harvard does have one issue and part of another. I did also have a cite to eBay where a bound volume of the magazine was sold a few years ago; I'm sure it was real but it had to go as OR and unreliable. The existence of that bound volume is why I worded this paragraph as "Reed reports" and why I avoided specifically saying no other issues exist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UC, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen the recent batch of replies: I'll give them a look a bit later. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No quarrel with anything here, and nothing more to add -- support. Very nice work and will be a worthy addition to the Christie FA canon. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene[edit]

  • "and priced at twenty-five cents" ==> you can also inflate this figure
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The magazine was not initially profitable" ==> was there any specific reason why this was the case?
    Not really -- it's just hard to start a successful magazine. See Argosy for the full story, but it was not for want of trying. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Publication history" section, two images ("Cover of Munsey's Magazine for November 1893" and "Advertisement in the New York Sun on October 7, 1893 for Munsey's Magazine at the ten cent price") cause sandwiching text
    Fixed, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over $30,000 in December 1895" ==> this figure can also be inflated
    I'd like to avoid inflating too many figures, since it interrupts the reader. In this case we've just said given the inflated figure for $3,000, so I was thinking the reader could just add a zero without me needing to say so. But if you're not convinced I can add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flatbed printing process" ==> rotary press is wikilinked, but the flatbed printing process is not. Maybe wikilink it when possible, or give a small description what it is?
    Linked to History of printing#Flat-bed printing press. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is one recent academic comment" ==> the source is from 2000, which isn't IMO very recent. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fair point. Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request. What is this Galactic Central? I can't find any About Us or other explanatory page about who writes it. I admit that with a number of books cited I'd like to know if they have a reputation - can't find much information on them. Is there a reason why some sources have ISBNs and others OCLCs? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Central is run by Phil Stephensen-Payne, who is a professional bibliographer: see his SFE entry, which praises Galactic Central. As that article says, the other main collaborator was William Contento, also a highly respected bibliographer -- SFE article here which lists his publications. I use the site almost entirely for bibliographic data -- which issue of a magazine was a given story published, for example. He has some bibliographic summary information on the magazine information which I sometimes also cite.
For the books, I can tell you what I know about the reputation of most of the books, though some I only found during the research for this article. The two most important sources are Mott, whose five-volume history of US magazines is a standard work, and Britt's biography of Munsey. Britt is, as far I can tell, the only source on Munsey's life that depends on independent research -- Britt talked to many people who knew Munsey personally. Britt comes from the world of newspapers, and could be said to be biased against Munsey; he doesn't paint a very flattering picture of him. None of that material is needed here, though; newspapermen of the era loathed Munsey because he brutally killed many of the newspapers he bought, but that doesn't come up in this article.
There should be ISBNs for books new enough to have them, and OCLCs otherwise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some light spotchecking, what information is #44 supposed to source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had to dig through the history to figure this out. #44 is a short editorial piece by Munsey about the improvements in the magazine; he mentions the improvements in the illustratios, referring to the change from woodcuts to halftones (though he doesn't use those words). Initially this was the only source for this, but it didn't support the whole sentence, so I added the citation to p. 614 of Mott. Looking at it now, neither source makes it explicit that it was woodcuts that were the expensive predecessor to halftones, so I've added another ref to Mott which makes that statement directly. That makes the Munsey ref unnecessary so I've dropped it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I need to be more persistent in reviews. "Levey, Nathan M. (June 1890). "Comic Papers and Their Editors". The Newsdealer. 1 (4): 79–83. " is a source that I can't find much information about. The others seem fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about the source; it's a contemporary periodical. It's only used to name a couple of artists who contributed to the magazine, and I think a contemporary source about the industry, like this, should be reliable for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like I have anything to add here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma (support)[edit]

Reviewing. —Kusma (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: as a general observation, there is a lot of content about the price and circulation, but nothing about the editors.
    Good point; added the two named editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but "he reduced the price" now refers to Titherington; is that intended? I would link Bangs instead of Titherington if you link to only one of them, as Bangs is blue. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to link both and have now done so; and it would have been Munsey that raised the price so I've clarified that -- thanks for catching that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munsey's Weekly: I know what quarto means in books; is this something else or why do you not link to the standard book format? The note should have conversion to metric (or a comparison to ISO 216 paper sizes)
    The quarto size for books is about 10" x 8"; for magazines, the source gives a slightly different size and also specifies that it's saddle-stapled. I think this is different enough that a link to quarto would not help. Added the conversion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bangs found Munsey difficult to work for." is this just the story about Bangs and Munsey's novel?
    No; the source says "Munsey was a man of extraordinary energy. Bangs describe him as a human dynamo. The man who discovered Munsey, said Bangs, discovered perpetual motion. Munsey was all the time in and out of the office, wanting to know what his editor was doing. This practice so diverged from that of John Ames Mitchell, to which Bangs had become used, that the electrical atmosphere became too surcharged with Munsey for endurance. The immediate cause of the severance of relations between Munsey and Bangs, however, resulted from the fact that Munsey had literary ambitions." Then the story about the novel follows. [Mitchell was one of the owners of Life, where Bangs had worked for some years.) I could expand this to "Bangs found Munsey to be difficult to work for; Bangs was used to a relaxed relationship with his previous publisher, but Munsey was constantly asking him about his work"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps; that would make it clearer it was not just "publish my novel even if you don't like it". —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the same team that was running The Argosy" is it worth elaborating on them?
    I don't think so -- the point here is just that nobody was given sole responsibility for the magazine. Titherington says somewhere that in the early days of Munsey's magazines the editorial tasks were shared generally, but doesn't give any specifics. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the "standard" size also has a footnote missing a metric equivalent.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cosmopolitan cut its price to twelve and a half cents the next month" How did people pay half cents at that time?
    Good question. Wehwalt, can I pick your brains? I know the half cent coin was no longer legal tender at this time (1893). Do you know if there was a way to pay a half cent price at that time? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, the half cent was never legal tender, no one had to take it, least of all the government. But yes, it had been withdrawn before 1893, and there was no other way of making change for a fractional cent. Twelve and a half cents, or one bit (one Spanish colonial real) was a traditional price, including for magazines, see here, but there were not coins to effect the making of change at that point. Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course people deal with prices that can't be paid exactly all the time, by adding prices for several items and then rounding up or down; I just found it confusing for a magazine that is often the only item somebody would buy. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at Newspapers.com to see if retail prices in 1893 were expressed in tenths of a cent. I didn't see anything. Perhaps people bought two different magazines for a quarter. People read a lot of periodicals in that day. Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Few of the contributors were well-known, except for Horatio Alger" I'm not sure the "except" in this construction really works well.
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What type of content did "The Stage" have other than nudes?
    The theater. Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robert Lansing, William Redfield, and Franklin Knight Lane." gloss them for those of us who don't know where they are? The link William Redfield likely does not go where you want it to go; the politician is William C. Redfield.
    Fixed the link; thanks for catching that. I hesitate to give their roles because they'd take up far more space in the sentence than the names would, and where one of them had multiple roles in the government I'd need to dig up the details on when they contributed to the magazine and then determine what their job title was at that time. I was hoping "members of the government" would be enough, given that they're linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were more senior members of government than I expected. —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK -- this will take a little longer; will post again here when it's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Almost none of the academic institutions and libraries that have holdings of Munsey's Magazine have any copies of the weekly issues." this is sourced to a WorldCat page, not ideal.
    It's not ideal; see the discussion about this in TompaDompa's review above. Gog expressed an opinion there that it's good enough for what the article uses it for, though I agree I'd like a better source if I could find one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know anything at all about differences between the American and British versions?
    Nothing, sadly; the three copies listed at Galactic Central are the only reference to the British edition I can find at all. I assume there were other issues, but that's only a guess. I can't tell if they were the same contents as the American edition or not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article overall, well written and well researched. —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; all responded to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few answers where I think further follow up is needed (or just could not keep quiet). —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding items now responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. The footnote for the government officials is a good compromise. Support. —Kusma (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Comments to come post-Offenbach. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Nicely written article, meets the FA criteria to my eye. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment


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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2024 [18].

Cross Temple, Fangshan[edit]

Nominator(s): Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the only surviving site of the Church of the East in China. I think I have exhausted the research material I can find to ensure it is comprehensive and well-researched, and I am pretty sure the images involved are in the public domain, either because they are user contributions from the Commons, or because they were published before 1928. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to borrow Qianzhi Zhu's 中国景教 [Nestorianism in China] next week. Might add tiny bits and pieces to the text. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Borrowed, checked and reviewed. Nothing much to add–can confirm that it is very much comprehensive on the subject matter (yippee!) Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A heads-up for all reviewers @Kusma @AirshipJungleman29 @Remsense: I have something from Mar 21 to Mar 25; can at most devote 30 mins per day for Wiki stuff. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima's comments[edit]

Reserving my spot for a prose review! Love more Chinese history FACs. :3 Generalissima (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima, this is into time out warning territory, so if you are still intending to review the next day or two would be a good time to start. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, Generalissima is currently blocked (on her own request). It seems unlikely that she will return before 19 March. —Kusma (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima pinging again to see if you're free. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma[edit]

Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • An interesting article about an exciting topic, thank you for this. Unfortunately I am not totally convinced by the present organisation of the article. As I understand it, it is about a historical site in Beijing (the modern municipality, not the historical city proper) that has been Buddhist and Christian at unclear points in its history. The article body currently starts with a description of two steles instead of setting out the historical background and explaining where we are and what is going on there. I understand that this is difficult to sort out because there are differing theories, but I don't think the current "try to be as chronological as possible" is working well. I think I'd prefer to read some background on the history of the Church of the East in China separately from the history of the site instead of interweaving it. As I understand it, there was a Tang dynasty Nestorian Church, but we do not know for sure that the Cross Temple site was connected to it. Then the description of the Buddhist history of the site could be done without interspersing it with notes about the more general history of Nestorianism.
  • It is not fully clear to me when and how the article uses Chinese characters. Most of the time it is when there is no link to an article so it helps future researchers for disambiguation, but it is not always done (Tang Li, Niu Ruiji). But 寶相花紋 seems unnecessary?
  • Most of the characters are traditional Chinese (no problem with that), with some reasonable exceptions like the modern day location 车厂村. It may be good to mark the simplified ones that need to be used. Why is 古刹十字禅林 in simplified, when it is a pre-simplification inscription? The quote from Xu 1992, p. 185 (a book with a title in simplified) is written at least partially in traditional Chinese.

I may look in more detail later, but I think it is worth discussing the organisational issues first (maybe you can convince me that I'm wrong). —Kusma (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your comments. I am having a hectic week. Will reply in more detail later next week, probably after Wednesday.
  • My defense for the current structure of the article is that I am going to inform the reader about the history of the site anyways, and if I supply them with the history of the Church of the East in China, they are more prepared, and it is more cohesive.
  • The Chinese characters–will fix when I have time. My rule of thumb is to provide Chinese characters when the word is a proper noun and the reader would benefit much more if they look up the Chinese word on Google.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But let's have a look at one paragraph, perhaps I can explain better what I mean.
"Nestorian Christianity was first recorded in Tang China during the 7th century, and some scholars suggested that the temple may have belonged to the Church of the East in China around this time."
What is "Nestorian Christianity"? Is it the same as "Church of the East in China"?
"The Japanese scholar P. Y. Saeki speculated that believers fleeing from Chang'an to Youzhou and Liaodong during the 9th-century Huichang persecution of Buddhism, which also affected the Church of the East, began using the temple."
I am not sure we need the nationalities of the scholars here. Where are Chang'an, Youzhou and Liaodong in relation to Beijing? How does the persecution of Buddhism affect non-Buddhists?
"Tang Xiaofeng additionally points to inscriptions on the Liao stele as an indication that Christian crosses were present at the temple prior to the Liao dynasty. In addition, Tang claims that another text written by Li Zhongxuan [zh] in 987 indicated a Nestorian presence in Youzhou."
You are changing tense. I prefer present tense for what the experts say, but you should be consistent. Where is Youzhou, and what does the presence of Nestorians in Youzhou have to do with the Cross Temple?
"However, British sinologist Arthur Christopher Moule believed that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Church of the East existed in Beijing before the 13th century."
So they might not have reached Beijing, but are we sure there was a presence of the Church of the East somewhere in China? Where?
I think it would be easier to explain separately what Nestorians are and what "Church of the East in China" means, when they came to China, what is known for sure about their spread, and then explain how the Cross Temple fits into the picture as part of the theory that there were Tang Dynasty Nestorians in Beijing. After reading your paragraph, I am no longer sure whether there were any Nestorians in China at all during the Tang dynasty. —Kusma (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Here we go.
  • What is "Nestorian Christianity"? Is it the same as "Church of the East in China"? Sorry I didn't make this clear enough. To me "Nestorian Church" is basically another way to say the "Church of the East"–I use the two terms interchangeably, though there are scholars advocating only using the term "Church of the East" due to the negative connotations of the word "Nestorian" (as in, the Nestorian "heresy"). What is your opinion–should I stick to one usage ("Church of the East in China") throughout the entire article? It might be a bit too wordy and might affect the prose, but I can sure try.
    I don't mind having both terms, but it needs to be much more clear that they mean the same thing. But if the term "Nestorians" is out of fashion with recent sources (I have no idea and did not check) you may wish to avoid it. —Kusma (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chang'an, Youzhou and Liaodong: I will update these this weekend. Basically Chang'an is modern day Xi'an, which is 900 km to the south-west of Beijing. Youzhou is the province / state that Beijing is located in, and Liaodong refers to the Liaodong Peninsula, which is 500 km to the east of Beijing. I will indicate their relations to Beijing.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be easier to explain separately what Nestorians are and what "Church of the East in China" means, when they came to China, what is known for sure about their spread, and then explain how the Cross Temple fits into the picture as part of the theory that there were Tang Dynasty Nestorians in Beijing. My only concern to this is that the temple was used by Christians and Buddhists. If I provide too much background information to its Christian history, will the article still be balanced? But from another perspective, almost all scholarship on the temple focuses on its Christian history, so I guess I could put up some more context.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheLonelyPather, have you finished addressing Kusma's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gog the Mild and thanks for the reminder. I have not addressed Kusma's comments in detail yet. Kusma is welcome to respond to these thoughts of mine, but I am not demanding an immediate response from them in any sense. I am still busy and I Will reply in more detail later next week, probably after Wednesday. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Actually since this is in time-out warning territory, I am going to address Kusma's comments in detail right now. Thanks for sending out the warning. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma Chinese characters fixed. The usage of Chinese characters is now limited to
  • Lesser-known Chinese place names (e.g. 车厂村);
  • Names of individuals and institutions who do not have an en-wiki article (e.g. 德景, 崇福司). "吴梦麟" is in simplified characters because he was active during the PRC;
  • Proper names of the temple (e.g. 崇聖院).
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma I also wrote a separate paragraph to provide general context on Christianity during the Tang Dynasty. I put it before the academic speculations. Hope this is clearer now. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes it a bit easier to follow. It would still be good to have the identification of Nestorian Church = Church of the East also in the body (you added a paragraph about Nestorianism in China, which is then followed by a mention of the Church of the East that makes it look like that is a different thing), and to prominently link to Church of the East (and perhaps not link to Nestorianism). —Kusma (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will think about it in more detail. I will think about it really hard. The situation might demand one small paragraph after the lede and before everything to clarify that "Nestorianism" = "Church of the East" (in the scope of this article) and acknowledge some people would prefer CotE over Nestorianism. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing prose/content review.

  • Early history: Who is Tang Li? Do you know his name in characters?
  • 10th century: do any of the historians offer theories which of 丙子 and "tenth year of the reign of Emperor Yuan" is correct or what kind of mistakes were made while recording the stele?
  • Translate 崇聖院?
  • 13th–14th centuries: "Nestorian Christianity began spreading throughout the area" it may have spread before, so it is not clear this is the beginning. A few hundred years have passed; is this the same Nestorian Christianity as a few hundred years before?
  • "During the Yuan" please make this comprehensible to readers who do not know that Mongols=Yuan dynasty.
  • Translate 崇福司? ("Department of Supreme Blessing"?? I don't have a Classical Chinese dictionary with me right now).
  • Is Rabban Sauma the same as Bar Sauma?
  • Tense is mixed between past and present for what the various scholars say or said.
  • 15th–16th centuries: it would be more important to know when Matteo Ricci was in China than when he lived. Do we know this from Ricci's own writings?
  • I think the fact that the inscriptions were altered during this time should be mentioned in the opening paragraph about the stone steles: while the steles are from the Liao and the Yuan dynasty, the inscriptions were altered during the Ming dynasty.
  • 20th–21st centuries: I find it hard to believe that there are zero records of the site during the Qing dynasty. If that is true, I would expect someone to have remarked on it so you could state it explicitly.
  • "Around 1911, the Buddhist monks sold the temple and the surrounding lands." do we know who they sold it to?
  • "Reginald Johnston first rediscovered the site during the summer of 1919" drop "first" I think. Did he "rediscover" the Buddhist site or the Nestorian connection?
  • Current state: "The Cross Temple is the only surviving Nestorian site in China" wow, I wouldn't expect that this counts as "surviving". So of all other sites there is not even a trace?
  • Chechang Village (车厂村), Fangshan: maybe mention again where this is in relation to modern Beijing?
  • Stone steles: "The Yuan stele features a cross at its top, but it is not likely made by the Nestorians" is this clear enough from the sources to be stated in wikivoice instead of attributed as research opinion?
  • Generally it is a bit duplicative to discuss the steles here again, and I think the details about Ming dynasty changes might be more useful to the reader earlier on.
  • Give a quick intro to the Xi'an Stele so we understand why somebody would copy it and put the copy in this particular location.
  • Carved stone blocks: I wonder whether it is worth mentioning that Peiping is Beijing.
  • Description: not sure this is a great subheader, or that it is needed
  • "F. C. Burkitt found the same text, with the addition of the phrase "the living cross", in one of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum" so what? If it is a quote from the Bible, wouldn't we expect to find this in a lot of places?
  • Are Erkehün Mongols? Previous Nestorians were all Han?
  • See also section: Mentioning the Daqin Pagoda here as a possible Nestorian site contradicts the article's unqualified statement of "only surviving Nestorian site in China".
  • Not convinced that the "Other West Asian religious sites in China" are worth the space here; generally, consider how much it is worth duplicating parts of Template:Christianity in China.
  • Footnotes: a) How widely used are the alternate English names? If they are reasonably common, they should be in the body.
  • e) Romanization of Syriac: what romanization is this, and what is the code for the pronunciation? (It isn't IPA so it isn't clear).
  • g) better explain Erkehün in body, or just not use that word.
  • Citations: I would suggest to translate the Chinese quotes; they are of little use to most readers otherwise.
  • Qian 2021, Qiu 2002, Halbertsma 2007 are not used.
  • Neither is the Chinese translation of Moule, and there is no obvious reason to do so?
  • Further reading: why do you not cite this book if you recommend it? Publisher 文物出版社 should be transliterated.

