Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators— Ian Rose, Ealdgyth and Gog the Mild—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{ xt}}, {{ !xt}}, and {{ tq}}; templates such as {{ green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{ collapse top}} and {{ collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{ @FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.
Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.


Singer Building

Nominator(s): Epicgenius ( talk) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a building in Lower Manhattan, New York City, that was briefly the world's tallest building and later the tallest to be demolished peacefully. It was first constructed as two low-rise buildings in the late 1890s, which were combined and expanded in the 1900s. The building had an otherwise relatively uneventful existence until 1967, when it was torn down to make way for a larger and less architecturally distinguished structure. The interior was elaborately decorated, as was the facade, and the building in its heyday would have been considered quite innovative. Unfortunately, the Singer Building just didn't have enough space for modern office demands, so it was not preserved.

This was promoted as a Good Article nine months ago thanks to an excellent GA review from Eddie891. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I think it's up to FA quality now. Epicgenius ( talk) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Dhoby Ghaut MRT station

Nominator(s): ZKang123 ( talk) 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a major MRT interchange station in Singapore. I have worked on the article in 2020 and managed to bring it up to GA standard in October that year. Since the GA review, I have further expanded and touched up the article with new information I have managed to come across, especially the artwork section. I have brought it up for Peer review and it has also been copyedited to meet FA standards.-- ZKang123 ( talk) 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review
  • Both images in the history section sandwich the infobox in violation of MOS:IMAGELOC
  • All images appear to be freely licensed. Nice pics! (I notice you took them yourself). ( t · c) buidhe 00:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Have resolved the above.-- ZKang123 ( talk) 07:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose I recently failed a GAN on a Singaporean MRT station due to copyright concerns, and this article has similar issues where wording has been lifted from websites or lightly paraphrased. I conducted spot checks here, and while the references to sources where text can't be copied and pasted were fine, many of those to websites where text is in html or similar failed. The following are those examples, and given my fairly high strike rate here I am concerned that there are likely to be others.

  • "Atrium@Orchard is the first commercial development to be fully integrated with an MRT station" - almost identical phrasing to the source
  • "This integration allows land use to be optimised while increasing the convenience and accessibility of public transport." - very lightly paraphrased from the source
  • "the interchange station garnered an "honourable mention" at the 7th Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) Design Awards" - uncomfortably close to the source, despite it being easy to re-word this
  • "Combining Delia's ceramic works with Milenko's earthy mosaics" - ditto
  • "reflect Singapore's and the region's cultural richness and artistic heritage" - ditto
  • "Certain motifs, symbols and colours are repeated so the various independent components of the work remain thematically united" - ditto (this is basically the same words as in the source used in a different order) Nick-D ( talk) 06:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you (I am actually the same editor for that Singaporean MRT statio you have reviewed, btw). Can you suggest how to rephrase the following you mentioned? I will work on these.-- ZKang123 ( talk) 07:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Level Mountain

Nominator(s): Volcano guy 19:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is a comprehensive and well-researched account of Level Mountain, one of the largest volcanoes in Canada and one of the more obscure volcanoes on Earth. In late 2015, I rewrote and expanded this article greatly which was followed by a lot of copyediting that has lasted into this year. I have significant knowledge regarding the volcanoes of British Columbia, having researched them for the last 14 years or so. I have also brought other BC volcano articles up to FA class in the past and look forward to bringing this article about Level Mountain up to that standard. Cheers, Volcano guy 19:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review
Done. Volcano guy 01:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Level Mountain topo cropped.jpg How was this map created? Is it automatic generation or is there any creative element? I think this would make a better lead image than the one you currently have, as it's much more clear ( t · c) buidhe 00:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I have never seen an FA article with a topographic map as a lead image. It also doesn't show the entire mountain. As for the map, it is based on SRTM data provided freely by NASA and processed in QGIS with World Imagery texture type TOPO. Volcano guy 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus

Going point-by-point through WP:WIAFA:

  • 1a: With the caveat that I am not necessarily known for my prose skills, this seems fine to me.
  • 1b: As far as I can tell, every topic I'd expect to be covered is covered here. Maybe details on climbing/mountaineering would be cool but in my experience reliable sources for such topics are hard to come by.
There is nothing about climbing/mountaineering at Level Mountain, which isn't surprising due to its remoteness. Volcano guy 15:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 1c: I see some sources mentioned here are not used in the article - from the summaries I think many say too little about Level Mountain or only bespeak technical details, but I assume we checked this? I have to AGF on some sources as I don't have access to them. Inline citations used through the article.
Yes I have already checked those sources. Most mention Level Mountain only briefly and aren't very useful to use as sources. A few in that list are already used in the article. Volcano guy 15:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 1d: I see no indication of NPOV problems, keeping the caveat about source access mentioned above in mind.
  • 1e: Fits.
  • 1f: The "drop a couple of sentences into Google" technique finds nothing untoward.
  • 2a: Seems to fit; topics mentioned in the article also in the lead.
  • 2b: Seems to fit.
  • 2c: I see some citation errors and some citations have retrieved dates and others don't.
What citation errors and citations are you referring to? Volcano guy 15:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Several show "Cite journal requires |journal=" errors, such as Holland 1976 and Gabrielse 1982. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
How about now? I didn't have those errors so I'm not sure if they're still there. Volcano guy 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 3: I think the ALT text on most images here is a little too much about what the image is and a little too little about what information it conveys. Does File:Level Mountain topo cropped.jpg have a source map? Images are appropriate for the sections they are in.
The map is based on SRTM data provided freely by NASA and processed in QGIS with World Imagery texture type TOPO. Volcano guy 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I did some improvements to the alt texts. Volcano guy 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 4: Seems to fit.