Done reading. It looks like pretty good research and well written overall, but some explanations here and there would help a lot, and some other clarifications may be necessary. —Kusma (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Message received. Will reply soon. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tang Li: done. (Please note Tang Li is a "she".)
  • theory on the mistake of the Liao stele: done.
  • 崇聖院: translated. I didn't find an official English translation.
  • 13th–14th centuries: "Nestorian Christianity began spreading throughout the area" it may have spread before, so it is not clear this is the beginning. A few hundred years have passed; is this the same Nestorian Christianity as a few hundred years before? Yes.
  • Mongols is Yuan dynasty: clarified.
  • 崇福司: translated.
  • Is Rabban Sauma the same as Bar Sauma? Yes. This article will use Rabban Sauma.
That's it for the day. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Kusma: before I proceed to work on the smaller details of the article, can we please decide on its structure? I took your advice and made a draft (please see User:TheLonelyPather/sandbox).
Basically, this draft adds a substantial "Historical terminology and context" that talks about the terminology of "Nestorian" vs "Church of the East" and supplies general historical facts about Nestorian Christianity in China (when did they come / thrive / go). I reserve the specific history of Nestorian Christianity near Beijing to the body of the article.
I also removed the paragraph about the two steles. I agree that it overlaps with stuff later. If we can agree on this new structure it would be great. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLonelyPather, I think the new structure is a lot better. Your terminology and context section is perhaps a bit too long while the lead section is a bit too short, but generally I think the right way forward is to get the terminology and context clear from the start. —Kusma (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Just moved the new structure to the main article. I also shortened the terminology & context section for a bit. I wish to leave the lede to be the last thing to fix–after we figure everything out in the body. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15th–16th centuries: it would be more important to know when Matteo Ricci was in China than when he lived. Do we know this from Ricci's own writings? Gotcha, now it says "Matteo Ricci (1552–1610, active in China 1582–1610)". The information in the article comes from Ricci's own writings, but I don't have access to the original text. I cited a journal which quoted Ricci.
  • I think the fact that the inscriptions were altered during this time should be mentioned in the opening paragraph about the stone steles This opinion differs from what AJ says down there: If all we know of the history of the site derives from the steles, perhaps it would be best to discuss them before discussing the history? Let's give more thoughts to it.
  • 20th–21st centuries: I find it hard to believe that there are zero records of the site during the Qing dynasty. If that is true, I would expect someone to have remarked on it so you could state it explicitly. Information added.
  • "Around 1911, the Buddhist monks sold the temple and the surrounding lands." do we know who they sold it to? No.
  • "Reginald Johnston first rediscovered the site during the summer of 1919" drop "first" I think. Did he "rediscover" the Buddhist site or the Nestorian connection? "first" dropped. He rediscovered the site after it was sold and likely fell into oblivion.
I also restructured the history part even further and renamed the sections. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current state: "The Cross Temple is the only surviving Nestorian site in China" wow, I wouldn't expect that this counts as "surviving". So of all other sites there is not even a trace? Fixed wording. Also added a footnote concerning the Daqin Pagoda (there is controversy on whether it is a Church of the East site and it is inconclusive).
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chechang Village (车厂村), Fangshan: maybe mention again where this is in relation to modern Beijing? Done.
  • Stone steles: "The Yuan stele features a cross at its top, but it is not likely made by the Nestorians" is this clear enough from the sources to be stated in wikivoice instead of attributed as research opinion? Checked sources, this view comes from Wang Xiaojing -- other sources didn't venture to think about the origin of the cross on the Yuan stele.
  • Generally it is a bit duplicative to discuss the steles here again, and I think the details about Ming dynasty changes might be more useful to the reader earlier on. The initial stele paragraph was removed.
  • Give a quick intro to the Xi'an Stele so we understand why somebody would copy it and put the copy in this particular location. Done.
  • Carved stone blocks: I wonder whether it is worth mentioning that Peiping is Beijing. It's trivial in my opinion.
  • Description: not sure this is a great subheader, or that it is needed Done.
  • "F. C. Burkitt found the same text, with the addition of the phrase "the living cross", in one of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum" so what? If it is a quote from the Bible, wouldn't we expect to find this in a lot of places? The point I'm trying to convey here is that, by showing this connection, we find that the Nestorian Christians in China were doing similar things and reading similar stuff with the Nestorian Christians in the Middle East. The paragraph that that sentence comes from talks about the general connections of the stone blocks with other Christian artifacts in the world.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the Syriac manuscripts: I don't think your point really comes across. Can you cite someone who makes a similar observation? —Kusma (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Erkehün Mongols? Previous Nestorians were all Han? Erkehün / Yelikewen (in Pinyin romanisation) is what the Mongols called the Christians. I agree that it is unnecessary to put it there and I reworded it.
  • See also section: reworked.
  • Not convinced that the "Other West Asian religious sites in China" are worth the space here; generally, consider how much it is worth duplicating parts of Template:Christianity in China. I would say it's needed–Template:Christianity in China doesn't cover Islam, Manichaeism, and Zoroastrianism.
  • Footnotes: a) How widely used are the alternate English names? If they are reasonably common, they should be in the body. These alternate English names are not reasonably common. "Cross Temple" is prevalent in English literature and is a direct translation of the Chinese name "十字寺".
  • e) Romanization of Syriac: what romanization is this, and what is the code for the pronunciation? (It isn't IPA so it isn't clear). I honestly have no idea. It is supplied by the author of the journal article. The only thing that is certain is that it's syriac, so I use the code "syc".
  • g) better explain Erkehün in body, or just not use that word. Erkehün is no longer used in the body.
  • Citations: I would suggest to translate the Chinese quotes Done.
  • Removed some unused books and sources.
  • Further reading: why do you not cite this book if you recommend it? Publisher 文物出版社 should be transliterated. I don't have access to this book, but this book is on the Christian sites in Beijing, and so it greatly relates to our subject.
@Kusma Those are some great suggestions! Looking forward to your input. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few further comments:
  • Do not use "&" in subsection headings, replace by "and".
  • I am on the fence about the parenthetical (Christian use) and (Buddhist use) in headings; can this be made nicer?
  • I don't think "Han-Chinese" or "Ming-era" should be hyphenated.
  • Qian 2021 and Halbertsma 2007 are still not cited.
—Kusma (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"&" corrected to and. "Qian 2021" and "Halbertsma 2007" are removed from citations. "Han-Chinese" and "Ming-era" corrected.
If you feel not so sure about "(Christian use)" or "(Buddhist use)", may I suggest something like "Buddhist use during the Liao dynasty"? My concern is that it would be too long. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma alternate suggestion: maybe I can drop the parentheses and just use "Liao dynasty", "Yuan dynasty", etc.? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Buddhist use during the Liao dynasty" is better than "Liao dynasty (Buddhist use)". "Liao dynasty: Buddhist use" would also be an improvement. Further comments:
  • There are still a few places where the tense feels off, but I am not a native speaker so I will suggest you find someone else to read it :)
  • The Shanmen building should be described in "Modern rediscovery and development", not in "Current state".
  • The description of the carved stone blocks could perhaps be moved earlier. It is only in the third paragraph that we learn how large they are.
  • Peiping Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities has characters inline, while Peiping Museum of History has them in a footnote. The identity Peiping=Beijing is not made explicitly, although this is no more obvious than Chang'an=Xi'an.
Lots of things look nice now, but I am still unconvinced about the Syriac manuscripts (see above). —Kusma (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Shanmen moved, description of the carved stone blocks moved, Peiping and Chang'an clarified. As for the Syriac manuscripts, I clarified it a bit more: Burkitt did not just find the same text, but found the same text surrounding the cross, i.e. the same pattern. I added some more information on "Ps 34:6 + cross" combination appearing in different places. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, my points about organisation and necessary background knowledge have been addressed. I will leave issues like tense to the native speakers among the reviewers. —Kusma (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship[edit]

Will leave comments by next week. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Airship, this is into time out warning territory, so if you are still intending to review the next day or two would be a good time to start. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
will do. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Church of the East was not Nestorian; that was an accusation levelled by its enemies. Whether the name "Nestorian" should be described to use the Church of the East at all is up for debate, but to say explicitly in the lead "the Church of the East, a Nestorian branch of Christianity" is factually wrong.
  • The lead needs some work. I recommend two paragraphs of roughly equal length: the first clearly establishing what, where, and when, and then discussing major aspects of the history, current state, and relics. At the moment it is rather vague ("During different periods" what/when? "Originally built" when? Yuan dynasty touched on before the Tang is odd. etc.) and the relics are not discussed in proportion to the attention given to them in the article (WP:LEADWEIGHT).
  • I may be an idiot, but I can't see the cross carved into the top of the infobox stele.
  • If all we know of the history of the site derives from the steles, perhaps it would be best to discuss them before discussing the history?
  • I would make the "Current state" section a subsection of "History".

I would prefer to get structural changes out of the way before making detailed comments on prose; I see Kusma has made some comments as well on the organisation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @AirshipJungleman29!
  • The Church of the East was not Nestorian; that was an accusation levelled by its enemies. You are right, and that is a nuance that I missed. I hope that the new "Context and terminology" section explains the nuance better.
  • The lead needs some work... As mentioned above (replying to Kusma), I wish to leave the lede to the last. I hope to solidify the body paragraphs, so I will have a better idea how to write the lede.
  • I can't see the cross carved into the top of the infobox stele. It's hard to see without zooming into the image. I have removed the related words in the caption. If you look at the picture in the "Stone steles" section it is more visible.
  • If all we know of the history of the site derives from the steles, perhaps it would be best to discuss them before discussing the history? This is something that I will deliberate more upon. On one hand I need to let the reader know that the history is mostly derived from the (slightly erroneous) steles, on the other hand if I put it in the front it will overlap with the description of the steles later.
  • I would make the "Current state" section a subsection of "History". Not so sure about it. This section goes over the arrangement / content of the site, i.e. what's there and where are the things placed. I think it's quite independent from the history of the site.
I am also mindful of Netley Abbey#Present day–another FA article of church ruins has a similar section, although that section is not ideal.
That's it for the day. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, I wrote a draft lede:
The Cross Temple (Chinese: 十字寺; pinyin: Shízì sì) is a former place of worship in Fangshan, Beijing. It is the only discovered site of the Church of the East (sometimes known as Nestorian Christians) in China. There is no current academic consensus on whether Christians used the temple during the Tang dynasty: it was used by Buddhists during the Liao dynasty, by Christians during the Yuan dynasty, and it returned to Buddhist use since the Ming dynasty, before being sold in 1911. It was rediscovered in 1919, destructed in the 1950s, and re-established as a national-level protected site in 2006.
Today, the site features two ancient steles, as well as groundwork and the bases of several pillars. The steles are from the Liao and Yuan dynasties, but their inscriptions are tampered during the Ming dynasty. During the early 20th century, two stone blocks featuring carved crosses were also discovered at the site, with one of them containing a syriac inscription. They are now on display at the Nanjing Museum.
Kindly let me know what you think. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AirshipJungleman29, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for reminding me Gog. More comments to follow shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead/infobox
  • looks better. Couple of things:
  • "Scholars debate the periodisation of when the Cross Temple was used by Nestorians." is a bit of a nothingburger, considering you immediately explain the debate. You could easily remove the sentence and add a "scholars" after the "some" in the next line.
  • This sentence has been scrapped. Now it reads Some scholars suggested that the Cross Temple may have belonged to the Church of the East in China during the Tang dynasty (618–907).
  • "Possibly 317" is a bit odd considering 317 isn't mentioned in the lead at all. Would suggest adding it after "as a Buddhist temple".
  • Done.
  • "The site's buildings were demolished during the late 1950s" you could mention the Cultural Revolution.
  • Double-checked sources. Changed to Cultural Revolution.
History
  • Again, "There are some controversies on the usage of "Nestorian" to refer to the Church of the East." is a nothingburger sentence, and could be removed.
  • Right. I moved that entire section into a footnote. Now it begins with The use of the term "Nestorian" to refer to the Church of the East is controversial. I need an "opening sentence" to convey the purpose of the paragraph.
  • No need to specify e pluribus unum in "Certain scholars, such as Peter Hofrichter [de], refuse"; just say "Some scholars refuse..."
  • Done.
  • Not entirely convinced that a modern priest of a CotE denomination is the best citation for using "Nestorian"; one of the many independent academic sources who continue to use the term is preferable.
  • I think there is a differentiation between "academic sources using the term" vs "sources advocating for the use of the term". Some academic sources use the term without batting an eye. The CotE article is published on a reliable journal and gives an argument on why the term may be used.
  • You may want to expand a little on the Xi'an Stele.
  • Expanded, in the "Context of early Chinese Christianity" section.
  • "The missionaries" Are these are the ones that came with Alopen?
  • Yes, but no longer important. Newest version doesn't mention them.
  • "The Church of the East in China survived until 845... Nestorian Christianity in Tang China fell into decline afterwards. 1) unnecessary WP:ELEGVAR 2) there sems to be a contradiction here.
  • I have reworded the entire history section.
  • You use both Yelikewen and "Yelikewen". Both are incorrect: the {{transl}} template should be used, per MOS:LANG ({{lang}} can also be used, but {{transl}} is easier. Same for "Jingjiao" and other words.
  • Right. Just updated the article. I feel like "Jingjiao" and "Yelikewen" does not fall into the scope of the article–ended up not using either of them.
  • "no longer proclaimed themselves to be" "proclaimed" is too grandiose, methinks
  • Corrected.
  • "during Jin and Tang periods" is a definite article needed here?
  • Yes, added.
  • "around the Tang dynasty" do you mean during?
  • Yes, corrected.
  • "Huichang persecution, began using the temple" unnecessary comma
  • Fixed.
  • The "Early history of the Cross Temple" subsection could be combined with the "Liao dynasty: Buddhist use" as they both largely derive from the Liao stele, with its lack of clarity. In any case, the "of the Cross Temple" is unnecessary.
  • Changed to "Early history: Buddhist use". I would disagree to combine it with the Liao section (will break the timeline-ness).
  • I think "capture" is more suitable for a city than "conquer"; you can link to Battle of Zhongdu.
  • Changed.
  • "the retreat of Sauma" retreat? not sure that's the correct word.
  • Merriam-Webster gives one of the definitions of "retreat" as a period of group withdrawal for prayer, meditation, study, or instruction under a director. I think it's a good use describing a place where Rabban Sauma likely hid and practiced his faith. Changed to "hermitage".
  • "In her 2011 book East Syriac Christianity in Mongol-Yuan China" why is the book name relevant here?
  • Not relevant, fixed.
  • "During the reign of Emperor Yingzong of Ming (1436–1449), some Nestorians were still present in Fangshan: a record shows that some Nestorian monks visited the Yunju Temple, which is also in Fangshan, around the year 1437." Is "some Nestorians were still present in Fangshan" supported by anything else than the second half of the sentence? if not, it can be removed, as it adds nothing.
  • Right, removed.
  • There's no need to link "Jewish person".
  • Removed link.
  • "there was a Shanmen entry. The Shanmen entry was followed by" the duplication is unnecessary
  • Reworded.
  • "To the right of the courtyard, there was a kitchen and a dormitory for the monks. To the left of the courtyard, there was another dormitory building." sentences can easily be combined for simplicity.
  • Combined.
  • "three statues of Buddha" it's conventional to use a "the" before "Buddha".
  • Fixed.
  • "the walls around the Cross Temple site" could just be "the site's walls".
  • Reworded.
Current state
  • "The Cross Temple is the only discovered site of the Church of the East in China" considering note e, would it be best to say "the only undisputed site"?
  • I reworded it to Some scholars consider the Cross Temple to be the only discovered site of the Church of the East in China. Most other sources don't mention if it is the only discovered site, or the only site in existence. I have modified the related information from the lede.
  • "there are some hardly noticeable marks of the Shanmen building" I don't think this is grammatically correct, but I can't put my finger on what's wrong.
  • Any new ideas on how to make it ... less wrong? I can reword it to the marks of the Shanmen building are hardly noticeable.
Relics
  • "During the early 21st century, both were repaired and re-raised." do we have precise years?
  • No. Wang 2018 gave that the steles were repaired and re-raised "several years ago".
  • I see that you have expanded on the Xi'an Stele in this section; this seems like the wrong place, as this subsection should only be for the relics of the Cross Temple, and related context can go in the "Context and terminology" section.
  • Right. Moved to the "context" section.
  • " Tang and Zhang claimed it is on display at the Beijing Stone Carving Art Museum." "claimed" why past tense? Similarly for "The scholar Niu Ruiji claimed that".
  • As discussed with Kusma above, I decided to stick with past tense for this article when it comes to scholarly opinions. @AirshipJungleman29: Is that correct or acceptable? This is a genuine question–I did not major in history or English. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "H. I. Harding, second secretary of the English mission in Beijing" when?
  • I'll get the book and double check. The time when Harding was the 2nd secretary in Beijing is irrelevant to this article–I believe you're more interested in when Harding published the fact that Johnston rediscovered the site? I am not positive that the original The New China Review article (in 1919) would say anything about it.
  • I got the book and double-checked. It is 1919.
  • "often showed an adoration of the cross and images" "showed an adoration" is ungrammatical.
  • Fixed.

Nice work. Please respond to the above comments using WP:THREADed discussion, TheLonelyPather; it makes it much easier to cross-reference previous suggestions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Received, thank you. Tomorrow will be a busy day. Will get through the bulk of this in the next few days, but not ruling out the possibility of early April. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All comments responded to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there is a slight bit of MOS:OVERSECTION in the history section, but that does not prevent me from giving my Support. Excellent work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! It's good to have a Mongol expert on a borderline Mongolian topic. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense[edit]

I've just re-reconfirmed it's not a priori improper to participate in FAC for an article I did the GA review for, so I am reserving my spot here, will write up my thoughts ASAP. Remsense诉 19:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for joining! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense you still intending to review? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Within 24 hours, apologies. Remsense诉 01:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changes since my GA review:
  • Generally, there is a significant improvement in the friendliness of prose for a general audience, specifically regarding technical and historiographic aspects.
  • The elaboration on the historical context for the Church of the East in China is also well done.
Further nits for me to pick:
  • Some copy-editing and language tagging I hope no one minds that I've taken the initiative in doing myself among the new material.
More in a little bit, but I wanted to post something following my initial sesh. Remsense诉 16:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Remsense, just checking to see if there will indeed me more to follow. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Tonight, my bad. Remsense诉 18:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, regardless of what decision is made for Chinese text inline or footnoted, after my several waves of tweaks and deliberation I'm ready to say this article meets the featured article criteria. Remsense诉 20:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

File:十字寺遗址内石碑.jpg, File:十字寺遗址内石碑 (cropped).jpg and File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg need a copyright tag to indicate the status of the statue/plate. File:Yuan dynasty stone with cross and Syriac inscription from Church of the East site in Fangshan District near Beijing (then called Khanbaliq or Dadu).jpg maybe too but I figure it's kinda obvious that the stone isn't in copyright. File:Rubbing of a Nestorian Cross at the Shih-tzu-ssu 2.jpg and the other rubbing seem to have broken source links.

Source-wise, reviewing this version: Why do some sources have quotes? Is "China Culture Daily" a reliable source for cultural/historical information? Is "The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China" and "Research on Chinese Christianity, Book I: Chinese Christianity during the Tang and Song dynasties" a reliable source? Are "Saeki, P. Y. " and "Saeki, Yoshiro" the same person? In light of this I am not sure that " A study of the history of Nestorian Christianity in China and its literature in Chinese: together with a new English translation of the Dunhuang Nestorian documents" is very reliable.

  1. 2 First mention needs a bit of rephrasing as it's quite similar to the source. Second mention it seems like the source says that it doesn't mean "temple of the cross" I have rephrased this part. Also I believe the source intends to mean "temple of the cross", as Marsone puts it:the present author defends that the correct meaning of the name of the temple should be the "Temple of the Cross". Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 4 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Got it, where does it translate "luminous religion"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not. I must have been mistaken from some other sources, but I have removed references to the "luminous religion" in the latest version. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 6 OK
  4. 12 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Don't think I got this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we talking about Tang 2004, p. 98? I am not using Tang 2004 anymore–please see the comment below. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 13 Can I have a copy of this page? 12, 13 are from Tang Li's A study of the history of Nestorian Christianity in China and its literature in Chinese, which I swapped for Standaert's Handbook of Christianity in China. I take that I won't need to send you anything from Tang, but please let me know if you need anything from Standaert. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 14 Can I have a copy of this page? Similar to Tang 2004 above, I have updated the article and removed Zhu 1993 from the the sources. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 18 OK
  8. 21 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Going by the DeepL translation, fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 22 Can I have a copy of this page?
    At least some of this is supported by the DeepL translation, but I am not really sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    pp. 317, 318 are the transcriptions of the stele inscriptions. p. 319 is Wang's analysis. The part regarding the sexagenary cycle is 其二，落款“辽应历十年丙子岁四月”，应历十年（960）应为庚申年，非丙子年，距应历十年最近的丙子年为保宁八年（976）。碑文中提及辽应历二年（952 年，应为壬子）戊辰岁（应为968 年）、应历八年（958 年，应为戊午）甲戌岁（应为974 年），应历十年丙子岁（应为保宁八年）三个年份的干支虽误，但年号和干支纪年的相隔年数相一致。 Anyone who knows Chinese is free to confirm this bit. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 33 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Going by the DeepL translation, fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 40 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Going by the DeepL translation, fine for at least part of the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 48 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Afraid I can't find "gingko" here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the 10th line of Tang 2011a: 平台前左右通道两侧各植一颗直径超过18 尺的银杏树，枝繁叶茂，右雌左雄. "银杏" is the Chinese word for gingko. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 49 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Assuming that "recently" means "21st century", OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 50 Can I have a copy of this page? I have swapped out Cao 2000. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 59 Can I have a copy of this page?
    I am not sure if I can find the part about "stele-making". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wang 2018 p. 441, at the bottom: 由于景教在汉人中缺乏群众基础，这些景教徒不懂汉文，也不在汉人中传教，对汉人的立碑传统应当是隔膜的，因此不太可能采用汉人的碑刻形式。 Here "汉人的立碑传统" means "the stele-making tradition of Han Chinese". Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 64 Can I have a copy of this page? Tang has been swapped out.Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 66 OK, but is it Tang Li or Li Tang? It is always "Tang Li" in the "family name + first name" order. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 71 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Can't find the measures. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Xu 1992 p. 481, at the center-right of the page: 先介紹這兩塊石刻 [...] 兩石高寬尺寸相同，高68.5厘米，兩端面刻十字架，寬58.5厘米，厚14厘米，兩石相接全長116厘米。 These are the measurements. The OCD of the pdf isn't great, and your translation software might have not caught the characters. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 72 Can I have a copy of this page?
    I corrected Niu 2007 to Niu 2006. I hope you are all right with it? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 78 It says "hope" not "trust". Changed. The "hope" translation is quoted from Moule, who quoted from Burkitt. I am happy to change it to Borbone's translation ("trust") which is much newer. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Received, thank you. I will get to you around the end of the month. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus How can I best send you a copy of a page? Through private email? I'm pretty sure I cannot upload screenshots / photos of pages to en-wiki or Commons. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by email. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to attach files to the Wiki email interface but it won't let me. I just sent you an email. @Jo-Jo Eumerus it will be greatly appreciated if you can reply to that email, so I could reply to your address and send things as attachments. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Sources sent. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus All comments responded to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:十字寺遗址内石碑.jpg, File:十字寺遗址内石碑 (cropped).jpg and File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg need a copyright tag to indicate the status of the statue/plate.
I tagged File:十字寺遗址内石碑.jpg and its derived image with PD-old-assumed. File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg depicts a plate made by the Chinese government (it marks a decree to make the Cross Temple a site protected at the national level), so tagged with PD-PRC-exempt. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rubbing of a Nestorian Cross at the Shih-tzu-ssu 2.jpg and the other rubbing seem to have broken source links. Rubbing links updated to original Smithsonian links. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus A little more on Tang Li's A study of the history of Nestorian Christianity in China and its literature in Chinese, which you questioned whether it is a RS. You said In light of this I am not sure that [the book] is very reliable. I looked into the book review you cited a bit further today. To quote:
On pp. 33–101, a useful survey of the history of the Church of the East from its origin in West Asia to its existence in China during the Yuan dynasty is given. The history of the Church in Persia up to the seventh century is described in some detail. The final section on the Nestorian expansion in Central Asia, however, is too brief, taking up a mere page and a half (pp. 75–76). The importance of the area to the mission to China and of the discoveries made near Turfan (especially at Bulayïq) of fragments of Nestorian texts in Old Turkish (Uighur) and Sogdian, including a version of the Gloria in Excelsis Deo, should in my opinion have been emphasized.
I agree with you that Tang's translations are not perfect. What I quoted in the Cross Temple article is mostly from the range pp. 33–101, to supplement a review of the history of the Church of the East in the article. The rest (pp. 18, 19, 29) are on the history of the Nestorian Stele.
The bottom line is, I think Tang is reliable when it comes to the general history of the Church of the East in China. I think I will be fine as long as I don't quote Tang's translations (and I have no need to do so in this article). Would love to hear what you think. Also, I will send you the relevant pages either in the next few days, or in the first week of April. Hope this timing is all right. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, not entirely sure myself if that addresses the reliability question. Anyone else? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are still not satisfied by Tang, may I suggest N. Staedart's Handbook of Christianity in China (Vol. 1)? I have some favourable book reviews:
I can get this book in the next few days and update the citations. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus If you're not opposed to it, I am going to swap Tang with Standaert :) Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped for the main "context" part. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now to the "China Culture Daily". To quote from the official description, it is run by China's Ministry of Culture and Tourism. I think that it is a RS when it comes to facts about historical sites in China (without any ideological bits). Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China" and "Research on Chinese Christianity, Book I: Chinese Christianity during the Tang and Song dynasties" a reliable source? Are "Saeki, P. Y. " and "Saeki, Yoshiro" the same person? I do apologise-- I did not directly access "The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China" or "Research on Chinese Christianity, Book I: Chinese Christianity during the Tang and Song dynasties" in my research. They are cited by the papers that I read. Now I have reformatted the citations and removed these two from the references list. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do some sources have quotes? I put quotes so readers and reviewers can have an easier time checking. I am happy to remove them if you want to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Is there anything else you would like me to provide? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg still needs a copyright tag for the plaque. Otherwise, it should be it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha! Just added "PD-PRC-exempt". Thank you very much. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably all of it, unless you can provide the new sources you installed too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, just sent you pages from Standaert 2001. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a typo on "Moule 2001, p. 96." as it's throwing a harv error. Checking Standaert 2001: #9 N/A #10 OKish although I wonder what "foreign support" means #11 I wonder if this can be rewritten so that it resembles the source text less #12 OK #13 OK #14 OK #15 OK but I wonder if this can be rewritten so that it resembles the source text less Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moule 2001 corrected to Moule 2011.
#9 is from the quote This leads to the conclusion that Nestorian settlements were relatively numerous during the Tang, [...] Nevertheless, Christian settlements were probably not extremely important.
#11, #15 reworded. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus added pp. 12–15 to #11 and sent you the pages. I think that's all of it. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, should I take that to be a pass for both? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "During different periods, it was used by either Buddhists or the Church of the East (sometimes known as Nestorian Christianity)." This is confusing. "either/or" implies doubt who was using the temple, which does not appear to be what you mean. Maybe "It was a Buddhist temple and a Church of the East (sometimes called a Nestorian Church) at different periods."
Lede fixed. Now it says Buddhists and early Chinese Christians used the temple independently during different periods in history.
  • This is verbose. How about "Buddhists and early Chinese Christians used the temple during different periods." Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is better to avoid the use of foreign scripts in English Wikipedia (except in quotations). It is not helpful to readers.
I use foreign (Chinese, mostly) scripts for proper nouns of names of people, places and organisations. My defense is that due to the particular nature of the Chinese language (using character as basic units; multiple characters have the same pronunciation), it is not sufficient to provide the romanisation (pinyin) alone. For example, Yang Wei leads to almost a dozen Chinese names, each with different characters.
  • "Scholars debate the periodisation of when the Cross Temple was used by Nestorians." This is out of chronological order and superfluous as you mention queries on periodisation later in the paragraph. I suggest starting the paragraph "Originally built as a Buddhist temple in 317".
This sentence is gone in the current version.
  • Starting the history section with a sub-section headed 'Context and terminology' which is solely on Christian use relegates the early Buddhist use as unimportant. You should start the history at the beginning with the early Buddhist phase and could then have a heading for the next sub-section of "Context and terminology of Christian use".
  • "During its history, the Cross Temple was used by either Chinese Buddhists or Nestorian Christians in China". "During its history" is meaningless word salad. As above, "either/or" implies doubt rather than sequence. A less wordy alternative is "After the Buddhist period, the Cross Temple was a Nestorian church."
I will address the two points above as a whole. I tried placing the "Context and terminology" section after a few paragraphs early history. I find it difficult, in particular because there is not a clear-cut time that we can say "here the temple turned Christian for the first time". Another source of difficulty is that I need to state my reason of using the words "Nestorian" and "Church of the East" interchangeably in the article, and I think it is best to do it early.
Perhaps you could have a look at my attempt (in moving the "Context and terminology" subsection) in my sandbox? Happy to correct the wording "During its history, the Cross Temple was used by either Chinese Buddhists or Nestorian Christians in China" after we sort out the placement.
  • "refuse to refer to the historical Church of the East in China as "Nestorian", as the word implies a heretical connection to Nestorius". The word "heretical" implies the hostile view of an 'orthodox' Christian. Maybe "a connection to Nestorius, who they regard as a heretical thinker".
Wording changed.
  • "[...]" Why the square brackets?
To quote from MOS:Original Wording, Where there is good reason to change the wording, bracket the changed text; for example, "Ocyrhoe told him his fate" might be quoted as "Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate". I feel like omission by ellipses would apply too, at least that's what I was taught.
  • Square brackets are only used with extra text. I do not remember seeing them used with ellipses and I think it is incorrect. Tim riley what do you say? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different publishers have different house styles, and I have certainly seen [...] on many occasions. I don't know if our MoS addresses the point, but in general terms the practice doesn't strike me as erroneous. Tim riley talk 15:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thriving China-Persia relations". Why did this help Christianity? This should be explained.
  • Thanks for the reminder. I will explain this part once I swap out Tang (2004) for a more reliable source. Will be done in the next few days. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just swapped out Tang for a more reliable source. This issue does not exist in the current version. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " built Nestorian monasteries in every province" You should specify every Tang province as their empire only covered part of modern China.
Done.
  • "enacted the Huichang persecution of Buddhism, which also affected the Christians". "enacted" is an odd word here. How about "[[Huichang persecution of Buddhism|persecuted foreign religions]]?
I agree that "enacted" could be changed–changed to "initiated". I am not sure about linking "Huichang persecution of Buddhism" under the guise of "persecuted foreign religions": the disappearance of the Church of the East in China was a by-product of a greater movement clearly targeted at Buddhism.
  • "leading to the annihilation of Nestorian Christianity in China". "annihilation" implies violent destruction. Maybe "disappearance".
Done.
  • "According to a Liao-era stele". Liao refers to several different periods. You should clarify the date.
Done.
  • "The scholar Wang Xiaojing proposed that the author of the Liao stele conflated the Jin with the Later Jin dynasty (936–947)." I do not know what you mean here.
Reworded.
  • "Names for the monastery during Jin and Tang periods is not known." This is ungrammatical and assumes that there were several names. Is this known?
We do not actually know the name (or names). Wording changed to singular.
  • "Tang Xiaofeng additionally pointed". Why "additionally"? You have not mentioned anything pointed to before.
Removed "additionally".
  • "However, the exact date of rebuilding was unclear". Presumably "is unclear. The date is still unknown?
Yes, still unknown. Changed to present tense.
  • "However, British sinologist Arthur Christopher Moule believed that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Church of the East existed in Beijing before the 13th century." You say above that it reached China in 635. Do you mean that it is questioned whether it reached Beijing before 13C? If so, you should clarify.
Clarified.
(There was a point-by-point response here. This bit is reorganised by TLP into Dudley's comments above.)
Regarding the information of early Christianity in China, I need to sort out whether a book I cited (namely, Tang 2004) is RS. If not, I shall find an RS soon, and that means I will need to change bits that give general context. Therefore I intend to keep those bits untouched at the moment until I get out of this little pseudo Wikibreak and return to my good ole' library. Thanks for the helpful suggestions! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles All comments responded to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Liao dynasty (916–1125), The Cross Temple was called "Chongsheng Yuan" (崇聖院; 'Hall of the Honoured Saint'), when Buddhists rebuilt it during the reign of Emperor Muzong of Liao." This is a confusing wording and I am not sure how to clarify it. Also, the second "The" should not be capitalised.
  • Clarified and reworded. Thanks for pointing this out.
  • "Many scholars have considered that the Nestorian monk Rabban Sauma, a Uyghur born in Beijing during the Yuan,[27][28] may have some connection to the Cross Temple. Moule conjectured that the site was probably near Sauma's hermitage.[29] Shi Mingpei argues that the description of Rabban Sauma's hermitage is "extremely similar" to the Cross Temple and its surrounding terrain.[30] Tang Li asserted that Rabban Sauma came from the site in a 2011 book." This paragraph is confusing. You seem to be saying that the site of the hermitage is not known and that it may have been Cross Temple, but if so this should be spelled out.
  • Good point. Now spelled out and I think it flows better.
  • "inscriptions by Yifengtang')" Closing bracket but not opening bracket.
  • Resolved.
  • "According to P. Y. Saeki, the Scottish diplomat Reginald Johnston rediscovered the site during the summer of 1919." What does rediscovered mean here? Presumably the local people never lost it.
  • The Buddhist monks sold the temple in 1911, so no one used temple for a short period of time, and it was presumably in desolation. Thus Johnston "rediscovered" the site. How can I better phrase this point?
  • Understood. Changed. -TLP
  • "there was a Shanmen entry" A few words of explanation of "Shanmen" as well as the link would be helpful.
  • Done.
  • "The Cross Temple is the only discovered site of the Church of the East in China." "discovered" is an odd word here. Do you mean only known site?
  • I have reworded it to Some scholars consider the Cross Temple to be the only place of worship of the Church of the East discovered in China.
  • "It is located near Chechang Village (车厂村), Fangshan District, to the southwest of Beijing City." The 'Current state' section is not the right place for stating the temple's location. Perhaps you could add a short section at the beginning of the main text covering location, surrounding area and which kingdom it was in at different periods.
  • This might be among the very few objections I have. I think that the "Current state" section could be a place to state the temple's location (see St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao#Description). Maybe the "Current state" section can be renamed to "Description" or some sort–I am open to that.
I don't think the location is something to be worried about–it is near a small village, which is near a major city, and that should be enough. I added the surrounding area / township. The history section talks about "which kingdom it was in at different periods."
  • "A replica of the Xi'an Stele was added to the site during the early 21st century". The wording implies that you have mentioned this stele before. Maybe "A replica of a stele discovered near Xi'an was added to the site during the early 21st century"
  • I supplied the context of the Xi'an Stele in the "context" section. I think I will keep this wording (although I moved it to a different area)
  • "in one of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum". Manuscripts have been transferred to the British Library.
  • Thanks for catching this bit. I think either "British Museum" or "British Library" is irrelevant here, so now it reads with the addition of the phrase "the living cross", in one of the Add. 14459 Syriac gospel manuscripts. Moule in his original text explicitly spells out Add. 14459.
  • See also section. I would delete as not really relevant, but that is up to you.
  • I intend to make the see also section go "horizontal" across similar topics, not "vertical" as in staying the relevant subject (Church of the East in China). I think I'll keep it.
  • "It is notable that, according to records". "It is notable that" is verbiage. I would delete. "according to records" is vague verbiage. What records?
  • This is a verbatim translation of what is stated in the paper. I don't have the liberty to change wording.
  • If it is a quotation, you should put it in quotes and cite the source inline. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it would be better to have separate main headings for citations and sources.
  • Sure!
  • There is an error message on the Nicolini-Zani, Matteo source saying that it is not used.
  • Fixed.
  • Putting the sources in columns looks clumsy. I think they would look better and be easier to read if they were in text without columns, but that is a personal preference.
  • Fixed.
  • In general, this is a good article, but there is far too much Chinese text for English Wikipedia. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding this point: will you find it more acceptable if I put most Chinese text into footnotes, rather than parentheses? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments received. I am busy this weekend (bank holiday, Easter, you name it). Will get to work next week. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles All comments addressed. I think we just need to sort out the Chinese text issue (maybe footnotes?). Many thanks for your careful comments. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While each of your individual points is very much worthwhile, I do not really agree on your summary—there's simply not a lot of English-language "turf" for a lot of these terms, and inclusion of Chinese-language text is necessary for disambiguation when there's not an article for a given topic. Remsense诉 15:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley, anything to add here? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am on holiday until 11 April. I hope it will be OK if I comment further when I get back. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before being sold in 1911. It was rediscovered in 1919, damaged during the Cultural Revolution, and re-established". "rediscovered in 1919" is odd and superfluous. I would delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "It entered modern scholarship in 1919 and received international attention" instead of "IT was rediscovered in 1919"? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I would personally cut the Chinese characters as not helpful to readers of English Wikipedia, but that is a personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2024 [19].

1912 suspension of Ty Cobb[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Baseball player Ty Cobb's suspension for going into the stands and beating up a fan. His teammates took his part and refused to play, which resulted in one of the great mismatches of all time, a group of replacement players and the manager and coaches against baseball's World Champions, which went about as you'd expect.Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Can you find a way to work the bit about Cobb being the CF of the Tigers into the first sentence? Currently the very perfunctory first sentence "During the 1912 season (what sort of season?), Ty Cobb (who's he?) was suspended for ten days" reads very oddly without any prior context.
Ty Cobb is among the best-known baseball players of all time, but for his hitting, rather than as a center fielder (a position he played for only part of his career. Still, I've done as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aided by Connie Mack, the Philadelphia owner/manager, they did so" - "they" should be "he" (Jennings) per the previous sentence
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "teams put additional security into their stadium's" => "teams put additional security into their stadiums'" (the teams did not all share one stadium)
Done slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to attend all four games of the series between the Detroit Tigers and the New York Yankees." - no need to relink Tigers
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stating they would not play" => "stating that they would not play"
  • "five sandlot baseball players" - what's a "sandlot player"? Is there an appropriate link?
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with three hits (two on bunts)" - link bunt
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on an of the attempted stolen base" - this seems a bit mangled
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tried throwing Home Run Baker a fastball, who" => "tried throwing a fastball to Baker, who"
I've kept the nickname but otherwise done as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "managed only a walk" - link walk
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then Collins bunted a ball" - ah, there's the link for bunt. Move it to the first usage
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each of which drive in a run" - wrong tense
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "urged them got go back to work" - this seems a bit mangled --
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose issues[edit]

I remember reading about this in Strange But True Baseball Stories or something like that when I was a kid, and as such I am pleased to see that we have an article about it. It might make a great movie (yeah, we think fans only started doing things like this since the pandemic). However, some of the prose sounds like it would be more appropriate in a book of that nature, or a baseball history magazine, than an encyclopedia article written under an NPOV policy. And there are other issues:

  • "By the fourth inning of the fourth game, on May 15, 1912, with the stream of insults continuing and questioning Cobb's racial ancestry, the hot-tempered Southerner had had enough, and raced into the stands, punching and kicking Lucker, who due to an industrial accident had lost eight fingers and could not defend himself." First, there's "hot-tempered Southerner" ... doesn't seem right in Wikivoice (Yes, I know Cobb was infamous for his temper, but this way it reads like a false title more at home in hack journalism). Second, just look at this sentence and how it's practically on its knees begging to be broken up (Pro tip: If you've got two clauses in your sentence starting with "and", it's a run-on sentence).
  • ".. even so mild-mannered a player as Cy Young" Tone issues again.
  • "Cobb's patience, never one of his outstanding character traits ..." Again, is this the Wikipedia way to say this?

I may have some more things to point out later, but this will do for now. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, encyclopedic descriptions of things that involve emotion can be an issue. I've changed the first two. On the third, the source says, "By the fourth game, May 15, Cobb’s patience, a fine filament under the best of circumstances, was wearing thin." I think it worthwhile to be able to explain that Cobb was not a patient man. The reader should be on notice that Lucker was yelling insults at someone with a short temper and (as is related elsewhere) someone known to be violent. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your improvements are better. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut it to "Cobb's patience was nearly exhausted."