Parking an uncommitted !vote here for the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, provisional support here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

General Motors companion make program

Nominator(s):  –  John M Wolfson ( talk •  contribs) 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

" Gee our old LaSalle ran great, those were the days."

General Motor's former "five brands" (the current three plus Olds and Pontiac) seems like a lot by today's standards, but back in the late 1920s GM tried to do even more. For a few years it had "companion makes" to fill in four of the classic five. Two of them, Viking and Marquette, you've never heard of because they were quickly killed in the Depression. You might have heard of LaSalle, since it carried on for another decade and gave Harley Earl, who invented the Corvette in the 1950s, his start at GM. You've definitely heard of Pontiac; this companion make program is the reason Americans (used to) have it instead of Oakland. We don't have a whole lot of car FAs on Wikipedia, and this is a fairly obscure niche of automotive history, but I've tried to do it justice here.

Thank you for your consideration of this FAC. If it passes, it'll be my first non-Four Award FA and my third overall. As always with my FACs, minor cleanups and tweaks (lint, ref number swaps, etc.) are encouraged to be done yourself rather than explicitly resolved here.  –  John M Wolfson ( talk •  contribs) 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Images appear to be freely licensed ( t · c) buidhe 00:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be supported by the text. For example, the lead claims that "companion makes were also used to increase the sales of their respective divisions by selling cars that cost less to produce"; the text states that they would increase sales AND cost less, which is a slightly different claim
    • I feel like the difference is minor, but if you insist I can reword it.
  • Work titles like Automobile Magazine should not be in |publisher=, and publishers like National Museum of American History shouldn't be in work-title parameters
    • Those two specifically have been fixed, let me know if anything else of that nature needs addressing.
  • How are you ordering Works cited?
    • By alphabetical order of short cite
  • Is there a reason to use "Encyclopedia" as a short cite rather than authors?
    • Changed to Ludvigsen et al.
  • How are you deciding when to include publication location?
    • I explicitly decline to include it in newspapers where the location is already in the title and well-known (in this article the Ottawa Citizen but not the Grand Island Independent, but in general the Chicago Tribune and The New York Times are other examples) per the spirit of USCITIES, and I omit it when I can't reasonably deduce the location (websites, for one). Thanks for asking!
Nikkimaria (
talk) 02:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

York County, Maine, Tercentenary half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt ( talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about...One of the more obscure of the commemoratives issued in 1936. Still, the coin tells a story, and the only scandal seems to be that Congress let standards drop and chose to commemorate a very local event. Wehwalt ( talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:York_county_tercentenary_half_dollar_commemorative_obverse.jpg: what's the copyright status of the photo? Ditto File:York_county_tercentenary_half_dollar_commemorative_reverse.jpg
  • File:LVPL-1CFD55_Silver_pine_tree_shilling_of_Massachusetts,_North_America_(FindID_285997).jpg should include an explicit tag for the coin. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
First two swapped for ones that areOTRS pending, will advise when permissions come through. License added on pine tree shilling. As for Alt text, I don't feel I do it well, so I prefer to leave it for others who care to. Thanks for the review.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
OTRS has added permissions.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

Know York quite well and spend a few days there during our honeymoon in 2014. The town has a rather picturesque and storied graveyard that have visited many times in last 8 years. Maybe so have a COI here, dunno ;)


  • The commemorative coin craze of 1936 - as this is not linked, perhaps "a commemorative coin craze" rather than "the"
  • selling the coins to the public asked that the maximum issue of 30,000 coins be struck, but for uncertain reasons the Philadelphia Mint struck only 25,000 for public sale - is the second "public sale" here redundant. Same with "the remainder was sold to the public in the 1950s"
  • what is now the state of Maine was at what is now...: change one "what is now" to "today's"
  • oldest and southernmost county in Maine and one of the oldest political units in the United States - oldest x 2. Does "first" political units in the United States follow?
  • Sparked by low-mintage issues which appreciated in value - sparked? Due to a series of...which appreciated...
  • The new pieces then came on to the secondary market - entered
  • The apparent easy profits to be made by purchasing and holding commemoratives attracted many to the coin collecting hobby, where they sought to purchase the new issues - speculative buying and collecting are different things, so would re-phsase "drew many" as "brought attention to". where they sought to purchase the new issues - "especially in" rater than "where they sought to purchase"
  • an explosion of ?
  • more non deal breaking comments shortly Ceoil ( talk) 13:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Have read through, and made minor tweaks rather than listing here....please feel free to revert at will. The sources seem as of the usual quality for this topic and editor. Support. 15:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

2020 US Open (tennis)

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a Grand Slam tennis tournament that took place in August and September 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic) in New York. I worked to improve this article both at the time it occurred (to get it approved at ITN) and over much of the month of March during its GA review (many thanks to Sportsfan77777 for that). It is currently one of two GA tennis tournament articles (the other being 2009 Sony Ericsson Open), and the only FA tennis tournament article is 1877 Wimbledon Championships, so I figured trying to get another one there wouldn't hurt. This is my first FA nomination, and I was mentored by Casliber prior to this nomination (see here). I'd appreciate any and all feedback I can get. Thanks! PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 20:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Images appear to be freely licensed. However, you should only be using |upright= to scale images, not fixed pixels which cause display to be suboptimal depending on the device and settings. See MOS:UPRIGHT. ( t · c) buidhe 21:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hughie Ferguson