OK. Some other things:

  • "By 1912, rowdyism in Major League Baseball (MLB) stadiums ..." I am not sure we should use the formalized term as the entity we have long known as MLB did not exist legally until earlier this century—it was the two leagues. Would that term have been in common use at that time? Maybe we should just say "major league stadiums". And was that fan unruliness exclusive to just big-league ball? IIRC baseball at every level at the time had that issue ... they had Ladies' Day for a reason.
The source discusses only the majors. From what I recall from my research for earlier articles, one of the things Ban Johnson pledged in founding the AL was a family-friendly environment, which was one of the reasons he was so anxious to get rid of John McGraw. There doesn't seem to have been much difference between the leagues by 1912.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And while we're on that, would "stadium" have been appropriate for the time, either? "Stadium" makes me think of the 50,000+-seat venues also used for football and rock concerts, where the announcer's voice audibly echoes once or twice à la that scene in Airplane!, that didn't become common until about the mid-'60s or so. Back then, as with both games discussed in this article, baseball was played in "parks" or "fields", per that George Carlin routine. Perhaps "major-league ballparks" is the best way to say it?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it necessary to say that Jennings was from Pennsylvania? The only way I see his geographic origins being relevant is if we are trying to subtly justify Cobb's actions not only on the fact of Lucker being an asshole (which, by today's standards too, he was) but by Lucker having picked that specific way of getting under Cobb's skin (which by today's standards of course makes Cobb look even worse, but then again who yells things like this at ballplayers now? This was just a classic "ESH" situation). I think the quotes are enough to show what Jennings understood without needing to tell us he was from the North (and also, it is assuming a lot that Jennings, from Eastern Pennsylvania coal country, was unaware before his baseball career that "half-nigger" wasn't fighting words in many situations ... I think there were very few places in fin de siécle America where people would have been astounded that a man would be set off as much as Cobb was that day (as indeed Ban Johnson seemed to be)).
I've deleted it. Jennings, of course, spent years in Baltimore, a Southern city by the standards of the times. How to describe the insults and the reaction by Cobb and by others is something I'm trying to be very careful with in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, even today, Baltimore is sort of where North and South meet (weren't the stands at Memorial Stadium segregated until '64?) He had to have understood how Cobb would take this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite Cobb being thrown out in the fourth inning, Detroit beat New York, 8–4." Despite? Somehow, not with Sam Crawford, another future Hall of Famer, in the Tigers' lineup, I don't think they were absolutely helpless with Cobb out of the game. It might provide better context to know what the score was when Cobb was ejected. I mean, if the Tigers were down 4-0 and came back to win, yeah, that might mean something, but if they were up 8-0 and the Yankees fell short trying to come back, well, so what? Certainly this information is available somewhere ...
The box score is here. They were up 3-2 when Cobb was kicked out (the top of the fourth), fell behind 4-3 in the bottom of the inning and then scored three in the top of the fifth and two more in the ninth. I've cut it to simply the final score.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to know, if we could, what Lucker's opinion of Cobb actually was, as expressed to the baseball press, even in paraphrase (I half think it was some variation of that modern jerkass self-justification, "I thought it would be funny ...").
He denied doing more than good-natured joshing, and says Cobb got the wrong guy. Of course, the secondary sources are unanimous against him, but I now give him his say.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would also be interesting to have some idea, now that I've added the inflation templates, how serious the fines were to Cobb and the team. How big a hit was it/would it have been? Because a $1,500 fine, per the inflation adjustment, would be something a modern player would put on his credit card before going back home/to the hotel or airport after the game (and for that reason, naturally, MLB would probably fine a modern player into six figures for doing something like this) What was Cobb's salary at the time? How many games worth of road gate was the team's proposed fine equivalent to? It had to be a serious hit for them to put on a replacement team that got creamed as an alternative.
I got Cobb's salary ($9,000). Thus he was fined not quite a game's pay. One of the SABR article says "Tigers owner Frank Navin anticipated that the players might refuse to take the field without Cobb. He also knew that a forfeit would carry a $5,000 fine, which in 1912 was more than many players made in a year, and potentially result in the loss of the franchise." That's as far as the sources seem to go into the finances of this. Cobb was already wealthy by 1912 and became more so, therefore the fine, even if he had been required to pay it, was nothing to him.
  • I remember reading that "Maharg" was actually "Graham"—for some reason (probably not wanting to be associated forever with this farce beyond the money). Is there anything in the sources on this?
His SABR biography dispels that myth.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay ... more evidence, as if it were needed, that '70s baseball books meant for younger readers are not reliable sources. Especially when mistily remembered.
Of course, all the SABR piece proves to me (not that it necessitates a change in the article) is that Maharg was born with that name. I do think it's quite possible that at some point some ancestor reversed the "Graham" spelling as "Maharg" is not really that common a name (and "Mahar" is the more frequent Irish last name). It was also not unknown for people to significantly change the spellings of their last names before the 20th century in order to evade prosecution or debt collection, especially when relocating (For instance, I have ancestors who were part of Clan McGregor in Scotland; when they all found themselves proclaimed after the Battle of Glen Fruin they took the name Agor so that they might live to die natural deaths, and it is still used in the family today). I suspect in Maharg's day this might have been more widely understood. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I admit to reading the same books and thinking the same thing. And I agree, such things were common. Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might be somewhat OR-ish, but I do think this counts as the first MLB strike of any kind. The Indians' action in the endnote was really more of a walkout ... they chose not to play that game to go to their teammate's funeral. Whereas the Tigers' players set a condition for their return (they didn't win, but they did make the effort), as most workers on strike do.
Only the one source gives credit to the Indians for the first strike, so I'm going to lose the footnote and go with the majority.

Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've done or responded to all those now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I took the trouble of changing "partisan" to "partial" ... that seems to fit better as the former word is really about politics or debates, not what was going on here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS[edit]

  • "accident about 1910, and subsequently did odd" → remove comma
  • "During pregame fielding practice Cobb muffed a fly ball" → I would say to link "muffed" but I don't think there is a good thing to link it to (other than Muffed punt, which is football-specific). Maybe for clarity for non-sports-familiar readers we should change "muffed" to "dropped" or something?
Linked to the entry in glossary of baseball terms
  • "perhaps Davy Jones, or Sam Crawford" → I think the comma after "Jones" is unneeded
  • "Cobb was kicked out of the game, but was allowed to remain" → remove comma
  • Consider linking "Georgia congressional delegation" to United States congressional delegations from Georgia
I guess, though it seems pretty far afield to me.
  • "regarding his ancestry, and stated that" → remove comma
  • "Jennings and his coaches Deacon McGuire and Joe Sugden" → Sugden links to the wrong person
  • "shirts off their backs and they were signed to one-day" → "they" seems superfluous here
I think if you don't say "they", there is a risk of confusion as to who is meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • two-time defending World Series champions" → link World Series
  • "the future Hall of Famers" → link "Hall of Famers" to National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum
  • "In the top of the first inning" → "top", as it is currently linked, is not anchored to anything in the Glossary page; recommend changing the section in the link to "Top of the inning", which is an entry in the glossary
  • "with three hits" → link Hit (baseball)
It is linked further up in the article as a statistical category in which Cobb led the league
  • link fastball on first mention
  • Ditto for foul ball
  • "walked to load the bases" → link Glossary of baseball terms#bases loaded
  • "Maharg was unable" → this sentence is a little long; at one of the commas, I would recommend breaking the sentence into two
  • "Catcher Lapp threw to first in an attempt to pick off Maney" → link pickoff
  • "bases-loaded double, and was himself" → sort of awkward wording, recommend a full stop after "double" and beginning the next sentence with "He was himself"
  • "who was picked off first base" → reads like there might be a word missing, perhaps "picked off at first base", or "of first base"?
No, that's correct. See for example Herb Washington.
  • "Since Sunday baseball was illegal" → "Sunday baseball" redirects to "Sunday sporting events", you can anchor the link to the "Baseball" section
  • "Detroit had a record of 13–14" → unless there is a prior instance of a record being given, add {{Win-loss record}} here
  • "won their next four games, but finished the season" → remove comma
  • "assistant trainer for the Philadelphia Phillies, and was allowed" → remove comma
  • "In 1919, he was one" → I think you can get rid of one of the two instances of "1919" in this sentence - my recommendation would be to just start the sentence "He was one..." and let the "1919 World Series" link stay intact and tell the reader what year it happened

I enjoy reading about old sports so this was an enjoyable one. Nice work! If you've got the time, I have an old sports-related FAC here that could really use some eyes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look at it. All done or commented on here. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good, happy to support the nom. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review[edit]

Image placement and licence seems OK, one image lacks ALT text. Are The Sun (New York City) and Statmuse a reliable source? Bleacher Report doesn't seem to be a very good source. Everything else seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun was a serious newspaper, according to our article on it. Statmuse is reliable for statistics. I've eliminated Bleacher Report. All three images have alt text. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • Bak, 1994, needs a publisher location. (Dallas)
Actually, I intended to omit locations from all books. I don't consider them helpful in this day and age.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:LEADLENGTH could the lead be condensed to 2 or 3 paragraphs; the current 4 are all very short.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the lead be condensed. I think it could be condensed with little loss of information.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The replacement players in the Tigers dugout". Apostrophe?
I think there is no apostrophe. See for example, this.
I am unsure if I am being gently ribbed. Leaving aside the stylistic title, from page 11 of the same book "from inside the Tigers' dugout": note the "' ". Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Detroit dugout".--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the aftermath of Cobb's suspension, almost all teams provided ushers." Assuming "ushers " refers to Usher (occupation), how did this reduce heckling? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I think in the sport context, the role of an usher is broader than that. To quote from the article you linked, "Ushers are also expected to help with security and to ensure that only people with proper authority have access to backstage areas. Ushers also monitor the crowds and can summon security when needed".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point, but can we convey this to a non-North American reader somehow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not very vocal on this point, so I've excluded the word "ushers" and simply said they complied with Johnson's request. Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 April 2024 [20].

Cora Agnes Benneson[edit]

Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cora Agnes Benneson was a late-19th and early-20th century American attorney. She was one of the first women to open her own law practice in New England, a member of several organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and an accomplished writer and lecturer. Benneson was also a complicated figure; she held nativist beliefs and her feminism saw marriage and raising children as natural for women (although she herself never married nor had children).

This article was written during WikiProject Women in Red's 2024 year-long education initiative, after I found Ms. Benneson in the missing articles list for Julia Ward Howe's Representative Women of New England (1904). The article was just promoted to GA after a thorough review by Sammielh. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:CORA_A._BENNESON_Sketches_of_representative_women_of_New_England_(page_442_crop)_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a US tag. Elliot died in 1942. Stimpson appears to have died in 1940. Hoyt died in 1915. Howe died in 1910. Graves died in 1908. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Where does the death information go on commons? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SusunW[edit]

Hello, voorts. Happy to make your acquaintance. Thank you for writing about her and allowing me to learn her story. I warn you in advance, I am a bit methodical (okay obsessive), and agonize over reviews, so I am really slow and work in spurts. But, I view reviews as a conversation for improvement, so feel free to disagree with anything I write. Always ping me. (note 2 u's no a). SusunW (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede:

  • I find the excessive repetition of Benneson to be distracting from comprehension, meaning that I find myself looking for the repeated word rather than the content. Please consider reducing the number of times you repeat her name with appropriate pronouns.
    • Done.

Early life:

  • First sentence uses Benneson 3 times. Perhaps use "Electa Ann (née Park) and Robert Smith Benneson".
    • Done.
  • How do we know Robert worked in lumber and real estate?
    • I can't remember or find the sources, so I've removed it for now.
  • Trueblood (p. 326) says her mother was known as Annie, but you call her Electa.
    • First sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 326 says "Miss Benneson's mother, Electa Ann Park Benneson ...".
Probably not a huge deal, but since Trueblood says "Annie Park, as she was generally called" I thought it worth mentioning. It's kind of like referring to Michael Philip Jagger as something other than Mick. Most people wouldn't know who you were talking about and likely finding sourcing would be impacted. Your call. SusunW (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading was that she was called Annie Park in her younger years, but not as an adult. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are giving information on her ancestors who were clergy, why not include that both sides of the family were originally from England, (Cyclopedia p 399, Trueblood p 326) and that her mother descended from Richard Park (Parke) one of the original proprietors of Cambridge, Massachusetts? (ISHS Journal p 307, Trueblood p 326)
    • Done.
  • "By the age of 8" I do not see this in the Cyclopedia p 399 nor ISHS Journal p 307, but it is in Trueblood p 327 and Nazzal p 274; and "[able] to get at the pith of an argument" is a direct quote requiring citation, but only found in Trueblood p 327 and ISHS Journal p 307. Suggest splitting up the bundled citation at the end of both sentences to reflect only the citations which apply to each sentence.
    • Done.
  • How do we know that Quincy Seminary was a prep school? Was it a coeducational school? Both seem very unusual for the period, boys/men and girls/women were typically educated separately and women were not deemed to be university material. Looking at the link for the seminary class photo, it states it was the Quincy Female Seminary. This newspaper clipping confirms she was the valedictorian of the 1869 class from the Quincy Female Seminary. In my experience, "female seminaries" were typically normal schools. Searching for the curricula, I find little, but this piece on the Milwaukee Female College, where Caroline and Mary E. Chapin (why doesn't she have an article?) were principals from 1857 to 1863 makes clear that these types of schools focused on career training "suitable" for women, i.e. teaching, child care, morality, family health, and home economics. pp 21-22 But maybe it was more, as this says in Milwaukee they taught both normal and collegiate courses including math, natural science, history, geography philosophy, language, composition and literature. Chapin's obit doesn't clarify. Do you have something that confirms it was a prep school? Suggest you add "Female" to the name of the school.
    • I've removed preparatory school and added "Female".
Don't know if you think it worthwhile to mention that she was the valedictorian, per the Quincy Whig. Not a deal breaker, for me to support, but it's definitely noteworthy, IMO SusunW (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Added. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Higher education

  • The note says Harvard did not admit women until 1950, but Nazzal p 275, says Harvard admitted Benneson in 1896 and she completed a master's degree. But then later, on p 280 he says she got her 2nd master's from Radcliffe. Not sure if you think it is worth expanding the note to give a bit more info, i.e. Radcliffe began as the Harvard Annex to teach women, but became its own degree-granting institution in 1894.
    • The note refers to Harvard Law School specifically, not Harvard University more broadly. I don't think it's worth getting into Radcliffe's degree-granting status since when she applied there, they had already been accepting women for two years.
That's fine. SusunW (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World travels

  • is interest "in the treatment of women and their opportunities" per the source the same as "including the rights of women" in the article? I tend to think of rights as legal or at least recognized rules or norms that people are owed. Women at that time were not typically legal entities, as they had no individual personhood in law. How they were treated and what their opportunities were, were largely dictated by a husband, father, or guardian and were considered private matters. A husband could beat his wife, rape her, take all of her money and it wasn't any type of crime because she was seen as merely an appendage of his personhood. I also note that her observations of women on her trip don't seem to be concerned with rights, rather with their appearances and societal positions, which I concede might go toward "opportunities" but rights? not sure.
    • I changed the phrase to "who was interested in foreign legal cultures and rights of women"
I like your change to status of women. Seems much nearer to the source. SusunW (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two year" and "four month" should have hyphens, since they are functioning as an adjective to tour.
    • Done.
  • Perhaps link Burma and Abyssinia, as they are no longer known by those names?
    • Done.
  • "Benneson wrote dispatches" does not appear in Nazzal p. 278, but rather p 285 says her notes were published after her return in The Unitarian. Dispatch, i.e. information that is published in media about recent events and typically sent by someone in a foreign country, perhaps is the wrong word? or did she publish in other media while she was traveling?
    • Fixed.
  • I find it a bit odd that you specifically mention that she went on the tour to learn about women's rights, but the descriptions of her travels you have included give none of her observations on women, which admittedly were pretty superficial.
    • Addressed above.

Career

  • Perhaps I am wrong, but Trueblood p. 329 and the Cyclopaedia p. 399 give Law Reports as if it is a journal name, not a generic report.
    • Law reports are usually a generic name. Many publishers of case law call their publications "law reports".
  • The only source that mentions Woodrow Wilson or the quoted material is Bohan p 20
    • The other sources substantiate the unquoted portion about the fact of her moving there for a fellowship.
  • "From 1897 to 1892"?. Nazzal actually says 1897 to 1902.
  • No need to repeat that she was a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association
    • Done.
  • Do we have any idea what area of law she specialized in? The Cyclopaedia says she had "a large and successful practice", but gives no clues as to what type of law she focused upon. Likewise, do we have any clue what she did as a special commissioner?
    • No clue and I haven't found anything about her practice. Same with being a special commissioner.
I figured that would be the case, but thought I'd ask. SusunW (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final year and death

  • While I can plainly see that Nazzal states the obituary said she died of a stroke, it doesn't actually say that (and yes, I did check that the obit you cited is the same obit Nazal cited). The obit says her health broke down from overworking.
    • Fixed.
  • Per the obit, she was buried in Mount Auburn Cemetery.
    • Added.

I think that's it from me. Ping me for further discussion. SusunW (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: I believe I've addressed everything. Thank you for the thorough review. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voorts Thank you. I am happy to support. The two outstanding comments, I leave up to your discretion as they don't alter the validity or thoroughness of your work. SusunW (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW: Thank you for the support. I've addressed your remaining two comments. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This is a short but interesting article. I have the following comments:

  • The three final sentences in the lead para refer only to the subject as 'she' (including two sentences in a row starting with this)
    • Fixed.
  • "She spent her youth reading, writing, and learning from her parents' guests" - what's the value of this? It's hardly uncommon, and wrongly implies that she was self educated.
    • Fixed
  • The last sentence of the lead should be tweaked to be two sentences. More broadly, semicolons are somewhat over-used across the article.
    • Fixed.
  • Should the Quincy Academy and/or Quincy Female Seminary be (red?)linked?
    • It can't hurt. Done.
  • What did she do between 1872 and 1875 and 1878 and 1880?
    • The sources don't say.
  • The sentence starting with 'Harvard rejected her application' has two full stops
    • Fixed.
  • Do we know how she funded the world tour?
    • No, but I would guess using her parents' money.
  • "She was also the founder of, counsel for, and member of several organizations" - the grammar is off here
    • In what way?
      • The sentence is trying to cover too much ground and becomes a bit of a mouthful of words as a resu;t. I'd suggest splitting this into two sentences (being the counsel for organisations seems a bit different than the other roles, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything else be said about her legal career? E.g. notable cases, clients, etc?
    • Not that I've been able to find.
  • I'm confused at why a range of articles about Benneson, including what's probably the main source for the article, are listed as 'primary sources' when they are not.
    • Fixed.
  • I note that the references to Trueblood are to the version on Wikisource - is this reproduction a reliable source? Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed.

@Nick-D: Replied above. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I've addressed your last comment. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Well done with this article - it's a good example of a short but sharp FA quality article on an under-remembered person. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Otuọcha[edit]

@Voorts:: You did a very good job. I have no thought of criticism, and will express my own way of supporting the article. I will check some words out too.

  • In "Final year and death" section, this statement: "According to her obituary writer, her death was reportedly caused by overworking." Don't we need a source there. Or is The_Quincy_Daily_Herald19195-33 the next source supporting that?
    • It's supported by both of the citations at the end.
  • This is not much a problem. Isn't it just simple putting it as "Death". I don't see much emphasis on "Final year" addition.
    • I like final year because the section also notes that she stopped practicing law that year.
  • The "career section" wrote: "In 1899, she was made a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Do change that "made" to "elected" or rewording: "In 1899, she was elected as a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science." AAAS fellows are elected.
    • Done.

@Otuọcha: Responded above. Thanks for your support. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Are Mary Esther Trueblood and Julia Ward Howe known to be biographers? Everything else seems to be OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howe was a suffragist (perhaps best known for writing the Battle Hymn of the Republic), and Trueblood was a professor of sociology and mathematics. I'm not sure who else Trueblood wrote biographies of. The book that the Trueblood biography is in was also edited by Mary H. Graves, who was a literary editor and writer, and the publisher's note at the start of the book notes that Graves fact-checked the biographies. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did some minor spotchecking and didn't notice anything untoward. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 8 April 2024 [21].

Tufted jay[edit]

Nominator(s): grungaloo (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tufted jay is an member of the crow family and is endemic to a small region of the Sierra Madre Occidental in Mexico. It has been of particular interest to some in regards to its origin due to it's limited range and distance from other members of its genus. There is limited literature on it, but I have made the best use of what is available. grungaloo (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

First comments now, more later.