Nominator(s): Kosack ( talk) 19:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Scottish footballer Hugh Ferguson. A prolific goalscorer from an early age, he scored freely throughout his career and was one of the most noted forwards of the pre-war era, but probably never gained the distinction he deserved. Probably the most notable achievement of his career was the winning goal in the 1927 FA Cup Final that secured the cup for Cardiff City. However, his career ended tragically when he returned to Scotland in 1929 before committing suicide shortly after, which has been attributed to his fears over his declining abilities. As always, I look forward to any comments. Kosack ( talk) 19:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Images are freely licensed ( t · c) buidhe 20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Second Battle of Newtonia

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Having been given permission for a second nom, here comes another minor ACW cavalry fight. On the run after defeats at Westport and Mine Creek, Price's Confederates halted at Newtonia before entering the wasteland of 1864 northwestern Arkansas. Pursuing Union cavalry caught up, attacked, and got a little more than the bargained for before reinforcements came up and the Confederates fell back. Both sides claimed victory, but history has attributed the win to the Union. Hog Farm Talk 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Image review pass per ACR ( t · c) buidhe 18:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Source review pass per ACR ( t · c) buidhe 02:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

  • All infobox entries should start with an upper case letter.
    • Done for the "near Newtonia" one, which I think it where the issue is
  • "he instead began moving his force west towards Kansas City" seems a little clumsy. 'instead he moved his force west towards Kansas City'?
    • Done
  • "Price ordered the withdrawal of his main army, and ordered Shelby". Any way to avoid "ordered ... ordered"?
    • Rephrased
  • "Blunt's smaller line". Perhaps "smaller" → 'shorter'?
    • Done
  • "supplies and soldiers were lost to capture." "lost to capture" → 'captured'.
    • Done
  • "Claims of execution of prisoners" → 'Claims of the execution of prisoners'.
    • Done
  • "arrived on the field". A bit jargony, and not very informative - just where did they arrive?
    • Rephrased, and added the direction from which Ford's men reached the battlefield.
  • "Blunt personally fought with the 16th Kansas Cavalry during this stage of the fighting." I suggest moving this to the last sentence of this paragraph.
    • Yes, it makes more sense to state that Blunt arrived before it is mentioned that he is fighting - not sure why I didn't notice that. Moved.
  • "the entire Union army was upon him". "upon" → 'attacking'.
    • Done
  • "Regardless, Shelby's command was the only functioning force left in the Confederate army." What is "Regardless" trying to communicate?
    • I have no idea why I added that word. Removed.
  • "aligned left to right in the order of" → 'from left to right'.
    • Done
  • "Shelby aligned his men". This may be a USEng thing, but I find the use of "aligned" confusing. Here and in later uses. (What does it mean anyway?)
    • In USEng, this would indicate that Shelby formed his men into a line. I've rephrased all instances
  • "In total, Shelby had about 2,000 or 3,500 men on the field" This seems to hide a debate. Any chance of some detail as to who said which, when, ideally why, and possibly alterna'e break downs of these numbers?
    • Made a little clearer. No breakdowns of these numbers are really given. To me it looks like two historians spitballing numbers based on vague/unreliable source, as neither explicitly states where they got their numbers, and given what had happened to Price's army in the last 5 days, I don't think anybody really knew or cared exactly how many men were around.
  • "The Union lines fell all the way back to the Ritchey Farm" → 'The Union lines fell back all the way to the Ritchey Farm'.
    • Done
  • "Even after this lined was formed". "lined"?
    • Fixed. I'm a bad copyeditor.
  • "temporarily threw the Confederates into surprise." I don't think that one can be thrown into surprise - although I like the image. 'caught the Confederates by surprise and temporarily threw them into confusion'?
    • Rephrased
  • "forced marched". This is a noun, not a verb.
    • Rephrased. I didn't think that was grammar, but I kinda hoped it was for some reason
  • "These newly arrived guns fire 22 shots". "fire" → 'fired'.
    • Fixed. Probably shoulda got this copyedited.
  • "the artillery advantage growing more disparate". An advantage cannot grow more disparate. A 'differential' can, or an advantage can become more 'marked', for example.
    • Rephrased
  • "In addition, the modern historian Mark A. Lause". Delete "In addition". Possibly reinsert after "participated in the action".
    • Done
  • "as one of Marmaduke's officers filed a report about the battle." I assume this relates to the earlier part of the sentence, but you don't tell us how.
    • @ Gog the Mild: - I have no idea how to address this. Lause states "At least parts of Price's other two divisions [Marmaduke and Fagan] also pitched in to the fight ...[evidence for Fagan's participation] ... At least one commander from General John S. Marmaduke's division also filed a report on its fighting there." So Lause seems to be implying that this report is (basically all) the justification for assuming that Marmaduke's men participated. Lause lumps all of the footnotes for this paragraph together, so its unclear what exactly he is referring to. As other sources do not mention the involvement of Marmaduke's men, this statement is attributed to Lause, but I'm not sure how to draw the connection in the article without OR-ing when Lause is vague on this. Hog Farm Talk 04:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Personally I would delete "as one of Marmaduke's officers filed a report about the battle". Who cares why secondary sources believe what they do? You don't try to justify every other claim in the article.
I have removed it.
  • "they occupied the town itself". Delete "itself".
    • Removed
  • "were probably similar or even less than those of the Union". Why "even"?
    • Removed
  • "and that Union officer Richard J. Hinton provided a figure of 114 casualties". For which side?
    • Union. Added
  • "The American Battlefield Trust estimated 250 and 400". Should that be "estimated" → 'estimates'? Or have they since changed their mind?
    • Yes, it should be estimates. Changed.
  • "due to the Price's army's inability to transport them." Delete "the".
    • Done

Nice. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

All good. Your one query responded to. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