  • was first described by Robert Thomas Moore in 1935 based on a type locality – Descriptions are based on type specimens, not localities
    • Fixed
  • Moore gave them – you switch from singular to plural here. Also elsewhere in the article.
    • Switched all to singular (I think)
  • binomial name – since we are writing for a general readership (and especially with birds, we want that as many folks as possible can appreciate them, right?), we should avoid technical terms whenever possible. Here, you could use "scientific name" instead, and link that to Binomial nomenclature.
    • Fixed
  • Cyanocorax dickeyi, with the species name being in honour of – The species name is the whole binomen. What you mean is the specific name.
    • Fixed
  • The tufted jay is monotypic. – Again, avoid technical terms; just write that no subspecies are recognized.
    • Fixed
  • For the first paragraph of "Taxonomy and systematics", the first description has some interesting details that could be added; e.g. that this species was not encountered in extensive collection efforts not far away, demonstrating its limited range. Maybe such info would make the article a bit more interesting to read, instead of just listing the standard information point by point. But this is just an idea, it is up to you.
    • I like it! I tried adding it in, I'm not convinced I worded it well so if you have suggestions on rewording I'm happy to hear.
  • Other members of the genus occur as far north as Costa Rica, over 2,000 km (1,200 mi) away from the tufted jays' range.[1] In 1944, it was proposed that they were most closely related to the white-tailed jay – this is saying that other members were most closely related to the white-tailed jay, which does not make sense.
    • Fixed, called out tufted jay
  • Several theories were proposed for why this was, – "hypotheses", not "theories"? Also, "why this was" is very unspecific; why what was, exactly?
    • Changed, and swapped it to "for why this relation might exist despite the geographical separation"
  • link cladogram
    • Done
  • The IUCN page has much more details on threats that could be added (click there on "threats in detail")
    • Expanded
  • State the size (length, weight); you say "medium sized bird" but that is relative.
    • Added
  • It seems that the article could be even more comprehensive; for example, I see several aspects in the Birds of the World page that are not mentioned here (e.g., flight; that the young are fed cooperatively; how long do the juveniles remain in the group, and more). I would suggest to have another close look at the sources to improve coverage. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done another pass. I'll admit this is a bit of a blind spot for me—I'm realizing I tend to lean too much into a summary and miss out on details, so if there's anything obviously missing please let me know! Also, I'm not sure where to put flight without it standing out odd, any suggestions? grungaloo (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe an introductory paragraph in Behaviour and ecology? That's usually what I've done so far and I think it works okay. AryKun (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, that would work well. Another option is to put it into the "Description", since flight is often a useful feature to distinguish species. This is what we did for our current FAC, Markham's storm petrel. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • also known as the painted jay – information does not appear in the cited source?
    • Added source to Haemig who uses that name. It's the Spanish translation of the name "Urraca Pinta".
  • The tufted jay, also known as the painted jay – according to Avibase [22], there is another synonym (Dickey's Jay). No need to bold any of them in the lead imo.
    • Added and de-bolded
  • based on a type specimen from Mexico – the wording is still not good. A type specimen was not found somewhere, it was selected when erecting the species. Actually, the description used 7 specimens?
    • Tried a rewrite, let me know what you think
  • A more commonly held theory – hypothesis
    • Change, dropped "more commonly" too.
  • was relict of a common ancestor – What does "relict" mean here precisely? Is the tufted jay identical with this ancestral taxon?
    • Rewrote, it's presumed to have descended from a common ancestor so not identical.
  • A more commonly held theory was – With past tense, you are implying that this (and the other) hypothesis is now outdated, but you do not state what the current hypothesis is.
    • I've changed these tenses. There's no meta-discussion I could find on which is right, so presumably they're all still open. No source seems to expressly deny any other too. The closest is Haemig who introduced the pre-Columbian trade theory, but even that doesn't go as far as to outright deny the others.
  • Other members of the genus occur as far north as Costa Rica, over 2,000 km (1,200 mi) away from the tufted jay's range – This does not seem to be the case. What about the Purplish-backed jay, for example?
    • I've changed this to reference Amadon, who specifies that the tufted and white-tailed jay are 3000 miles apart. The other cite was from Haemig who was comparing it to the northern-most range of "South American" cyanocoraxes, which I think confused things.
  • caption: A juvenile tufted jay with a smaller crest and lacking the white spot above the eye. – But the shown bird has a small white spot above the eye?
    • Yeah on second look I can't explain that, and I'm not convinced it's a juvenile. I've replaced the image with another available one from Flickr that shows and adult. I also found an image of a flock of them and added it to the socialization section.
  • The inside of their beak is flesh-coloured, but this fades after a few months. – I don't understand this. You mean the color when looking into their open mouth? Fading to what color? A few months after what? After hatching?
    • Crossin says "the basal portions of the mandibles are flesh color", I've tried to make it more clear in the article what it refers to without using that technical language. I also added the timing and what it fades to.
  • This call can be heard when feeding, by nesting females – This literally means "Nesting females can hear the call", which makes no sense.
    • Rewrote, hopefully clearer
  • endemic – link
    • Added
  • In the breeding season, they can be found in ravines and nearer water sources. – "near water sources"?
    • Changed
  • During the breeding season, flocks will work cooperatively to feed the nesting female. – Does this mean there is only one breeding female per flock? (the nesting female seems to imply that).
    • Added a line to clarify this, but yes there's a single breeding pair per flock.
  • The tufted jay is possibly descended from a population of white-tailed jays which were brought Mexico by trade between pre-Columbian societies. – I think that, this hypothesis as you describe it cannot be true, alone for the reason that speciation does not work that fast. Are you possibly misreading the source?
  • If you are looking for modern discussions on the old hypothesis, it might be worth a try to 1) search for the article that proposed the hypothesis in Google Scholar, 2) click on "cited by", 3) and see through the list of papers cites (and possibly discusses) it. This way, the book "Avian invasions" turned up, which briefly describes Haemig's hypothesis and suggested that a genetic analysis would prove or disprove him. We now have this analysis (your cladogram). So I think the most sensible way to do it would be to present these different hypotheses in a historical context, making clear that they were based on the assumption that the tufted and the white-tailed were closely related, which is now questioned by the genetic analyses (I mean, give the genetic analysis more room, it is the by far most solid evidence available to date; but I wouldn't go as far as to state that the old hypothesis is now disproved, for this we would need another source that makes this interpretation).
  • a study of the morphological characteristics of the tufted jay and white-tailed jay demonstrated – "demonstrated" is a bit strong a word, no? "Suggested" would be more suitable; you cannot have certainty with morphological characters.
  • I am still not quite through, but we have to sort out the taxonomy section first, as I am not convinced here yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a rewrite of this section based on your three suggestions above. I've also rewritten a portion of the lead to better reflect this. Let me know what you think! grungaloo (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. But I think there is a mistake. You write In 1979, Paul Haemig proposed that the white-tailed jay had been brought to Mexico by trade between pre-Columbian societies, and that the tufted jay was derived from that population, although this theory was problematic because it implied that the two had only been diverging for a few hundred years. – This suggests that Haemig proposed that the white-tailed jay and the tufted jay are sister species. However, he did not say this as far as I can see. Instead, he seems to be of the opinion that the white-tailed and the tufted are the same species (even though he is not sure whether they can still interbreed or not). The book "avian invasions" also states that Haemig (1979) proposes that these two are actually the same species. In this light, your addition although this theory was problematic because it implied that the two had only been diverging for a few hundred years does not make sense; if we assume that they are the same species, it is not problematic at all. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've reworded it to call out the same-species theory. I was using the BotW source which doesn't say that expressly. grungaloo (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to check your source "Bonaccorso et al. (2010), p. 27." to understand this a bit better, but that source does not have a page 27? Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed grungaloo (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy looks much better now, but I think some more minor tweaks to the writing should be done:

  • The tufted jay's relation to other members of the Cyanocorax genus has been a subject of interest since its initial description – I am not sure what the information here is; is there any bird whose relationships have not been a subject of interest? Maybe cut this part.
    • Removed
  • In 1935, Moore noted some difficulties with its placement in Cyanocorax, – again not well-enough written imo. You have "difficulties" in plural but only mention one difficulty later. Also, it is not clear what "its placement" refers to. That it belongs to Cyanocorax should not be fraught with difficulties; it rather seems you are hinting at its close affinities to the white-tailed jay that is problematic, but this has not been mentioned yet. Maybe cut this part, too.
    • Removed
  • due to a widely distributed ancestor that had gone extinct. – Since the Tufted jay still lives, its ancestor didn't really went extinct.
    • Removed, I think I was misreading what it meant. Now it just mentions the ancestor.

For the remainder of the article:

  • although a tufted jay may dive at a Steller's jay if it approaches a nest site or during foraging. – The "during foraging" is a bit unclear to me. When tufted jays are foraging, they will dive on the Steller's jays?
    • Rewrote, called out that its the tufted jay that's foraging.
  • and each flock contains only a single breeding pair. – Already mentioned earlier (sorry for my earlier comment where I asked to add this information, I was not aware that it was already mentioned).
    • Actually I think I rewrote after your mention to make it clearer, so no worries!
  • That's all from me now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two more regarding the taxonomy, after a last check there:

  • and that tufted jay was more closely related to other South American jays – not sure if this is correct. The paper instead says that it is sister to a clade formed by the white-naped, Cayenne, plush-crested, azure-naped, and black-chested jays. I recommend to replace with a sentence like this.
    • Added
  • elaborated on a hypothesis by Jean Théodore Delacour – can you add the year when this hypothesis was published?
    • Added
  • I did some more smaller changes myself, feel free to revert if you disagree. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – looks good to me now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • Wow, this must be the first time in years we have a constant stream of bird FACs! Marking my spot until Jens' review is done so I don't thread the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • White-tailed jay is WP:duplinked (not counting the cladigram).
  • The images are kind of samey, especially since the one in the taxobox is the same that is used in the compilation image right below it. Can anything be done to avoid this repetition? There are other free photos of the bird on Flickr that might replace one of the duplicates.
  • Likewise, all photos show similar poses, and while not a great image, this one shows a flying individual and how the wings look when spread:[23] FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done what I can to bring in different looking pictures, and done another search for any public domain ones that I've missed. Unfortunately there's just not much out there. Let me know what you think of the changes. grungaloo (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better! FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • People mentioned could be presented by occupation, for example it seems odd to state who it was named for with no context at all.
    • Added. I saw this come up at the Markham's storm petrel FAC so wasn't sure which was correct. They're all ornithologists so it might be a bit repetitive.
  • "with the specific name being named after" Name named sounds clunky.
    • Reworded - "being in honour of". I also saw this come up at the Markham's storm petrel FAC, but in this case I think it's ok because Moore explicitly says that the naming is in "tribute" to Dickey's work.
  • Link Cyanocorax at first mention.
    • Done
  • Link white-tailed jay at first mention under taxonomy. Now it is linked first time under description (not counting the cladogram).
    • Done
  • "white-tailed jay (Cyanocorax mysticalis)" You give the scientific name in parenthesis for this species at first mention, but not others, should be consistent.
    • Dropped the scientific name
  • "The white-tailed jay (pictured) is visually similar to the tufted jay" Could add to the caption that the two have incorrectly been considered the same species?
    • Tried a different caption, thoughts?
  • Seems odd they were considered the same species when the other doesn't seem to have a crest? What was the rationale behind that?
    • I've added a footnote explaining Haemig's rational, but basically he figures the colouration is due to Gloger's rule, and the crest is something he considers a "very plastic" characteristic in jays. grungaloo (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how much text is devoted to the issue in the main text, I think it would even be worth to incorporate the footnote into it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done grungaloo (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link molt.
    • Done
  • Also, since this appears to be UK English (you say "colour"), it should be "moult". There may be other UK/US English inconsistencies, which should be checked throughout.
    • Canadian English actually, which afaik doesn't have a preference, but I changed it to moult anyway.
I think that's more or less the same as UK spelling? FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link mobbing.
    • Done
  • Modern countries are usually not linked, so links to Mexico should probably be removed.
    • Removed. Removed one to Ecuador too. grungaloo (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link flock only long after its first mention.
    • Moved up
  • "Juvenile males who do disperse from the flock do so at around 13–18 months of age." I don't think the first "do" is necessary.
    • Removed
  • "namely the Steller's jay" The is unnecessary.
    • Removed
  • Breeding pairs is also only linked long aftr first mention.
    • Moved up
  • Altricial could be explained in parenthesis.
    • Added
  • Missing "is".
    • I'm not sure where?
Oops, fixed it myself. FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "notably by those involved in the narcotic cultivation" Why?
    • Reworded
  • An article this length probably only needs a three paragraph intro. I think you could merge the two last short paragraphs.
    • Combined the last two
  • Usually the intro should have the same order of info as the article body, but now you describe the bird before talking about its relationships. Perhaps not a big deal, but I've seen others bring it up.
    • Personally I think having description first makes sense even if it doesn't match the order. In my experience a lot of people looking up birds are most interested in what they look like, so makes sense to open with that to me. I'll change it though if it's a sticking point.
  • Breeding pair and other terms not linked in the intro should be linked if they are linked in the article body.
  • Support - changes look good, I fixed the last issue I hadn't reported properly myself. FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz[edit]

  • The article heavily cites a 1965 master's thesis by Richard Crossin. Theses are not considered as reliable sources. The cites should be replaced by peer reviewed articles.
One possible source is the Birds of the World which is available from the Internet Archive (registration required) here: https://archive.org/details/handbookofbirdso0014unse/page/582/mode/1up

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Reliable sources, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. According to Google Scholar, this thesis has been cited 44 times, including by major bird resources such as handbooks. Given how narrow this topic is, I would argue this counts as "significant scholarly influence" (in fact, it seems to be the most cited publication that is specifically dealing with this species). Another point to consider is whether or not the cited information is uncontroversial; mere observations (for which this source seems to be used for) are generally uncontroversial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was basically my reasoning (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Crossin is the go-to for any detailed description on this bird. Other sources also cite Crossin quite a bit, including Birds of the World. My usage of it mostly reflects what other sources were already citing to it, but I used Crossin in these cases so I could pull more detail. Excising Crossin would be possible, but the article would lose some detail. If that's what's needed though I'll give it a go! grungaloo (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy[edit]

  • Also known as the painted jay and Dickey's jay. Painted jay and Dickey's jay should probably be bold in introduction per WP:BOLDTITLE since they are alternative names for this bird. Other than that I don't see any issues. Comments welcomed FAC here. Volcanoguy 16:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Jens Lallensack pointed out that these shouldn't be bolded actually. "And significant alternative names" - the argument is that these are not significant names at all. In fact, I only found one source each that uses each of these names. They definitely quality as alternative names, but probably not significant. grungaloo (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just see that the WP:WikiProject Birds has this guideline: Alternative common names should be mentioned where appropriate; with bold type in the opening line of the article if they are in wide use, elsewhere in the article (with or without the bold type) if they are less-used. This is usually a matter for individual judgement. So I guess it is up to you if you like to bold or not. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer to not bold here. From what I've seen they're not in wide use. grungaloo (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "A mtDNA study". When did this happen?
    • Added year (2010)
  • "A mtDNA study". Could we have this in full at first mention? mitochondrial DNA. And in the main article.
    • Changed for both mentions
"The following cladogram (simplified from the 2010 mtDNA study)". Either this also needs to be in full or the abbreviation needs to be in brackets after the first mention a little earlier in the paragraph.
Oops, changed to be in full
  • "It is likely descended from an ancestral jay which ranged throughout Central and South America." Perhaps "It" → 'they'?
    • Fixed
  • Link canopy, range
    • Linked
  • "This indicated that the tufted jay and white-tailed jay descended from a common ancestor that once lived throughout Central and South America, and that the visual similarities were the result of convergent evolution." I don't understand. If they "descended from a common ancestor", then that would explain "the visual similarities" and there is no need to assume convergent evolution".
    • I've removed the line about convergent evolution since yeah, it doesn't make sense. I think the author meant that all Central/South American Cyanocorax's descended from a common ancestor, and the tufted and white-tailed jay converged, but that's not expressly stated so I've opted to remove it instead.
  • "This is a commonly held hypothesis by others who have studied the tufted jay." "is" or was?
    • Is, and the mtDNA study supports it so I've left it as is. I did change hypothesis to theory though since it is an official theory, especially with the dna study.
  • "Because of the visual similarities between the tufted jay and the white-tailed jay, some researchers thought that the two must be more closely related than their ranges would suggest." Is this not repeating much of the previous paragraph?
    • I've cut it down: "These similarities led some researchers to hypothesize that the two must be more closely related than their ranges would suggest."
  • "that the tufted jay had descended from a flock that had accidentally been brought to Mexico by a storm". Would that be a flock of white-tailed jays?
    • Added white-tailed jay to the sentence to make it clear
  • "the tufted jay is sister to a clade formed by ..." Define clade in line.
    • Added
  • "due to a widely distributed ancestor." Optional: → 'due to a widely distributed common ancestor.'
    • Changed.
  • "The tufted jay has several calls, with the most common call being a rapid ..." This may flow better without the repetition of "call".
    • Changed, dropped the second "call"
  • "woodland forests". Are there non-woodland forests?
    • Removed "woodland"
  • "they can be found in ravines near water sources." Commonly, rarely, exclusively?
    • Added - commonly
  • Do we have any idea of their life expectancy?
    • Nothing concrete. Birds of the World says "There is no information related to topics such as age at first breeding, life span and survivorship, dispersal, or population regulation for Tufted Jay.", and I couldn't find anything from another source.
I find that information on the lack of information on "age at first breeding, life span and survivorship" interesting. Perhaps include it in the article?
I've added it, I put breeding age in the breeding section, and lifespan in the description
  • "and are 41 cm (16 in) in diameter and 6 cm (2.4 in) deep." Should there be am 'approximately' in there?
    • Added
  • "measure between roughly 36–38 mm (1.4–1.5 in) long and 24–25.4 mm (0.94–1.00 in) wide"; "with between 10,000–20,000 mature individuals." See MOS:RANGES "Do not mix en dashes with between or from."
    • Removed "between" and "roughly"
  • "the primary threats to its survival are habitat destruction through agricultural expansion, deforestation due to logging and narcotic cultivation, or through forest fires." There needs to be an 'and' somewhere in that list.
    • Reworded
  • "Climate change is likely to result in future prolonged droughts, which could result in a significant decrease in the tufted jay's population." Is it possible to avoid having "result" twice in a single sentence?
    • Reworded
  • Lammertink et al needs an OCLC. (906999994)
    • Added
  • Like wise Miller et al. (4638340178)
    • Added

Nice work. I enjoyed reading that. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I enjoyed writing it! grungaloo (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff. A couple of minor come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed! grungaloo (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A cracking article, especially impressive for a first-time FAC nomination. Have you done this before? Either on or off Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that means a lot! I did some writing in university but nothing since. I appreciate the feedback. grungaloo (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and prose review by AK[edit]

  • Doesn't look like there'll be much for me to say here, but I'll leave this placeholder here nonetheless. AryKun (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This initial description of the nest seems like it has some interesting details (specifically the author's observations of other species driving out the jays).
    • Added to the Socialization and territoriality section
  • Personal preference, but "genus Cyanocorax" reads better to me than "Cyanocorax genus".
    • Changed
  • Hardy does not propose that it's descended from a vagrant flock. He says "C. dickeyi, a sedentary species not given even to accidental occurrence outside of its small known range seems to represent a relict rather than a population derived from a single flock of birds lost or blown by storm far from a native home", so he thinks that the species is a relict of a more wide-ranging ancestor elsewhere displaced by other Cyanocorax. He only mentions the vagrant flock theory and says it cannot be easily dismissed.
    • I've changed it to say that he "discussed the theory" - I believe you're right, this seems like it was a theory that was already out there, but his is the earliest paper I could find that talk about it.
  • Amadon's argument that the two species might be the result of convergent evolution seems worth mentioning.
    • Added
  • "This study...distributed common ancestor" But wouldn't all the other species that the tufjay is more closely related to also be descended from said common ancestor?
    • I would think so. Sorry, but I'm not sure what change you're looking to make?
  • "simplified from the 2010 mitochondrial DNA study" You don't need to mention that it's a mtDNA study again.
    • Done
  • BritEng would be Vocalisations.
    • It's Canadian English, Vocalization is correct (as is Socialization)
  • Shouldn't the ovivory link be at "eating eggs" instead of "stolen"?
    • Fixed
  • "10,000–20,000 mature individuals" Why round it off from the IUCN estimate?
    • Fixed - that came up at GA, I prefer the exact number.
      • I have to disagree here; the IUCN number of "19999 individuals" is not an estimate. They state placed in the band for 10,000-19,999 mature individuals, which means that they have some pre-defined categories, and 20000 would already be the next category. As you formulate it ("with an estimated 10,000–19,999 mature individuals"), without any mention of these categories, it is just wrong (false precision). It has to be 20000 instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha, I've changed it back to 10,000-20,000. grungaloo (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the narcotic cultivation" to "the cultivation of narcotics"?
    • Fixed
  • What about habitat fragmentation due to roads and the loss of springs mentioned in BirdLife?
    • Added
  • BOW mentions a ejido in Sinaloa that has a community conservation plan for the species.
    • Added
  • Scientific names should be italicized in ref titles.
    • Fixed
  • The publisher for the Avibase ref should just be Avibase, not the whole website url.
    • Fixed
  • Partners in Flight ref has a typo (Vision)
    • Fixed
  • That's all I got. AryKun (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and pass source review from me. AryKun (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Cyanocorax dickeyi map.svg should probably give the base map. File:Sierra.madre.occidental.volcanics.JPG does not seem as dense to me as the ALT claims. All else seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "give the base map", could you elaborate please? I've replaced the Sierra Madre picture with one of a pine-oak forest in Durango. Thanks! grungaloo (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; The underlying map, the grey bits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not 100% on what exactly you mean, but I've updated the caption to hopefully be clearer what the map represents. Is your suggestion to specify that this is a map of Mexico? grungaloo (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Cyanocorax dickeyi map.svg looks like someone had a file showing a map of Mexico and painted the species distribution on top of it. I'd like to know which "file showing a map of Mexico" it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is based off of this File:Mexico template.svg but I've pinged the author of the range map to confirm. grungaloo (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, that's the base map that was used. grungaloo (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

As Grungaloo is a first-time nominator this will require a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. I'll list it a the top of WT:FAC but if any extant reviewers would like to have a go, pls feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 5 Doesn't have the distance to Costa Rica.
    • Dropped the distance to Costa Rica
  • 7 That seems to argue that this theory is not widely held.
    • First sentence under "Past Theories", "The first theory to explain the painted jay's presence in western Mexico was proposed by Moore (1935). He, and others who followed him (Amadon 1944, Crossin 1967, Hardy 1969, Haffer 1975), assumed that the painted jay was a relict species because of its tiny range." He then only mentions one alternate theory (the storm theory), and then his. Overall that's 5 of 7 who support the relict theory.
  • 8 OK
  • 12 Can I have a copy of this article?
  • 16 Can I have a copy of this page?
    • Ref 16 - I had the wrong page number so this is page 277. The first section is where I've pulled from.
  • 17 Can I have a copy of this page?
    • Ref 17
      • Hmm, does it specify "second year moult" anywhere? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The Formative Plumage ('immature' in Detailed Description) is retained until the prebasic molt in the second calendar year (Crossin 1967)." Second line under "Molts". I've reworded slightly to be "molt in their second year" since I think calling it a "second year molt" isn't technically correct, or at least implies there were previous molts.
  • 18 OK; thesis seems to be adequately cited.
  • 20 Can I have a copy of this page?
    • Ref 20
      • The social parts might require some rewrite; as they stand their formulation are uncomfortably similar to the source. Also, 13-18 months? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've tried a rewrite, let me know your thoughts. The 13-18 months was missing a ref - I've added it, ref 36 covers that claim.
  • 23 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 24 Where's "whisper"?
    • Last sentence of page 35, "These 'whisper' duets were usually accompanied by 'billing'"
  • 26 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 30 Can't find blackberries and nuts.
  • 31 OK
  • 33 I presume the cache thing is in the other source?
    • Yes - ref 20.
  • 36 OK
  • 39 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 41 OKish interpretation.
    • Any specific issues I should fix?
      • Calling them "altricial" might be too much interpretation, but it's not that bad. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 42 OK
  • 43 OK
  • 45 Can I have a copy of this page?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spot check! grungaloo (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, should all be addressed. grungaloo (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 April 2024 [24].