My first Hundred Years' War FAC for over a year - how time flies. A brief campaign typical of those of this phase of the war and for which there are unusually detailed records. It is fresh from GAN and I believe it to be up to FAC standards. As ever, any and all constructive criticism is welcome. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review and source review

Image licensing looks good. Sources look OK but I still have to do a full source check (the Rogers 1994 ref is OK though) ( t · c) buidhe 18:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 20:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • "One of those imprisoned was the notoriously treacherous Charles of Navarre, one of the largest landholders in Normandy" - Is this Charles of Navarre the same Charles II of Navarre the English tried to cooperate with earlier?
  • Which are the new alliances cemented by the chevauchée? Is it the Norman nobles who are mentioned to be turning to the English in the prelude material?
Rementioned in the first sentence of Aftermath. I have tweaked the language for clarity.
  • For the Curry ref, are both the (2002) and the (published 13 November 2002) needed?
Scratches head. It's the 2002 edition. Dunno where 2012 came from. Fixed. Thanks.
  • With Jaques, you provide both state and city, while with Madden, you only provide the state. For consistency's sake, would it be possibly to add the city in Minnesota for Madden?
Nope. The place of publication is not given.
  • Not seeing the start date explicitly referenced as 22 June in the body except for the indirect statement that the 22 days ended on July 13. Is it possible to work this exact start date into the body?

Good work, anticipate supporting on most criteria. Hog Farm Talk 14:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm. All done. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Supporting on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability and formatting, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Olivia (2018)

Nominator(s): Noah Talk 21:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Hurricane Olivia, a long-lasting Category 4 hurricane that affected Hawaii as a tropical storm in September 2018, shortly after Hurricane Lane passed by a few weeks prior. Noah Talk 21:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks OK ( t · c) buidhe 21:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Hurricanehink

  • You should link landfall in the second sentence
  • "Olivia formed southwest of Mexico on September 1. The depression" - you never said it formed as a depression. I suggest either you avoid mentioning depression here, or find a way of incorporating that
  • Fixed. Noah Talk 23:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Link wind shear
  • You link Category 4 hurricane twice in the lead, but to two different articles. Seems odd
  • Removed the second link. Noah Talk 23:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Olivia made brief landfalls in northwest Maui and Lanai on September 12, becoming the first tropical cyclone to impact the islands in recorded history." - you mention in the lead that it was the first recorded landfall, not just "impact". Also, you mention the landfall on those islands three times in the lead.
  • I removed that mention and kept the opening as well as the one with the wind information. Noah Talk 23:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Torrential rainfall occurred on both Maui and Oahu, peaking at 12.93 in (328 mm) in West Wailuaiki, Maui. On Maui" - any way you can avoid saying "Maui" twice within three words?
  • Fixed. Noah Talk 23:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "caused thousands of power outages, and caused severe flooding." - can you find a way of writing this so you don't say "caused" twice?
  • Fixed. Noah Talk 23:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "most notably Lower Honoapiilani Road where cliffs were eroded along its shoulder; repairs to that road are still ongoing." - still, as of May 2021? The source says January 2021.
  • I can't find anything more recent than that. Noah Talk 23:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • " United States President Donald Trump" - this makes me vomit a little bit with some mild PTSD, but nothing you can do about that
  • "Later in the day, the amount of banding features – significantly elongated, curved bands of rain clouds – increased significantly while Olivia's inner core strengthened" - can you avoid saying "significantly" twice?
  • Fixed. Noah Talk 23:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Why was Olivia's restrengthening unexpected?
  • Explained that models predicted weakening due to dry air and lower SSTs. Noah Talk 23:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You never linked Kalawao County. Conversely, you re-link all of the islands in the last section. Watch for the duplicate links
  • Removed several duplicate links and linked that county. Noah Talk 23:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You link the Kamehameha Highway twice. The first time is in Maui, even though the highway is on Oahu.
  • Removed the mention of this road in Maui. Noah Talk 23:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • What is a brown water advisory? Also, you say - " Previously, the entire island of Maui had been under a brown water advisory." - when was that "previously"? Was it due to Lane?
  • Rephrased and clarified based on what was in that source. Noah Talk 22:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "An elderly woman was rescued by Malia Wong and the latter's husband during the storm. " - usually we don't mention specific people involved in events unless they are significant.
  • Changed to neighbors. Noah Talk 22:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Red Cross helped with recovery efforts. " - you link the Red Cross, but it should probably be the American Red Cross
  • "Wong donated pallets of diapers, water, food, and clothing to people who were severely impacted." - this seems like unnecessary detail from some random person. Is this some philanthropic millionaire? Was this person the only person who donated, and that's why Wong is important?
  • Removed. Noah Talk 22:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a good article overall. Most of my comments are nitpicks. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Hurricanehink: I should have addressed everything. Noah Talk 23:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Typhoon Emma (1959)

Nominator(s):   Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a typhoon in 1959 that struck Okinawa, causing some damage to the territory. It was not the most damaging storm in the season, nor was it the most damaging storm to hit the islands in that season.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Both images appear to be freely licensed ( t · c) buidhe 05:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah

Will be leaving comments soon. Noah Talk 21:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  • and sustained winds of 55 km/h (35 mph) 1-minute winds? Noah Talk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 9–10 knots (17–19 km/h) Conversion to mph in the parentheses after the km/h one? Noah Talk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 990 hectopascals (29 inHg). conversion is not specific enough, please make sure two decimal places are shown. Noah Talk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Done.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    Magicking four significant digits our of three leads to false precision. Better would be to keep the amount of significant digits constant (so one decimal place). FemkeMilene ( talk) 20:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 970 hPa (29 inHg) Conversion to inHg isnt specific enough. Noah Talk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • equivalent to a Category 1 add a noun after Category 1. Noah Talk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 11 knots (20 km/h) mph conversion. Noah Talk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (60 nmi) Could you mention this is 70 statute miles? Noah Talk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 195 km/h (105 kn), estimating surface winds of 240 km/h (130 kn). Mph conversions. Noah Talk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • equivalent to a Category 3 noun needed after Category 3. Noah Talk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 960 hPa (28 inHg) same pressure issue. Noah Talk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 35 kn (65 km/h) mph conversion. Noah Talk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 995 hectopascals (29.4 inHg) Could you add a second decimal place to this one? Noah Talk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Hurricane Noah: Fixes should be complete, thanks for the review.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

I am not super accustomed to reviewing (or even reading) these types of articles so apologies in advance if any of my comments are about super obvious points.

  • The lead's first sentence identified this typhoon as "strong". Is that a category given this type of storm? I am only familiar with the Atlantic hurricane season and the hurricane categories so I do not know how typhoons are measured.
  • Technically not, but it is implied that a category three equivalent storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale is strong considering the range of winds.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The lead mentions something called "closed circulation". Would it be possible to add a link here for readers like me who are not familiar with this kind of weather terminology?
  • Why is Emma put in italics on its first mention in the lead and the body of the article?
  • For this part of the lead, several ships were damaged or sunk by the storm, do we have a more exact number?
  • There are three different numbers in the impact section, reporting by three different sources. I don't think there is an exact number of ships damaged or sunk.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • For the first sentence in the "Meteorological history" section, I would specify the year. This information is made rather obvious in the lead and the infobox, but I still think it would be helpful to point out in the first sentence for readers who jump right into the article.
  • Okinawa should be linked here (as it was southeast of Okinawa) as it is the first mention in the article (and I do not believe it is linked in the article at all and is only linked in the lead and infobox.
  • I have a question about this part, causing a postponement of a baseball game at Paseo De Susana Ballpark due to wet field conditions. Why is it particularly notable for inclusion? The postponement of a baseball game just seems rather trivial to me, particularly when it is not directly stated if it is an important game.
  • Yeah I put that in before I found an exact rain total for the area, don't think that sentence is necessary now. Removed.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a clarification question about the two missing Ryuho Maru crew members. Have they been declared legally dead in absentia?
  • I could not find any news reports on what happened to those two after they went missing.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I would view the following link ( territory) as an Easter egg as I do not think the link is clear even with context.
  • I moved the link back a few words, should I link it with something else instead?  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I have two comments about this sentence: A habu, along with other types of debris, washed into the camp. I was unfamiliar with the word habu and I think this part, along with other types of debris, gives off a misleading impression of what this is. Maybe it is just me, but I do not associate a type of snake with debris. Also, why is one snake appearing in the camp particularly notable for inclusion?
  • Removed the snake, but I think the floodwaters and the debris is still worth mentioning.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This part, was restored to the islands after late on November 13, seems grammatically incorrect, specifically the after late part.
  • I am not really understanding the point of the "See also" section. Why are these three specific cyclones relevant enough to list here?
  • Well before the navbox at the bottom existed, I was planning on linking other similar storms from the season. Don't think that's necessary now.  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

This should be all of my comments. My review is entirely focused on the prose, as I will leave all other matters to editors who are more experienced in this field. Once everything has been addressed. I will be more than happy to support this article for promotion. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 ( talk) 03:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Aoba47: Every problem has been responded to. Thanks for the review, and I hope you have a great weekend too!  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good to me. I support the article for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from Willbb234

  • in addition to those caused by the damage is singular, so 'those' should be changed to 'that'.
  • while crops in the territory were damaged this seems vague. could you provide something to quantify the damage, such as costs or area damaged?
  • reported for American military installations change 'for' to 'on', 'by' or 'at'.
  • and Kadena Air Base listed a damage total of $219,586.50 (1959 USD) I suggest changing this to such as Kadena Air Base, where the total damage was worth $219,586.50 (1959 USD).
  • Minor impacts... what do you mean by this? Are we talking about damages or just that the typhoon passed this area? 'Impacts' seems rather vague.
  • I'm not sure why you have placed a figure for the damage in the infobox. This statistic is only from the damages at the air base and I'd only give a figure here if there has been a good estimate of the total damage. The total damage from what I gather was likely a lot greater so saying it was simply greater than $219,587 might be misleading.
  • 18:00 UTC of November 6 west of Guam I'm not sure why you need to give its location as you state in the previous sentence it was moving west-northwest past Guam. You should also change 'of' to 'on' for all the time and dates in this article, see articles such as Typhoon Haiyan and the specific policy is at MOS:TIMEZONE for correct formatting.
  • increased strength to increased in strength.

Sorry, but I am going to have to cut this review short as I feel it is a way off meeting 1a of the Featured Article Criteria (more specifically the prose is not of "professional standard"). I'm not going to list all the issues there are in this article as I think it would be better to get a copyedit from the WP:GOCE or otherwise re-write the article. For now, I will oppose. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 11:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Assassination of Talat Pasha

Nominator(s): ( t · c) buidhe 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