1878 FA Cup final[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought for once I would nominate an article which isn't about Gillingham F.C. I mean, sure, it's still football, but at least it's different football :-) For this one I take you back to the very early days of the sport, when well-to-do gentlemen who had been to the finest schools in the land were the top stars of the game. Oh, and one thing you can definitely say about this particular match is that the referee was a Bastard ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • including the first FA Cup final, in 1872, -- I think the comma after final should be removed
  • Wanderers, who were considered firm -- The Wanderers. I noticed that for the Engineers you precede it with the article "the" whereas you don't in instances for the Wanderers. Perhaps that should be consistent throughout. (unless there's a rationale I am not aware of in British usage, then the rest of the similar comments below can be ignored)
  • In the 1877–78 season, Wanderers were the -- same above the Wanderers
  • No other club had yet won the competition more than once -- does this statistic still hold? If so, perhaps worth adding to date or something along those lines.
    • TBF, it already says "no other club had yet won the competition more than once", which means the same as "to date". And no, this certainly isn't still true, 23 clubs have won the competition more than once as of 2024, with the record being 14 wins -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not until 1882 would a working-class team would a working-class team reach the FA Cup final -- It was not until 1882 that a working class team reached
  • Wanderers were allocated a home -- same as second point
  • Wanderers were considered strong favourites -- same
  • Two weeks later, Wanderers won -- same
  • In the quarter-finals Wanderers -- in the quarter finals, the Wanderers
  • In the quarter-finals their opponents -- comma after quarter-finals
  • Hon. Arthur Kinnaird for Wanderers -- the Wanderers
  • played in goal for Wanderers -- same
  • Wanderers, who were considered the firm favourites
  • went on to play the remainder -- play for the remainder
  • had he left the game, Wanderers would have -- the Wanderers
  • Charles Wollaston took a shot for Wanderers -- for the Wanderers
  • Shortly after the interval Hedley appeared to have -- comma after interval
  • Heron of Wanderers for his performance -- of the Wanderers
  • On that occasion the club was presented -- comma after occasion
  • the Cup final, Wanderers played the winners -- the Wanderers
  • poor conditions, Wanderers were defeated -- same
  • Neither Wanderers or Royal Engineers -- since you have mostly referred to the team as Engineers throughout, perhaps it should be applied in this section too.
  • That's all from me. Quite a nice change in your usual Gillingham series, and very interesting read. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pseud 14: -thanks for your review! All done other than where noted. Sources are inconsistent in use of "Wanderers" vs "the Wanderers", but I have added "the" anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good and great work. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • 'a "scrimmage" (a contemporary term for a group of players all struggling to gain possession of the ball)': suggest making this 'a "scrimmage" (a contemporary term for a group of players all struggling to gain possession of the ball, now known as a "goalmouth scramble")' which would allow you to use "goalmouth scramble" for the second instance of "scrimmage".
  • Why are the times of two of the goals marked as "disputed" in the "Details" subsection? The body text doesn't say there's a dispute about Morris's goal's timing, and doesn't give the time of Kinnaird's second.
  • "The club's committee, however, returned the Cup to the FA": suggest "Wanderers' committee -- we haven't said the name of the team yet in the "Post-match" section so this would be kinder to the reader.
  • "after which the focus was instead placed on teams open to all ranks representing individual battalions within the corps, which took part in the FA Amateur Cup and army-specific competitions": what does "which took part" refer to? The teams open to all ranks? I think so but I think this could be more clearly phrased.

That's all I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - thanks for your review, all addressed I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by ZooBlazer[edit]

For the most part everything looks good. Just one small suggestion for the second image. -- ZooBlazer 23:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - might not be immediately clear from the out-of-sequence back-and-forth above but this has been done and ZB passed the IR -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene[edit]

  • "went on to defeat Pilgrims 6–0 and Druids 8–0" ==> maybe indicate these were the second and third rounds respectively
  • "The Sheffield and ... dribbling was "excellent"" ==> it seems more logical to me to put this sentence after the following one
  • "the Wanderers were defeated 3–1" ==> this result is included in the Football World Championship article, maybe you can link it?
  • Nice to see another FA Cup final article at FAC. Great work! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Eem dik doun in toene: - done the first two. I'm reluctant to link to Football World Championship as there was absolutely no suggestion in 1878 that the match was for any sort of championship, let alone the championship of the world. It was simply a friendly between two teams who by coincidence were the cup-holders of their respective countries. I feel that linking to that article would give readers the false impression that the match was arranged or promoted as being for a championship..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS[edit]

  • "third goal after the interval" → Perhaps a link to Half-time on "interval", just for the non-familiar
  • "In the second round they were paired with High Wycombe" → is there a reason not to link High Wycombe F.C.?
  • "on to defeat Pilgrims 6–0 and" → same here with Pilgrims F.C.
  • "won the pre-match coin toss" → perhaps link Coin flipping here?
  • I normally see {{goal}} used like this for a goalscorer with multiple goals, like with Kenrick: {{goal|5||65}} to give 5', 65'

That's all I spotted, other than how much of a nightmare those jerseys must have been for the referee to tell apart. Nice work as usual! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: - thanks for your review. All done! The only reason I hadn't linked those two clubs is that I didn't realise/never thought to check that they had articles :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, happy to support! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request. I am going to assume, once more, that these English local newspapers are reliable. Is SportsBook the same as SportsBooks Limited? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Link added, I simply didn't realise (and didn't think to check) that the company had an article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Jo-Jo, is this a pass? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some light spotchecking, and wonder if #36 is a bit WP:SYNTH - it refers to the practice of substitutes in general, not about what would have happened in a specific game of 1878. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The source is there to support the fact that the concept of substitutes was still more than 80 years away from being introduced to the sport at the time. Is it SYNTH to say that, given that the concept of subs did not exist in 1878, the team could not have brought on a sub if the player had left the game? Happy to rework that sentence but I feel like if the bit about there being no subs was removed completely, readers might think "why didn't they just bring on a sub...."...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the part "had he left the game, his team would have been required to continue with fewer players" - not being familiar with football rules, is there no third option beyond that and substitutes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't. For around a hundred years until the introduction of subs in the 1960s, if a player was injured and unable to continue, the team had to simply play on without them i.e. with a reduced number of players -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about if I reword it to something like "had he left the game, his team would not have been able to replace him as the concept of substitutes did not yet exist".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - change made :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord query[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - not 100% sure if the above constitutes a source review pass. Can I nominate another article......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we normally like to see a nomination up for three weeks before allowing a second. For you we could be flexible Chris, but let's just nail down what Jo-Jo thinks first. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it'll be three weeks as of tomorrow ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More than six hours early :-) , but go for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - apologies for being over-keen :-) When I posed the initial question I hadn't checked and honestly thought it had been a bit longer than three weeks...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No harm in pushing your luck. I always used to. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 April 2024 [26].

The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes[edit]

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" and -- ZooBlazer 09:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes, a video game released in October 2021, and the third game in The Dark Pictures Anthology. It's set in 2003 during the Iraq War and involves four members of the US Armed Forces having to work together with a member of the Iraqi Republican Guard in order to survive a monstrous threat that doesn't care about nationalities. Your Power did an amazing job expanding the article in early 2022. I joined in around mid-2023 and we added the finishing touches to get the article promoted to GA in July. After a break, we recently rejoined forces in order to get the article ready for this FAC nomination. This is my first time nominating at FAC, so I look forward to any feedback. -- ZooBlazer 09:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ready for the comments too :) a departure from my usual music-focused FAC stuff; hope you all enjoy the read! ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 10:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Night Watch[edit]

Saving a spot, will have some comments up soon. The Night Watch (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments still forthcoming within the next few days, sorry I'm a bit behind on things. The Night Watch (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response coming tomorrow or Friday, so sorry for the delay. The Night Watch (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks like it will take some time for me to review, but I don't want to keep you waiting any longer so here is what I found on a first look.
  • In the first paragraph of the lead, two sentences in a row start with the term "the game" which is repetitive. Mind changing up the sentences some?
  • "Players must make several choices that can have long-term consequences on the narrative's progression"
  • What are personality traits, and how are they relevant to the game? I see them mentioned in Gamplay, but what is their importance?
  • "The developers incorporated a wider variety of narrative branches into House of Ashes' story after player feedback from the previous games." How is this relevant to the Gameplay? It seems more pertinent to the development section.
  • "The multiplayer concept was inspired by live streamers' collaborative manner of playing Until Dawn (2015), another game by Supermassive, which prompted the developers to incorporate such a feature in their following releases." Same as above.
  • "Rounding out the ensemble cast's four-American tally" This wording seems a bit too informal, could this be changed somehow?
  • "With this, he can make Jason empathize with Iraqis, especially Salim's reasons for joining the war, and overcome his prejudices." crossed-out portion seems a little too detailed.
  • "but his commanding officer, Dar Basri…" I think a comma goes after Dar Basri though I am not certain.
  • Who is Clarice? She is mentioned in the image in gameplay as an ally, but what is her importance to the plot?
  • Changed the wording. She's just one of the side characters who gets infected and the image shows the one choice you have regarding her. -- ZooBlazer
  • "after which they are promptly assaulted by vampires"
The Night Watch (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now for Round 2.
  • "The game's multiplayer concept was inspired by live streamers' collaborative manner of playing Until Dawn (2015), another game by Supermassive, which prompted the developers to incorporate a similar feature in their following releases." Not sure if concept is needed there.
  • "Doyle described..." needs introduction to who Will Doyle is as the director of the game.
  • "Like the other instalments, House of Ashes was designed to be a standalone story, but Supermassive Games included easter eggs and callbacks to previous and future instalments to create a shared universe within the anthology." Replace the second instalments with "entries"
  • "Sara Rechena from the Portuguese edition of IGN said the choice was reminiscent of the anthology TV series American Horror Story." How is it reminiscent? I think some more context may be needed here for this point.
  • "David Hirst oversaw the art team's research into Mesopotamian architecture, dress, and headgear for use in the game, "filling in the gaps where necessary" in order to create a memorable, but still realistic look."
  • "The soundtrack was composed by Supermassive Games's long-time collaborator Jason Graves, who previously worked with them on music for other games in The Dark Pictures Anthology." How about "The soundtrack was composed by Supermassive Games's long-time collaborator Jason Graves, who previously worked on music for other games in The Dark Pictures Anthology."
  • "Before the series' inception, he composed music for Until Dawn." Is that pertinent enough to mention?
  • "The monsters' designs were created to be faceless so they would appear incomprehensible and unempathetic, and inhumane enough to "bring out the humanity" in the protagonists" How about "The monsters were designed to be faceless so they would appear incomprehensible and unempathetic, and inhumane enough to "bring out the humanity" in the protagonists"
Great, more forthcoming tomorrow. The Night Watch (talk) 01:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've swept most of the article and it looks quite good. Reception may take some time though, so I will see what I can do. The Night Watch (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very busy right now off-wiki, so I don't think I will be able to give a timely response on Reception. I will support based on the prose of the rest of the article though. The Knight Watch (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by David Fuchs[edit]

In progress, look for review by the end of the week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC) The article is a good start, but I'm going to oppose at present with regards to coverage, prose, and sourcing.[reply]

  • Lead:
    • "Continuing the series' premise, the game features a cast of five playable protagonists and a multilinear narrative influenced by player choices." I don't know if "premise" really is the right word here, given that the narrative is entirely separate; I'd say it's probably more fair to say it continues the same formula. Either way, I don't think it's doing a lot here, especially if you don't know the other games, so I'd cut that introductory phrase and just start with "the game features..."
    • "Its decision-making scenes" Any reason not to just say "decisions"?
    • "House of Ashes is inspired primarily by the novella At the Mountains of Madness (1936) and the films Predator (1987) and The Descent (2005). " For the purposes of the lead, I'd remove these dates, same with the ones in the earlier Anthology explanation. It's just wordy and we don't need that context here.
    • "marking the third time Supermassive Games cast a high-profile actor to portray a character for the series." At first blush I quibble with the descriptor "high-profile actor" here, because Ashley Tisdale isn't Tom Cruise or similar. It also doesn't seem to appear in the body.
    • The structure of the lead is a bit odd to me. It starts with basic information about the game, then talks about the structure of the game and its plot, then has further elaboration, but then jumps back to the game mechanics. I'm not sure this is the clearest way of introducing this versus something more linear of explaining the premise and then the mechanics of gameplay or vice versa. There's also very little about the actual development aside from oblique references to the new features and the composer.
  • Gameplay:
    • "Developed on Unreal Engine 4 by Supermassive Games," it seems really weird to me (and undue weight to highlight the game engine here, and for the purposes of explaining the gameplay it's irrelevant (as is repeating the developer here.)
    • "A core element of the gameplay involves the management of relationships between the characters, and their allies and enemies" The allies and enemies here are talking about the characters' interpersonal relationships, right? So then it's extraneous with the details before (otherwise it sounds like you're managing the relationships of the characters and the bat monsters you mentioned previously.)
    • "The camera is no longer fully fixed and has been replaced with a controllable, 360-degree one" without linking away, this is potentially hard for a casual reader to grok.
    • The details here feel like they drift from gameplay into development, such as the feedback leading to the camera system or "Because many scenes involve "spookier" and more spacious areas, Supermassive found it appropriate to give players total control over the camera, which would aid in exploration and allow players to appreciate the cavernous locations."
    • In general, the comparisons to the other game should be minimized, and the gameplay section should focus on the game itself.
    • We briefly mention QTEs but don't explain more of them, and then three paragraphs later we introduce them again. This section's organization feels haphazard.
    • Reading the final paragraph I don't really understand how the game changes in its multiplayer modes.
  • Synopsis:
    • I would remove the citations to the plot. It's generally understood the game is the source for all the information that's not interpreted (WP:PLOTCITE)
    • I'm not entirely sold on the length of the synopsis section. It's 1000 words in total, and given that there's a lot of names to juggle, I think trying to pare this down would make it much easier to follow. In particular, while the existence of a prologue set thousands of years earlier seems relevant, the actual characters don't (they only get name checked a single time in the subsequent section.) Details like a character's callsign (which is never mentioned again), specific types of soldiers, etc. bog down the description.
    • As a minor note, do the sources call all five main characters protagonists? By definition the term usually implies a singularly-focused character.
  • Development:
    • I would separate out the release info, since it's about marketing and promotion, rather than development.
    • "Its screenplay was written by Khurrum Rahman" - Do sources actually call it a screenplay?
    • "Man of Medan and Little Hope received PS5/Xbox Series X/S upgrades in September 2022, which were free for those who already owned the games." Doesn't seem relevant to this game.
    • In general, I think there's an overuse of quotes throughout, but in particular this bit: "Doyle described House of Ashes as a creature feature and an exploration horror game about an ensemble cast of "trained experts", who are "beyond safety" and unable to get backup for a "critical" mission in a secluded location, where they encounter threats Doyle described as "horrible" and "inhumane"." It's a pain to read when you've essentially got scare quotes popping up every three words.
    • I think there's a general issue going along with this of tone, where the development feels congratulatory and less neutral-sounding than it should, especially deferring to the developer's framing of things.
    • "As observed by Kimberley Wallace from Game Informer, every game in the series follows this trend." The trend of promoting Tisdale and Rachel as the lead?
  • Reception:
    • This all feels like it could be tightened up further and better organized. I appreciate that it puts in effort to summarize a bunch of critic reviews, but I don't feel like I get a very good indication of what critics actually felt versus the general consensus because the reception meanders from considering individual points in isolation rather than talking about them more broadly. I don't know if the story was covered so much it deserves the subsection all about that aspect, or it's just less well-collated. Why does a single critic's opinion on the Iraq War aspect of the story get the better part of 200 words uninterrupted and essentially the last word on the game?
  • Sales:
    • As a point of organization, traditionally this information often goes along with release; especially since there's not a ton in this section I think it makes more sense to cover it there.
  • Sequel:
    • I'm not sure this should exist as a standalone section versus a single line; it feels more appropriate for the series page given that this is an anthology series and it doesn't connect to this game at all; the description of the premise likewise is irrelevant for this game.
  • Media and References:
    • VGChartz is an unreliable source; TheGamer is generally considered reliable for the time period, but it's in my opinion used way too much as a lower-quality Valnet source.
    • I have not done a ref spot-check yet to evaluate for source-integrity or attribution issues.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I'll hopefully have more free time this weekend to address things. Hopefully @Your Power will also find some free time soon too. -- ZooBlazer 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs Just a small update. I'm hoping to have everything addressed by Sunday or maybe Monday at the latest since I won't have much editing time on Saturday. -- ZooBlazer 04:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs I think I've made an attempt at addressing everything above. Still need to do edits to the reception, although I think the last part of your reception feedback has been addressed. I was hoping Your Power would have a chance to deal with the reception at some point since they wrote most of it, but they don't have much wiki time at the moment, so it's taking me a bit of time to get through everything. I've cut back on the Gamer refs where I could. The remaining refs I think are ones I couldn't find a better alternative for. -- ZooBlazer 07:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright @David Fuchs:, I've finished my attempt at cleaning up the reception, so I think officially everything has been addressed that you brought up. I hope I can make progress towards you eventually being willing to strike the oppose. Let me know if you still find things unsatisfactory. -- ZooBlazer 07:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will take another look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Round 2[edit]

In addition to the below comments, I performed line edits throughout—mostly reorganizing content where I thought it made more sense and trying to reduce wordiness in other spots, as well as shrinking the synopsis (it was only trimmed by roughly 50 words.) I'm not a British English native so while I tried to avoid any ENGVAR stuff, double-check.

  • Gameplay:
    • "Players take control of five characters, enlisted in the armed forces of their respective countries, who fall and become trapped in an underground Mesopotamian temple."—before and later we say Akkadian, so I would keep it consistent. I would also add something here about the monsters the characters face just because it seems odd to just mention "creatures" later on where it hasn't really be glossed in the body itself.
      Done -- ZooBlazer
    • "House of Ashes is the first game in the series to feature difficulty levels, such as "Forgiving", "Challenging" and "Lethal", "—should this really be 'such as' when the lead said there were only three? I also don't think the actual names are that important.
      Removed the names -- ZooBlazer
    • "He converses with players about the choices they have made and provides clues about what will happen next in the plot." Can the NPC really "converse" with players? Or is he just talking at them?
      Changed -- ZooBlazer
  • Synopsis:
    • "The five characters are separated during the fall. " This doesn't seem to particularly jive with the following paragraph which has them almost immediately reunite, and it's weird to mention them getting attacked and then essentially restate similar info in the next paragraph. (Also, you've got aliens, reanimated humans, and vampires, which I don't know if these are all referring to the same thing. Based on the setting section, doesn't seem like you should use aliens at all because they've all mutated into the vampires?)
      I ended up just removing that sentence. I alao removed all the alien mentions except when talking about them early on before they get infected. -- ZooBlazer
    • Clarice gets dropped in without any introduction.
      Fixed -- ZooBlazer
    • The explanatory plot note for the ending is ambiguous and shifts tenses. I presume it's saying the two characters are Rachel and Salim, but this isn't structured clearly. Also, Target LZ isn't mentioned before.
      Cleaned it up and just removed that last part about the LZ as it wasn't needed. -- ZooBlazer
  • Development:
    • The development could use a brief introduction to the Dark Pictures Anthology instead of just launching into the differences with the previous games compared to this one. I think the organization of the section is a bit haphazard, since this information is in the article but after everything else is talked about in the section. "Prelude" also doesn't really make sense as a subsection heading.
      I moved a part from the release section to development. Is that good or is further introduction info needed? Also removed prelude. -- ZooBlazer
  • References:
    • Source check incoming.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I think everything has been dealt with from round 2 (so far). -- ZooBlazer 19:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review is still in progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, is this still ongoing? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Gog the Mild I've struck my oppose but I don't think I'm going to continue the review and register a support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David. It was the "Source review is still in progress" I was querying. I'll post it at requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild My comments are sourcing are below. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs Just a heads up, a chunk of refs were removed as parts of the article were changed, leaving them unused. -- ZooBlazer 06:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checked current refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 15, 19, 24, 29, 32, 33, 38, 40, 50, 53, 61, 69, 73, 77, 80, and 85.

  • Ref 4 doesn't call the creatures vampires or vampiric.
  • Ref 19 doesn't adequately support the collectibles mention (just seems to cover the exploration.)
  • Otherwise didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or other verification issues.

My qualms with the number of TheGamer references remains. It's used less than it was, but it's still the single supporting source for a lot of information, and if it can't be replaced with a better one it implies that it's trivial enough that it probably shouldn't be mentioned (is the specific names for character traits, for instance, so important?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs I fixed the ref 4 and 19 issues. For #4, I swapped in a different ref from the article and for #19 I added a second one to support the original ref.
As for The Gamer, I removed four more. The remaining ones mostly support gameplay related things. -- ZooBlazer 19:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Just re-pinging because I got a server error soon after my message, so I wasn't sure if the ping went through or not. -- ZooBlazer 20:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm striking my oppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cukie Gherkin[edit]

Saving a spot. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I may be busier the next few days. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin Are you going to be able to finish leaving your comments? Or are you still too busy? -- ZooBlazer 17:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deepely sorry, I worry that I won't be able to give you an adequate review. I'm currently away from home since my dad is in the hospital. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope things get better for you and your family. -- ZooBlazer 22:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

  1. This may or may not be an issue, but unless the article was written with British MOS, "collectables" should be "collectibles" when said as a noun.
Fixed -- ZooBlazer

Spotcheck

  1. Washington Post
    "The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes is an interactive drama and survival horror game." - Is there a source that specifies it as a drama?
Added -- ZooBlazer
  1. "To further adjust difficulty, players can choose which buttons to press for specific types of QTE" I have a question about this: it says 'certain segments', is that to mean that there are different kinds of QTEs? Also, when it says "all QTEs," is it communicating that all QTEs can be customized, or that one can choose a button for their QTEs, and that choice reflects in all QTEs? Going off that, I was wondering if you can fully customize button choices, or if you pick a single button to serve as your QTE button. Another point I would make is to ask if it wouldn't be beneficial to mention that you can choose to hold instead of mash.
Changed the wording. I don't think you can pick the button, but it is the same button every time with those settings on. -- ZooBlazer
  1. When I click on "i" in the Washington Post citation, it brings me to this: "and the multiplayer modes.[i]" However, that seems like it's an error? This error also occurs with 'k'.
[i] is for the note. The WP ref is [1] which is the next sentence. -- ZooBlazer
  1. [27] I am not against The Gamer being used in FACs, but are there better sources you could use instead for the things it's cited for?
The Gamer is used for specific story details, so as far as I know, the only other option would be YouTube videos. -- ZooBlazer
  • Hi Cukie Gherkin, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I haven't been really able to contribute to this discussion due to life issues, and I'm not in a good state to determine article quality at the moment. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "outmatch the vampiric creatures that infest the area" - I may be wrong but I don't think "outmatch" is the word you are looking for here. According to the dictionary it means "to prove superior to" - are they really trying to prove themselves superior to the vampires? Do you maybe mean to say "outwit the vampiric creatures"?
    I changed it to survive because that probably makes the most sense. Outmatch was definitely wrong. -- ZooBlazer
  • That's all I got on the lead, I aim to look at the rest this evening -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

  • Image caption: "Rachel (right) contemplates on whether" => "Rachel (right) contemplates whether"
    Changed -- ZooBlazer
  • "the character's perceptions of each other" => "the characters' perceptions of each other"
    Changed -- ZooBlazer
  • What are the sources for the "setting and prologue" section?
    They were removed based on one of the comments above by David I would remove the citations to the plot. It's generally understood the game is the source for all the information that's not interpreted (WP:PLOTCITE) -- ZooBlazer
  • "The game's multiplayer was inspired" - is "multiplayer" a noun? Or is there a word ("mode"?) missing?
    Fixed -- ZooBlazer
  • "Executive producer Dan McDonald, in an interview with PCGamesN, said Supermassive" => "Executive producer Dan McDonald, in an interview with PCGamesN, said that Supermassive"
    Changed -- ZooBlazer
  • "McDonald said while the game" => "McDonald said that while the game"
    Changed -- ZooBlazer
  • "Two story trailers provided glimpses on the game's plot" => "Two story trailers provided glimpses of the game's plot"
    Changed -- ZooBlazer
  • "teaser trailer at the end of Little Hope" - clarify that this was an earlier game in the same series?
    Done -- ZooBlazer
  • "Critics deemed the camera work superior to previous instalments'." - there's no need for that apostrophe at the end
    Oops, removed -- ZooBlazer
  • "comprising partly of heartbeats and clicking noises" => "consisting partly of heartbeats and clicking noises"
    Changed -- ZooBlazer
  • "and avoided portraying Americans" => "and that it avoided portraying Americans"
    Changed -- ZooBlazer
  • There's a mix of British and American English - in consecutive sentences I see "while dehumanising Arabs" and "was appropriately humanized"
    Fixed -- ZooBlazer
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments! I think everything is cleaned up. -- ZooBlazer 18:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: the last point, if the decision is to go with US English then you also need to fix "They wrote that Salim, thrust into the conflict against his own will, was appropriately humanised" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: British English is what is supposed to be used. That's not what I normally use, so sometimes I forget when writing certain words. -- ZooBlazer 21:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. In that case any word which ends in "-ize" should be changed to end in "-ise" because that's how we spell them over here. I think there's only a couple to fix -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: I changed the last 3 that showed up with ctrl+F. -- ZooBlazer 08:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

A very well-written and well-researched article, which I found very interesting as a non-gamer. Since I am not a video game expert, my review focused on general prose, as there have been reviews before mine on comprehensiveness and coverage.

  • worth linking vampiric creatures to vampire if they are such
    Done -- ZooBlazer
  • To further adjust difficulty -- to further adjust the difficulty
    Done -- ZooBlazer
  • but the game does not say how choices will affect the trait. - perhaps we can use how each choices here
    Changed -- ZooBlazer
  • In the captions, anything in enclosure such as (pictured 2014), (pictured 2018), (pictured in 1934), and (masked pictured) should be in italics
    I think I got them all, but maybe one. For At the Mountains of Madness (1936) would I italicize the year there too even the title is already italicized? -- ZooBlazer
    @ZooBlazer: Good catch. I think since this is a title of a work (i.e. novel, film, tv series), the year can be dropped from the caption, as the release year of the work is mentioned in the prose.
    Alright, went ahead and removed it. -- ZooBlazer
  • I would also add (pictured 2016) for Graves' image caption
    Done -- ZooBlazer
  • For nouns ending in "s", your possessive forms are written without adding "s" after the apostrophe, but Supermassive Games's does, worth changing it for consistency.
    Fixed -- ZooBlazer
  • myths and folklore the team could incorporate into the story. -- that the team could incorporate
    Done -- ZooBlazer
  • motivations, relationships and dynamics -- missing serial comma, as I noticed you used in throughout the article.
    Oops, added -- ZooBlazer
  • compelling, sympathetic and complex -- same as above
    Added -- ZooBlazer
  • avoid bodily contact with the others -- does this refer to other voice actors? perhaps could be specified.
    Done -- ZooBlazer
  • film- and game-music -- may be a typo of an extra space between the dash and "and"
    I ended up just removing the dashes because I don't know if they were necessary. -- ZooBlazer
  • The Devil in Me released on 18 November 2022 -- The Devil in Me was released on 18 November 2022
    Done -- ZooBlazer
  • Jiang wrote the game remained -- Jiang wrote that the game
    Done -- ZooBlazer
  • with some critics opining it provided a balanced portrayal -- with some critic opining that it provided
    Done -- ZooBlazer
  • In the accolades table, the abbreviation should be written as Ref(s)
    Done -- ZooBlazer
  • That's all I got, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, especially the plot of the game. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pseud 14: I'm glad you were able to enjoy the article even as a non-gamer. I've gone through and changed everything, but just have one question that I mentioned above in terms of italicizing things enclosure for the images. -- ZooBlazer 17:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good. I've provided my response to your question above. Overall very minor and won't hinder me from supporting. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerbyki[edit]

Support for featured article. Thoroughly sourced with a great attention to detail. I can see that it is a bit lengthy for a stand-alone article, but people who are interested in the subject will probably enjoy that. Kerbyki (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:H._P._Lovecraft,_June_1934.jpg: where was this first published?
    The info about it in the source link just says "1934, June – One of the Lucius B. Truesdell portraits, taken in De Land, Florida"
    So do we have any evidence the tagging is accurate? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The site seems pretty reliable, so I would guess it is accurate.
    But the site doesn't confirm the tag - the site says the image was taken in 1934, but the tagging relies on publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I swapped out the image for the cover of the novel's first publication.
    @Nikkimaria: Is the new image okay?
    Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ashley_Tisdale_for_Allure_in_2018.png: I don't see a CC license at the given source link?Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a CC license for YouTube on the image which links to YouTube's CC section. Or is there something else missing?
    There is a CC license on the image, but if you open the actual YouTube link, I don't see that this particular video is tagged as CC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where would that be located on videos? I've never noticed I guess. I can look to try to find a new image if I can find a video with the license. I just thought the license covered YouTube in general.
    The default YouTube upload license is not CC - CC has to be actively selected by the uploader. For example, if you look at this video, you see "License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria I found the video on the Vogue Taiwan channel, and this version of the video has a CC license. Should I just change the link on commons?
    Yep, that would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Done.
  • @Nikkimaria: I've responded to your comments. -- ZooBlazer 02:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: More responses. -- ZooBlazer 03:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria I'll work on trying to find a suitable replacement for the Ashley Tisdale image over the next day or two and ping you once it's either replaced or if I can't find a good replacement. -- ZooBlazer 04:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has this been done? If so, has Nikkimaria been pinged? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Yeah, that was resolved just above using a video from the Vogue Taiwan YouTube channel and changing the link to that on Commons. It was their same video but it had a CC license this time. Nikkimaria approved the change. -- ZooBlazer 15:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request and reviewing this version. I note that David Fuchs has already reviewed some sources. I'll note that I'll be relying on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources so any limitations that list has will also apply to my review. I believe "The Gamer" by Valnet is actually "TheGamer", and it seems to be an unreliable source - are the authors of these articles somehow prominent? Likewise for VideoGamer.com. Bandai Namco sometimes is in allcaps and sometimes it isn't. Who is Graham Banas? It seems like the source formatting is mostly consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • From David's review, I mentioned that the only remaining refs from TheGamer cover gameplay specific details which don't tend to have a better source to replace them with. Changed them to TheGamer as well.
  • Removed VideoGamer.com
  • Fixed the all caps Bandai Namco
  • Graham Banas is the writer for Push Square who interviewed the game's composer.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the review! I've addressed and/or responded to everything I think. -- ZooBlazer 16:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Is there anything else that I need to address? -- ZooBlazer 07:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so, but take note of the caveats I mentioned above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for that. As a first-time nomination this could do with a source to text fidelity check and similar for possible plagiarism. Would you be able to oblige? Note that some spot checks took place further up this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go:

  • 14 I don't think this says explicitly that the Ancient One is a consequence of player choices in the prologue. Or that Rachel's rescue from the cocoon depends on American characters.
    Changed the wording and source for the first part, and removed American for the second part.
  • 17 Where does it say cutscene?
    Changed to to discussions which is closer to what is said in [16] - briefly yanks the player out of the narrative to discuss the choices made
  • 24 OK
  • 26 OK
  • 27 OK
  • 35 OK
  • 41 I don't see a list of works that it took inspiration from.
    I think during some of the recent FAC changes to the article refs were accidentally removed for the inspirations, but I re-added them.
  • 42 OK
  • 44 OK
  • 48 OK
  • 53 OK
  • 56 So it was released on the day after this source?
    Game reviews are usually posted before the release date.
  • 58 OK
  • 59 Don't see "demo" mentioned anywhere.
    Changed it to "preview", but willing to change it again if you have a suggestion of what to do.
  • 62 Don't see where it says that it was revealed in House of Ashes
    That part of the sentence is covered by [63] - A video that plays at the end of the recently launched The Dark Pictures: House of Ashes has revealed The Devil in Me
  • 65 OK
  • 71 OK
  • 74 OK
  • 77 Can I have a copy of this article?
    Here is the page

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus I've responded to everything above. You left [81] blank, so I'm not sure if it was fine or had an issue. -- ZooBlazer 17:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mended the 81 thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going to run another spotcheck on this version:

  1. 3 Not sure that I'd interpret "if you're the type of person to roll your eyes at QTE segments in games you might not find this to your liking" as praise for the QTE. Where does it say "and superior to performances from the previous games in the anthology" and "likability"?
  • Removed it from the QTE part
    For the second point, I swapped "superior" with "improved" since the source says It's a great showcase in how the dialogue, performances and overall presentation of the Dark Pictures Anthology is only getting better with each subsequent instalment - House of Ashes is perhaps one of the strongest entries yet
    Ended up removing the whole sentence regarding the likeability part.
  1. 5 Doesn't mention "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" anywhere.
  • Removed
  1. 15 OK
  2. 16 OK
  3. 21 OK
  4. 25 Not sure what this adds.
  • Removed
  1. 30 OK
  2. 33 Can we cite the release date to a contemporaneous source?
  • Added
  1. 46 OK
  2. 48 N/A
  3. 49 Does it refer to House of Ashes anywhere?
  • Removed
  1. 52 OK
  2. 53 OK
  3. 56 It says 29 not 30 October
  • That's the day the article was published. Towards the top it says RELEASE October 30, 2020
  1. 72 OK I think.
  2. 77 Don't see the racism bit?
  • Removed. I think something got lost when the section was slightly overhauled a couple weeks ago.
  1. 78 Can I have a copy of this?
  • I think that's formerly ref 77 which I provided the page in your initial review above. Just in case though, here are the pages for [80] which is the only other ref that's from a printed magazine Page 1 and Page 2 -- ZooBlazer
    Seems like, but I am not seeing the formulaic and multi-mode things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed it from the multi mode part, but reworded the other part by changing it to supporting systems of the series becoming outdated because they're "creaking with age".
  1. 81 The source says "Whether that’s due to shitty budgets for mo-cap or her performance, I leave to the fates to decide"
  • Decided to include the full quote.
  1. 83 OK, annoying popup aside.
  2. 84 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for further spotchecks. I'll address everything tomorrow morning. -- ZooBlazer 08:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has been addressed Jo-Jo Eumerus. -- ZooBlazer 17:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Non-expert review; I've played a few video games but am not a gamer.

  • "A game with a multilinear plot, decisions can significantly alter the trajectory of the story and change the relationships between the five playable protagonists; some lead to their permanent deaths." Needs rephrasing; when you start a sentence with an adjectival phrase it appears to apply to the subject of the next clause -- i.e. "decisions", rather than "the game". How about "The game has a multilinear plot in which decisions can significantly alter the trajectory of the story and change the relationships between the five playable protagonists; some lead to their permanent deaths"?
  • "Jason Graves, a long-time collaborator with Supermassive for the series, returned to compose the soundtrack, which he did during COVID-19 lockdowns in the United Kingdom." Having said he's a long-time collaborator I think "returned" is redundant; maybe just "Jason Graves, a long-time collaborator with Supermassive for the series, composed the soundtrack during COVID-19 lockdowns in the United Kingdom".
    • Done all three
  • "To further adjust the difficulty, players can hold rather than mash buttons": can we use "press" instead of "mash"? Or does "mash" have some meaning to gamers I'm not aware of? And in what way does this change the difficulty -- if you hold the button down when responding to a QTE does that make the event harder? The source doesn't appear to say.
    • the relevant quotations are "players have their pick of three difficulty levels: Forgiving, Challenging and Lethal ... players can tailor how these QTEs play out as well. Instead of button-mashing during certain segments, you can opt to hold down the button instead" . "Pressing" a QTE means you press the button only once and something happens. "Holding" it means you have to press and let your finger stay at the button; "mashing" means you have to repeatedly press in quick succession, which explains the added challenge
  • "and they can customise the speed at which the prompts appear." I don't understand this, and I couldn't find the bit in the source that supports it. A prompt's appearance seems like something that is instantaneous no matter how you do it, unless you mean they fade in slowly? This appears to be referring to a QTE prompt that you must now press some button -- is the intended meaning that they may appear more frequently? Or that the player gets more time to respond before the negative effects occur?
  • "The game displays a notice whenever players are about to perform a QTE": shouldn't this be "when a QTE occurs"? The game can't know when a player is about to do something; it can only know when the situation occurs in which they are expected to do something.
  • "Another type is moving a reticle onto a target to shoot it." The previous sentence says QTEs involve certain actions; this sentence says it *is* the action. I think it would read more naturally to retain the parallel syntax: "Another type requires moving ..."
  • "that have consequences on the narrative's progression": I don't think you can have consequences on something: you can have consequences for something, or effects on something. Here "effects on" or "that impact" would probably be the most natural.
    • Done all the above four
  • "Their decisions can influence the characters' assigned personality traits, which will sometimes lead to the characters acting in a different way when they are not under player control, but the game does not say how each choice will affect the trait." The source for this is "Each character has different personality traits, such as "Abrasive" or "Commanding," that you can accentuate with your decisions. These traits will sometimes result in characters acting in a specific way when you're not controlling them, but the game never tells you how your choices might affect each trait, so displaying all of this information feels unnecessary when your control over them is a complete crapshoot." It wasn't until I read the source that I realized we were only talking about how an NPC's character and reactions are affected by the player's interactions with them; I read "when you're not controlling them" as saying the changes in their character might persist into the next time that character was selected as the player character. And just checking: the player only plays one of the characters, right? We have "Players take control of five protagonists" but then "the player character", so I assume four of them are NPCs throughout?
    • no, you play every one of the five characters throughout the game. you just play only one person at a time.
      So at any given moment the player is directly controlling the actions of one player, and the others are being handled as NPCs? Does the player choose when they change which character they are controlling, or does the game force the changes on them? Is this a common approach for multi-character games? It's not something I've seen in my limited gaming experience, and I am wondering whether an experienced gamer would immediately understand that this is the way the game works from "Players take control of five protagonists". Or am I missing something elsewhere in the article that makes this clearer? Looking at some of the review sources this isn't explicitly stated, so I suspect it's something a gamer would just know. This source introduces the game by saying "It’s another third-person game where you can assume control of any of five different characters in the game." I would have read this as saying you get to pick one, and the others are NPCs for the duration of the game. At the end of the gameplay section, could we add a sentence that says something like "In single-player mode, each of the five protagonists is under the player's control at different times during the game", or whatever would be accurate if that isn't? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      to be honest, i do not think mentioning this distinction is relevant at all to fully grok'ing how the game works, but allow me to clarify just in case. House of Ashes decides on what character the player will control at a given moment; as far as I know this is the case with many other non-open world games with multiple PCs, like The Last of Us Part II. contrast with GTA V which is open-world and does allow you to switch between PCs. - E
      Struck -- the article now says that player control switches between the five protagonists, which is what I felt wasn't clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't understand till I looked at one of the sources that the only actions possible in the game outside QTEs are choices e.g. about direction to go in the environment; the player can't be in any danger outside a QTE. I think that should be clearer.
    • Um, you should probably indicate how to make it clearer
      That wasn't the answer I expected -- again, am I missing something a regular gamer would understand? If a game has QTEs is it always the case that all the action is in QTEs? I will see if I can find the source that mentioned this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Here is a review that makes the point: "If you’ve played any of Supermassive Games’ interactive horror stories, then you’re aware that it’s gameplay is primarily made up of quick time events, where the player is prompted to press different buttons, and must do so within a small window of time in order to successfully execute an action. This is the case in House of Ashes as well, and I found myself a bit disappointed that there’s little innovation done to the system." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      i think it should be clearer now. "the first game in the series to feature difficulty levels, which affect the game's quick time events (QTEs), another core gameplay feature", which I do admit is a bit clunky - E.
      That certainly helps. Would the sources support changing "Several scenes, including combat-heavy ones, make use of QTEs that can lead to penalties like a protagonist's death if an input is not precisely timed" to "All the combat scenes make use of QTEs, and in several scenes, including combat-heavy ones, these can lead to penalties like a protagonist's death if an input is not precisely timed"? Perhaps using the source I quote above? That would address my original point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least I'd drop the "all".
    I'm not sure if the source posted above would help support the wording, unless I missed it. I feel like this ref (Like its predecessors, House Of Ashes is essentially an interactive drama, with gameplay coming down to making key decisions that can ripple through the game, and quick-time events that test reflexes, where success or failure can have similarly long-lasting ramifications) is alluding to the same idea without saying it though. -- ZooBlazer 16:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck this. I can't find the source wording that made me think this was an important point to make. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To track the narrative branches in one playthrough, the game's menu has a butterfly effect system called "bearings", which lists all consequential courses of action associated with each branch and their eventual outcomes": I read this as meaning the player could see at the time of a choice what the consequences of that choice would be, but as far as I can tell it only looks backward at how the player got to a given point, given their past choices. I'm also not sure it's a good idea to use "butterfly effect" as an adjective: I assumed this was some sort of game mechanic that appeared in multiple games. I think it could just be dropped -- the source uses the term figuratively but it doesn't explain anything by itself.
    • Hopefully the simpler verbiage removes the ambiguity
      I still think a reader unfamiliar with the game would take it to mean that bearings allow you to foresee the consequences of a current action, rather than understanding the past actions that caused a current situation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      how do we feel about "lists all retrospective choices and consequences" ? - E
      "Retrospective" is the word I was looking for. Could we do "To track the narrative branches in one playthrough, the game's menu has a system called "bearings", which allows the player to retrospectively view the actions they took that led to the current state of the game"? I still don't think "butterfly effect" tells the reader much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done -- ZooBlazer