After shooting the main perpetrator of the Armenian Genocide, Soghomon Tehlirian said, "I have killed a man, but I am not a murderer". His defense was so successful that, as noted by one newspaper, "In reality it was the blood-stained shadow of Talât Pasha who was sitting on the defendant’s bench; and the true charge was the ghastly Armenian Horrors, not his execution by one of the few victims left alive." The jury agreed with Tehlirian. But can extrajudicial killing ever "uphold the moral order of mankind"? Raphael Lemkin thought so; he later said that it was this assassination and the resulting spectacular trial that sparked his interest in war crimes, eventually leading to his invention of the concept of genocide. ( t · c) buidhe 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Talat_Pasha_cropped.jpg: for the purposes of the EU tag, on what date was this made publicly available?
    • It appears to be anonymous, or at least Library of Congress doesn't know who the author is. It was published by Neue Photographische Gesellschaft so I used a no author disclosure PD tag.
      • Okay, but that tag requires that it was published over 70 years ago. Do we know that to be the case? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Neue Photographische Gesellschaft shut down in 1948, [1] so if it was published by them it must have been more than 70 years ago. ( t · c) buidhe 18:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Armenian_deportations_in_Erzurum_by_Victor_Pietschmann_03.jpg: which rationale from the Austrian tag is believed to apply, and what's the status of this work in the US?
    • I believe that this is considered a simple photograph as it doesn't "involve artistic interpretations". If so, it was either unpublished or else published in Pietschmann's 1940 book, so the copyright would have expired by 1996.
  • File:Talat_Pasha_cable_of_29_August_1915.png: does the source give any further info on the provenance of this work?
    • No, although I'm pretty sure it was found in an archive.
  • File:William_Tell_LCCN2003689314_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published, and what is the author's date of death?
    • The source doesn't say exactly, just that it is free use. In this case the author was S. Zickel who apparently founded his own publishing house by 1870. [2]
  • File:Ein_Zeugnis_für_Talaat_Pasha.png: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • 1950. Added to image description. ( t · c) buidhe 18:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


Will look at this one once I get through a review that's already on my reviewing list. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 02:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry this took so long to get to, I had some stuff come up.

  • Would it be useful to add a couple sentences about the background between the Ottomans and the Armenians, maybe drawing from a very shortened summary of Armenian Genocide#Background?
    • I could, but I try to keep background short and am not sure of any specific information which would enhance reader understanding of this article topic.
  • "directly issued orders to generals in the Turkish war of independence from Berlin" - Would Turkish war of independence be a proper noun that should be capitalized?
    • It's not consistently capped in sources so I believe MOS:CAPS applies.
  • Harutian Mgrditichian is identified as Armenian in the lead, but not explicitly as such in the body.
    • removed. I don't believe the sources are clear on this because it's obviously an Armenian name.
  • "Ihrig and other historians have argued the prosector's strategy was deeply flawed," - Is this a typo for prosecutor, or is "prosector" a term in German law?
    • Typo
  • The prosecutor is always just referred to as "Gollnick", is this a surname with no introduction or a mononym?
    • His first name is not disclosed in the trial transcript or any of the sources.

I've got to take a pause here, ready for Tehlirian's testimony. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • "In the past, commemorative ceremonies were held to honor Talat at the Monument of Liberty, but this practice had been discontinued as of 2013" - Anything more recent for an update on this?
    • I couldn't find anything.
  • "Turkish writer Orhan Seyfi [tr] condemned the acquittal of Tehlirian but argued Germany made up for this by transporting his body to Turkey in 1943" - "his" in this formation would be read as referring to Tehlirian's body
    • Reworded
  • I'm unfamiliar with the Armenian and Turkish sources used, so I do not feel comfortable assessing them for a controversial topic.

That's my first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your review! ( t · c) buidhe 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Why does this use "Talat Pasha" while the biographical article is " Talaat Pasha"? Can't tell why these would be inconsistent. And several quotations have "Talât" but the name could be translated/transliterated just as the rest of the sentence was. These should probably all have the same spelling, maybe with a footnote of alternatives.
    • "Talaat" spelling is historically more common, but the spellings with one "a" have become more common recently [3]. I think they are all similar enough that it's sufficiently obvious that they all refer to the same person. As for quotes, Talat, Talât, and Talaat are all valid ways of spelling the name in English and I believe changing the spelling would go against the principle of minimal change in MOS. I believe all the quotes with Talat's name are from English language sources.
      • Hmm should I start an RM for Talaat Pasha? Still think closely related articles should be consistent. Reywas92 Talk 00:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • From a modern American perspective it seems odd that the jury only decided on "deliberate murder" and there was no charge or way to convict on a sort of second-degree murder or manslaughter. Is there any comment on this?
    • In the law in force at the time, there was a provision for non-premeditated homicide (§ 212 as opposed to § 211), but the possibility of charging Tehlirian under that provision was not mentioned during the trial. Sources don't discuss it either.

Thank you for writing this, that was a fascinating history to read. Reywas92 Talk 04:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Reywas92 You're welcome, and thanks for your comments. ( t · c) buidhe 06:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a proposed upper stage for the Space Shuttle using the Centaur upper stage rocket. The whole Space Shuttle program was mired in controversy from the start, and this project spent a billion dollars with meagre results. The article addresses several questions and provides object lessons. It has been said that Shuttle-Centaur was a casualty of NASA's increased safety consciousness after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, but as the article shows, this was not entirely true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Image review pass per ACR ( t · c) buidhe 21:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Text review I promised to review this article, and I shall, but things are still very busy. I have a few issues I'll want to talk about when I've done the whole thing. Sorry for the delay. Putting this here as a placeholder so mods don't close the FAC for lack of interest -- this is a worthy article. -- Neopeius ( talk) 14:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Nick-D As disclosure, I'm reviewing in response to a request from Hawkeye on my talk page. I don't think I've ever given them an easy ride on nominations though, and won't be doing so this time either ;)