That's all I have time for right now; possibly more later or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have responded to all the tentative comments. thank you for your input. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 23:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • 'The eponymous "pictures" mechanic from previous games in the series returns.' I don't think "eponymous" adds anything.
    Removed
  • Suggest linking cutscene.
    Done
  • "In line with earlier games in the series, 50 "secrets"—items that are scattered throughout House of Ashes—provide background information and context to events that happened in the temple and preceded the main plot. Secrets include journal entries that, when picked up, activate a cutscene where the author's voice recounts a 1940s archaeology mission that occurred in the temple." What does thegamer.com source support here? As far as I can see it just mentions secrets and doesn't add anything not supported by the other source. If it's just the word "secrets" I don't think it's worth it; there's nothing in the WP article that indicates that indicates that "secrets" are a category of event. The WP article only mentions journal entries; are there other "secrets"? I also don't see anything that supports "50". And the second sentence reads as though there is a single cutscene; I gather from the WP source that each journal entry triggers its own cutscene, always about the 1940s archaeological expedition, but that's not clear from the article.
    replaced the TheGamer source; changed to "each trigger its own" - E.
  • "the creatures and the Ancient One who succumbed to the parasite inside the temple": are you using "creature", and later "monster", as synonyms for "vampire"? If so, I'd make this "the creatures, among whom is the Ancient One, a character from the prologue who became infected by the parasite". The current wording makes it sound as though there were two Ancient Ones in the prologue, one of whom succumbed to the parasite.
    Done
  • "whether to abandon her or continue forward to medicate her illness": suggest "whether to abandon her or stay with her and attempt to [or "in the hope of"] medicating her illness".
    Done
  • FN 79 should have "pp.". I'd have fixed this myself but it's in some format VE doesn't like.
    Done
  • "incorporating additional features such as the QTE difficulty levels based on fan feedback. Apart from this, because the game featured "spookier" and more spacious areas, the camera is now a controllable, 360-degree one, allowing players to look all around their character to aid in exploration, as opposed to being fully fixed as in previous entries." This doesn't seem to be quite supported by the source, which says the camera was made controllable because of fan feedback, not because of the spookier and more spacious areas -- the ability to see those better is cited as a benefit, not the reason. And the source explicitly lists only the two changes -- camera and QTE difficulty -- whereas the article text implies there are other changes. What does "Apart from this" mean here?
    • "apart from this" was intended to be a transition phrase, but it's clunky in hindsight so i did away with that. and the "more spacious" areas do have something to do with the choice - they opted for a 360-degree camera to further immerse players in the space. added a source to indicate this. - E.
  • The Astounding cover, which you show as being in the public domain, is still in copyright -- see here for the renewal. If you want to keep it you'll need a FUR.
    Added, hopefully correctly/the correct FUR.
    I don't think that will do it -- per WP:FUR we have to show that the image is necessary for the reader's understanding: "why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media". I can't see what there is about this cover that is necessary to an understanding of this video game. Sorry, should have taken a few seconds longer to look at this when I pointed out it was still under copyright, but I think it would be best to remove the image. Pinging Nikki, who did the image review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed image. Chompy Ace 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I addressed all but two things. I'll try to look into those further later today unless Your Power wants to take a crack at them first. -- ZooBlazer 17:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks[edit]

I decided to do some spotchecks based on seeing a couple of slight misreadings of the sources above:

  • "David Hirst oversaw the art team's research into Mesopotamian architecture, dress, and headgear for use in the game. The temple featured in House of Ashes was based on real-life complexes from the Akkadian time period, aged to fit the game's 2003 setting by filling pathways with sand and breaking down the pillars and ceilings." The source has an article signed by "David Hirst, Art Director", which suffices for the first few words, and has "... we extensively studied ancient Mesopotamian architecture, dress, and headgear, filling in the gaps where necessary to create a realistic yet memorable look. Once the temple had been built, we had to age it appropriately for the modern-day sections of the game: shattering pillars, bringing down ceilings, and drowning corridors in sand". I see several problems here:
    • "Mesopotamian architecture, dress, and headgear" is straight from the source.
      • I don't think that would be an issue; alphabetic listings are not copyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        After thinking about it I agree and have struck it, though I think retaining short sequences like this makes it harder to avoid close paraphrasing issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing to support "real-life complexes" (presumably temple complexes): Hirst doesn't say they looked at any specific real examples -- for all we know they read a few textbooks and cherry-picked architectural components they wanted to use.
    • "aged to fit the game's 2003 setting" -- unless I'm misunderstanding the source, it says this was only done for the modern parts of the game; some of the game shows the original unaged form of the temple. I think this might be what is meant by the wording in the article but it could be clearer.
    • "filling pathways with sand and breaking down the pillars and ceilings" is too close to "shattering pillars, bringing down ceilings, and drowning corridors in sand". See the example section in WP:CLOP; this is clearly a case where you've started with the given sentence and tried to rephrase it, which is not enough.
      • I am minded to disagree here - that's not a rephrase of a sentence, it's a complete recast. Compare (sorry Sandy) Once the temple had been built, we had to age it appropriately for the modern-day sections of the game: shattering pillars, bringing down ceilings, and drowning corridors in sand. (source) with The temple featured in House of Ashes was based on real-life complexes from the Akkadian time period, aged to fit the game's 2003 setting by filling pathways with sand and breaking down the pillars and ceilings (article), it's not that similar other than using the same terminology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The whole sentence is not as closely paraphrased as the example in WP:CLOP, I agree, but for the part of the sentence I quoted I think it's too close. I think this is one of those cases where in an attempt to sufficiently change the content the meaning has been slightly changed, meaning you could consider it inaccurate instead. "Pathways" and "corridors" are not the same thing, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did my best to rewrite this offending sentence and remove the close paraphrasing - E.
    The rewrite is better, but it still mentions temple complexes, which is not in the source, and I think in the attempt to distance the language from the original the vocabulary is getting strained. How about "... was inspired by the look of ancient Mesopotamian architecture. Once the temple was created, the team aged it for the scenes set in 2003, collapsing ceilings and pillars and drifting sand into corridors"? I'm aware that this brings it back closer to the source phrasing, but I think the other changes you made (e.g. eliminating "architecture, dress, and headgear") do enough, and I think "decrepit" and "support structures" are strained, and "all over the place" is not encyclopedic in tone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed it to your suggested wording. -- ZooBlazer
    Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Supermassive Games included easter eggs and callbacks to previous and future entries to create a shared universe within the anthology" is cited to "Each story is therefore a story in its own right. It’s not essential to have played the earlier games to understand and appreciate the later ones. Having said that, they are all set in the same universe, as evidenced by Easter eggs that can be found in each game that reference both earlier and later stories, and there is a parallel plot line." This is better but I think "easter eggs and callbacks" isn't quite supported, since it makes it sound as if there are cross-game references other than Easter eggs, and as far as I can see the source doesn't say that.
    • I tend to think that the parallel plot line is an additional thing that might be considered. Granted, it's a bit syntactically ambiguous in the source whether the "parallel plot" sentence fragment is supposed to depend on "they are all set in the same universe" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made an attempt to reword/rearrange the sentence. Is it better or are there still issues Mike Christie? -- ZooBlazer
    I see you still have "callbacks"; what does that refer to other than the Easter eggs? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, one example I was thinking is that a flashback in the game takes place at the diner from the previous game that's just outside of the town from that game. Unless you'd consider that an Easter egg. I was thinking of Easter eggs as mostly, for example, things that players can read in a newspaper article that can be picked up similarly to the collectables. -- ZooBlazer 18:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call that an Easter egg, but only Easter eggs are mentioned in this context in the source, aren't they? So saying callbacks isn't supported by the source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed the wording to remove callbacks. -- ZooBlazer 18:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck. I tweaked the wording some more. The "parallel storylines" wasn't the exact phrase used in the source, but that's not why I removed it; I took it out because it's not really clear what it means, and the source doesn't clarify. The other wording change was just to take the structure a little further away from the sentence in the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Supermassive attributed the decision to set the game in Iraq to the country's abundance in myths and folklore that the team could incorporate into the story" is sourced to "Game director Will Doyle’s research led the team at Supermassive Games to set the game in Iraq in 2003, due to a cluster of story potential in real-world legend and myth." This is fine, though I'd make it "abundance of myths ..." in the article.
    • Wording amended - E.
  • "so a percussive, Sumerian-style composition was used for the prologue. It progresses to a horror-themed orchestration of other instruments" is sourced to "Its simplicity allowed it to be very versatile, played on instruments synonymous with Sumerian culture, through orchestral instrumentation right through to a synthesized arrangement which implies the technological advancement exposed in the story. We could transpose the technique into different keys and different tempos to give it more kick, more intrigue, more drive, whatever we wanted. This was completely in sync with the broader musical direction and progression of the score as the story unfolds. The game opens in an historical setting some 2000 years ago with a percussive soundtrack to match, and as the horror starts to develop, we move into timeless-horror orchestral instrumentation". I don't think this works. The source doesn't say the prologue was in a Sumerian style; it says "instruments synonymous with Sumerian culture" were used, but it doesn't say the music was Sumerian (how could it be?) and it doesn't say those instruments were used for the prologue. "As the horror starts to develop" is unsourced, and "horror-themed orchestration of other instruments" is too close to "timeless-horror orchestral instrumentation", and "other" doesn't mean anything as we haven't specified any instruments used in the prologue -- though you could perhaps get away with that as "percussive" does imply certain instruments.
    • reworded to "percussive composition inspired by Sumerian music". per the PS Blog "The game opens in a historical setting some 2,000 years ago and as the horror starts to develop we move into timeless orchestral instrumentation", so where the sumer-esque music fits is clear. not sure why the "as the horror starts to develop" comment is here --- how is it an unsourced part of the article (quotation is not even there) when it is right over here? - E.
      My mistake on "As the horror starts to develop"; I was reviewing the article against the source here in the edit window, having copied them in, and misread it; sorry about that. You've fixed the main things I was concerned about -- "Sumerian-style composition" and "other instruments". Quoting "timeless" also helps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Consequently, House of Ashes includes over 60 death scenes" is sourced to "there's at least 60 unique deaths and there's a whole ton of variation on that as well". No issues.
    Struck just to make it clearer at a glance that this is not an outstanding issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The developers believed the 2003–2011 Iraq War would make an "interesting" departure point for the development of the five main characters, allowing them the opportunity for character motivations, relationships, and dynamics the developers found compelling, sympathetic, and complex." This is sourced to two articles: I had a look through and didn't find enough to support all of this, but perhaps I missed some supporting text. I found "It's an interesting point to start off from for character motivations, and it allowed us to build up a team of characters that work together, that know each other,” McDonald says. “You get camaraderie and tension. Everyone doesn't always get on. Not a single one of them is clean and innocent. They've each got their own baggage that they bring with them. We wanted to make [our characters] more complex and nuanced." and "But it's also based on a very real - and very recent - conflict, something Supermassive wanted as a setting to explore various conflicts between its cast, and the need to overcome these together in order to survive. " I see there's a relationship between the source text and what's in the article, and "complex" is certainly supported, but where to you get "compelling" from? "Sympathetic" maybe. And does the source draw the connection directly from the Iraq War to "allowing ... the opportunity for character motivations, relationships, and dynamics"?
    • I think what the sources are trying to say is that the developers wanted, first and foremost, to write a story about peoples' humanity despite their differing backgrounds and characters, believing that soldiers from both sides of the 2003 invasion could make for good characters that demonstrate this theme. This part of the paragraph has been reworded. - E.
      The new version is "Doyle wanted a story about unity between adversaries to highlight their humanity despite their differences, and he believed that the Iraq War was a good setup for writing conflicts and complex characters that convey this theme." Sorry, but I still can't draw a line from the sentences quoted above to this. What in the source supports the first half of this? Unity between adversaries is mentioned in "the need to overcome [internal conflicts] together in order to survive", but what in the source connects this to highlighting their humanity? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My best guess is that comes from this article - The important thing for us was that they were enemies, and also that they're human. We wanted to show human aspects of their personality and put those aspects under strain. So, when faced with this absolutely implacable, hostile foe, it naturally brings out the humanity in the characters -- ZooBlazer 15:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that does it. Thanks; striking this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pause here and register an oppose based on these. I checked six chunks of text and only two came up clean, and that's in addition to the two minor discrepancies with the sources that I'd already noted in the content review I was doing. If you fix these and another reviewer does a spotcheck and it comes up clean I'd be happy to revisit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few comments myself here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: done with responding to the new comments and the unresolved ones from the first sweep. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 12:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realized after I posted this that Jo-Jo had already done a spotcheck that came up clean, which makes me think it's probably not an issue throughout the article. I will try to look at your responses this evening but I have a lot going on in RL for a few days and can't say when I can get back to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about that for me. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 16:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. Your spotcheck was beneficial, so it was probably good to have you do one as well. -- ZooBlazer 16:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, additional spotchecks are always good. Especially this month, where I am trying to get some arduous work done at Licancabur and Llullaillaco so my attention might be less sufficient than usual. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the oppose; there are a couple of points still to deal with but the fixes plus the fact that a spotcheck was already done mean I don't think it's likely there are pervasive problems. I'll do another couple of spotchecks once the above are struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed any, I think there has now been an attempt at addressing the remaining unstruck spotchecks. -- ZooBlazer 15:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through again and there's now just one outstanding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All points now struck. I will read through again shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor points from a second read through.

  • "the synthesizers are added after the game's twist to evoke imagery of highly advanced technology": what is the twist referred to here?
    Reworded. The twist is the reveal of the adavanced technology of the aliens.
  • "A trailer for the next game in the anthology, as well as the season one finale, The Devil in Me, was featured at the end of House of Ashes": what does "season one finale" refer to?
    Season one refers to the first four games of the anthology.
  • "Two reviewers wrote about the game's branching story and butterfly effect elements, finding them well-executed": as a result of an earlier comment there are now no earlier references to the butterfly effect, so this is opaque. Suggest 'Two reviewers wrote about the game's branching story elements and the "bearings" feature, finding them well-executed'.
    Changed

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Feel free to revert my copyedits if you don't approve of any of them. "Season one" surprised me a bit because I don't think there's been a previous reference to the anthology elements being released in seasons, but it's a minor point and it's not worth holding up support for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Would it help to change the lead to include a mention of the season towards the beginning? Something like "The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes is a 2021 interactive drama and survival horror video game. Developed by Supermassive Games and published by Bandai Namco Entertainment, it is the third game of the first season and third instalment overall in The Dark Pictures Anthology." -- ZooBlazer 17:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would help. And if you're going to mention the season in the lead you should change the body to support that, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added -- ZooBlazer 22:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Your comments have been extremely helpful as always. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 02:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • Why are some parts of some of the References in bold? Eg "Will Doyle: We wanted to create something that is … a completely non-human creature ..." Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild Just to easily distinguish between multiple speakers. Should the bold be removed? -- ZooBlazer 20:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was an open question. Was the bold in the original? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild The source is a YouTube interview, so the text was just transcribed to the ref to make it easier. The video is also time stamped for listening purposes, so the written part isn't absolutely necessary, just more of a convenience for readers. -- ZooBlazer 20:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the other instance is a transcription from a scene in the game. -- ZooBlazer 20:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, no, they shouldn't be in bold. I need to do a last check, but I think we are just waiting for Jo-Jo to come back on the source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild All bold in the references has been removed. -- ZooBlazer 20:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Is there anything else that needs to be done? Multiple supports, no opposes, and image and source reviews completed with everything addressed. -- ZooBlazer 22:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment only the source review is outstanding. Jo-Jo is, as always, busy, but I am sure that they will get round to either passing it or posting further comments in the next day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Technically, I am not so much busy as much as there isn't a lot of work on WP to do for me) Technically, my source review is complete. The only caveat is that I am relying heavily on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and I am not 100% sure that its definition of RS always lines up with the "high-quality reliable sources" requirement of the FA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

Resolved comments

Recusing to review.

  • "The films Aliens, Predator, and The Descent, as well as the H. P. Lovecraft novella At the Mountains of Madness and the myth of the Curse of Akkad, influenced the developers' design for the creatures, which were made using motion capture and hand animation, and the temple, which was inspired by ancient Mesopotamian architecture." Did the inspiration for the temple come only from Mesopotamian architecture or did the aforementioned fiction work also influence its creation? If the latter, should there perhaps be an "also" before "was inspired"?
    I ended up just separating the influences from the creatures and temple design info.
  • In reference to my previous comment, the text in the main body reads "Inspirations for the story and design included the films Aliens (1986), Predator (1987), and The Descent (2005); the H. P. Lovecraft novella At the Mountains of Madness (1936); and various facets of Mesopotamian culture such as the myth of the Curse of Akkad." and "The House of Ashes temple was inspired by the look of ancient Mesopotamian architecture." It looks like the films and the novella didn't inspire the creation of the template, but the way the sentence in the lead is structured, it reads as if they did. Also, the main body only says that the films and the novella inspired the design whereas the lead says "design for the creatures". The lead is supposed to be a repetition of the rest of the article so if the inspiration was indeed only for the creatures' design, the "Story and design" subsection should reflect that.
    I think it's okay now as I changed the lead wording based on your previous comment.
  • "The game additional features such as the QTE difficulty levels and a new camera system based on fan feedback" - there is a word missing before "additional features".
    Fixed
  • "The project expanded Tisdale's career experience beyond her usual roles in comedy, which made Tisdale agree to provide Rachel's voice and likeness,[6] making her debut as a video game actor." The way this sentence is structured, it can be interpreted as suggesting that Rachel is making her debut as a video game actor rather than Tisdale. This ambiguity arises because the phrase "making her debut as a video game actor" directly follows the mention of Rachel's name, creating a possible association between the two.
    Cleaned up
  • "However, for VentureBeat journalist Dean Takahashi, while House of Ashes introduced many improvements to the anthology, the series started to become formulaic with its release,[7] whereas an unknown Edge critic wrote that some of the systems supporting the series were becoming outdated." Can we divide the sentence into two distinct clauses? I find it unnecessarily complex and confusing due to the simultaneous use of contrasting conjunctions ("while", "whereas", "however") and the placement of the clauses.
    Reworded
  • "Two reviewers wrote about the game's branching story elements and the "bearings" feature" - only one of the two sources use the word "bearings" but the sentence makes it seem like they both used that exact word (given that it is in quotes).
    Reworded
  • "Play's Jess Kinghorn called them serviceable but wished some actors had gone bigger" - what does "bigger" mean?
    Noted that "gone bigger" is a quote from the source and tried to slightly expand to make it clearer hopefully.
I understand that you’re quoting the source but it should still make sense to the average encyclopedia reader, and IMO "gone bigger" is a colloquial expression. My assumption is that in this context, "gone bigger" means that the reviewer wished some actors had delivered more exaggerated or intense performances, possibly with more energy or dramatic flair, but I could be wrong. If it indeed means that, you could rephrase it as something like: "Play's Jess Kinghorn described the performances as serviceable but suggested that some actors should have displayed more intensity." or "...displayed more dramatic presence". FrB.TG (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG Went ahead and changed it to your first suggestion. -- ZooBlazer 04:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The camera work was deemed superior to that of previous Dark Pictures games,[7][10][12] with praise for its ability to evoke claustrophobia.[11][28][73] Despite this,[14][71]" - sources 14 and 71 seem to be for the praise directed towards the camera work and its "ability to evoke claustrophobia" so they should be accordingly placed in the previous sentence. I don't know why you're introducing new sources here. FrB.TG (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what happened there. I moved each to the appropriate sport.

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the review. I think I've addressed all of your comments. -- ZooBlazer 16:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't have anything else to add. I have capped my comments now. FrB.TG (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that FrB.TG, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not formally voting but I think it is ready for closure now. FrB.TG (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2024&oldid=1221193446"