This article took six months to get through A-class, so I asked out of fear that it would get archived for want of reviewers like my last FAC submission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the lead should be be re-written to be less technical. E.g. was this a self-contained rocket system, or something which required a space shuttle? (and if so, how?) I'm a space nerd, and I don't really understand this sentence, and as a result the subject of the article isn't really clear on the basis of the lead. I didn't really understand the concept here until I saw the image in the 'design' section (which might be a better choice for the infobox as a result).
    Wait. Hold on. You're a space nerd? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    Surely you're not surprised? The cross over of military nerds and space nerds is about 100%. I'm particularly interested in the Cold War-era space programs. The change to the lead looks good. Nick-D ( talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Centaur was developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s..." - say who developed it, at least broadly (e.g. was this developed by/for NASA and/or the USAF?)
    It says it in the next paragraph. Moved to this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The first two sentences in the para starting with "Centaur upper stages were used..." are a bit complex and lengthy
    Cut it back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Ditto the sentence starting with "NASA Administrator Robert A. Frosch" (perhaps split into two sentences)
    Split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "who contended that contamination observed during early Space Shuttle..." - it's not clear what this means
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Space Shuttle Challenger and Space Shuttle Atlantis were modified to carry the CISS" - were these modifications significant, and were they removed when the program was cancelled?
    Added "These changes included additional plumbing to load and vent Centaur's cryogenic propellants, and controls on the aft flight deck for loading and monitoring the Centaur upper stage". Challenger was destroyed before a Centaur mission could be flown; there is no record of the changes being removed on Discovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    OK, fair enough. It seems that each Space Shuttle had a lot of unique quirks by the end of the program. Nick-D ( talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Shuttle-Centaur was certified as flight ready by NASA Associate Administrator Jesse Moore" - do we know when?
    Added "in November 1985". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "This was an extremely dangerous maneuver under any circumstance, but one that would never occur in the life of the Space Shuttle program" - bit unclear (is the second half of this sentence needed?)
    Yes. The point is that it was a dangerous contingency, but an unlikely one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "in which he made the case for Moore the Space Shuttle " - should this be "in which he made the case to Moore"? Nick-D ( talk) 06:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    Those changes all look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D ( talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

1997 Football League First Division play-off Final

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the single most valuable association football match in the world. It's out for a second trip to FAC, first time round it gained nine supports but there were some subjective issues over understandability of some of the prose. That kind of objection seems to have levelled off lately and common sense has somewhat prevailed on a good balance between being made to explain everything and using linking to help with such matters. As always, I'm more than happy to address any constructive criticism which will improve the article The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support I supported this at the previous nomination and it has not changed in any way, so my support still stands. Kosack ( talk) 09:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Reiterating my Support in the last FAC, though a non football person. Some quibbles that are hardly deal breakers.
  • The terms leg and aggregate are blue linked, but could you be more descriptive on first instance. eg, I found this confusing until Andy Walker made it 2–2. With the scores level at 3–3 on aggregate at full time.
  • The lead is very stats and process heavy; can we minimise this as far as possible and give more to the flow of game itself
  • firm header - firm?
  • Sheffield United's opposition in the semi-finals was Ipswich Town. - played against Ipswich Town in the...
  • went ahead in the 40th minute through Jan Åge - "The home side's Jan Åge scored in the"..."went ahead" is a bit jargony, and "through" could be "when Jan Åge scored"
  • The image in the infobox is at a reduced size and puny.

Ceoil ( talk) 23:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  • What about File:The old Wembley Stadium (cropped).jpg Ceoil ( talk) 23:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • last thing. Should the CRY V SHU Play Off Final 1997, 01:12:52 refs be combined into one; for eg we don't notarize on-line magazines into line 5, line 15, line 20. Ceoil ( talk) 00:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Palace's victory marked the first time a club from London had won a play-off,[64] and they were immediately installed as favourites to be relegated the following season by bookmakers - They won but became favourites to be rellegated?
Ok, but that's counter intutative and could be made clearer in the text. Ceoil ( talk) 08:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It would be interesting to detail Fjørtoft's yellow card earning "altercation" against Tuttle
  • What was he send off for - altercation seems very vague am left thinking thinking anything from kicking heads to pinching bottoms...kicked the feet from under / fouled ina nother way? I'm sure the commentators were not too dainty to say. Ceoil ( talk) 08:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • ...pass into the box went across the faces picked up by Dyer, who under challenge from Carl Tiler went across the face of Sheffield United's goal and out for a throw-in. Can you rephrase "under challenge from" and "went across the face of" Ceoil ( talk) 08:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Ceoil cheers for the support and the additional comments. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
to note, all my points addressed. Ceoil ( talk) 09:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "to gain promotion from the second tier Football League First Division to the English Premiership" - slight sea of blue here making it look like the name of the competition was the "English Premiership". Even if that issue is resolved, the name is incorrect - although its sponsored name was the Premiership, its actual name at the time was the FA Premier League and I believe that is what should be used
  • "while clubs placed from third to sixth in the league table competed play-off semi-finals" - missing "in"
  • "The winners of the semi-finals played against each other for the final place in the Premiership" - again, wrong name
  • "finished bottom of the 1997–98 Premiership" - and again
  • "Both missed out on the two automatic places for promotion to the Premiership" - and again
  • "The second leg of the semi-final was played four days later at the Molineux Stadium" - I have never heard it called "the" Molineux
  • "The return leg took place at Portman Road in Ipswich four days later" - you didn't say when the first leg was played, so "four days later" is meaningless
  • "after being relegated from the Premiership in the 1993–94 season" - guess :-)
  • "Howard Kendall, the Sheffield United manager, was making his twelfth appearance at Wembley Stadium" - is this just counting his appearances there as a manager? I'm pretty sure he played there too......
    The source says it was the twelfth time he'd walked out at Wembley. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Obviously Sheffield United are a good side, you have to be to get this close to the Premiership" - I'll let you off this one as it's a direct quote :-)
    Hence the potential confusion in the previous edits, but hey ho. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Eleven minutes later, Kevin Muscat won the ball which then fell to Dyer" - comma needed after ball, I think
    I don't think so. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "his cross was too close to Tracey who gathered it" - comma needed after Tracey, I think
    I don't thnk so. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "In the 31st minute, Andy Linighan was caught in the face by Taylor" - might be worth clarifying - was he caught by his boot? His elbow? Something else?
  • "Sheffield United kicked the second half off " => "Sheffield United kicked off the second half" would be preferable, I think
  • First para of the second half has six consecutive sentences which all start with some minor variant of "On N minutes" - any way to vary this a bit?
  • "from the right-hand side of the Sheffield penalty area which was flicked on by Gordon" - the penalty area was not flicked on
  • "claimed that his goal was "the most special goal [he] has ever scored" - if he was referring to a goal he himself scored, surely the verb was not "has"?
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude addressed other than where I've commented. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Further comments
  • Lead now says "to gain promotion from the second tier Football League First Division to the English Premier League", with the consecutive blue links making it look like its name is "English Premier League", which it isn't. Also, if there is a need to specify that the leagues are English, why put that against the second one to be mentioned rather than the first? I would personally suggest "third and final team to gain promotion from the Football League First Division, the second tier of the English football league system, to the Premier League."

@ WP:FAC coordinators: since this nomination has four supports, can I nominate another please? The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi TRM, it looks to be ticking along nicely, but I would want to see a source review pass before allowing a second nomination. We would also want to see the nomination open for a decent period, to give an opportunity for all reviewers to notice and potentially comment on it. Three weeks is the rule of thumb, but there is some flexibility in this. (Eg see [4] and [5].) Gog the Mild ( talk) 10:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The source review and image review took place in the previous nomination and nothing not much has changed. Obviously there's no need to revisit that or wait for some arbitrary time period when this is now holding more support than is normally required for a promotion. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, another source review on the additional refs passed. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@ WP:FAC coordinators: Six supports and an updated source review now passed. Can you let me know, if not now, then when I can nominate another FAC? The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I had no issues with this article the first time around. Happy to give my blessing a second time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 11:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Source review by Amakuru - Passed. Note that I performed a source review on 6 January 2021, and I passed it at that point so just reviewing the four refs that have changed since then:
    • Ref 3: Technically this doesn't appear to verify the fact - since the note is specifically about the name Premiership, the ref should use that term somewhere. Maybe add [6] as well, for a contemporary source which explicitly uses both "Premiership" and "FA Carling Premiership" in its prose?
    • Refs 68–70: All check out. Cheers  —  Amakuru ( talk) 12:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Amakuru thanks, I've added that suggested ref. Thanks for the re-check. Let me know if there's anything else. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Passing source review - I've checked all other changes made since January, and the few new bits of prose are all verified by their sources. This one's good to go.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 12:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - in addition to my source review here, I'm happy to reconfirm my general support which I gave last time. Neither the changes since then, nor the objections which were raised after my !vote, fundamentally change my view that this is an excellently written and thorough summary of the topic.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 12:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon ( talk) 12:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I bring back here this women's football match article, after a few reviewers were so kind to do a Peer Review. I believe it is in line with the football articles that recently got promoted to FA ( 1987 FA Cup Final, 2019 FA Cup Final), at least in terms of level of understanding to a non-expert. Edwininlondon ( talk) 12:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Images appear to be freely licensed and are appropriately captioned. ( t · c) buidhe 18:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. Edwininlondon ( talk) 16:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I gave the article a pretty thorough review when it was at WP:PR and am happy to support -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 18:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and your support. Edwininlondon ( talk) 16:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Support - I supported at the previous nomination. I already left comments that were addressed there. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 21:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A few more tweaks:

Two corner kicks for the home team quickly followed, but were unsuccessful ===>>> Two corner kicks for the home team quickly followed, but neither led to a goal. (The kicks themselves were not unsuccessful.)
Arsenal had made thirty-four shots <<<=== I think just "Arsenal had thirty-four shots" or "Arsenal had taken thirty-four shots"?
South-Korean <<<=== there shouldn't be a dash
allowing Manchester City to take the lead ===>>> allowing Manchester City to take the top position. ("the lead" sounds more like the lead in a game)
They achieved a further win ===>>> They achieved a second win

That's it. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 21:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Sportsfan77777, for taking time again to go over the article. Much appreciated. I have made the improvements you suggested. Thanks. Edwininlondon ( talk) 16:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Support. Hmlarson ( talk) 01:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Hmlarson for your support. Edwininlondon ( talk) 16:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Z1720

I commented on the peer review. Below are some additional comments based on a prose review. Please note: I am a non-expert.

  • "Manager Joe Montemurro used his new signings and brought on Jordan Nobbs" I don't know what the first part of the sentence is trying to tell me.
I removed the "used his new signings and" bit, as indeed it does not warrant a mention that these new signings were actually used.
  • "Prior to round eight" Round eight of what?
I changed it so that the opening sentence of this paragraph says that round 1 of the season took place in Sep. That should make the meaning of round eight obvious.
  • "surpassing Liverpool's 9–0 defeat of" Perhaps change to "surpassing Liverpool's 9-0 victory over" I think "defeat of" is a little confusing.
  • "After 23 February, no more of the 2019–20 season's matches were played because of the COVID-19 pandemic." "no more" sounds weird here. What about "Matches for the 2019-20 season stopped after 23 February because of the COVID-19 pandemic." Also, you use the same two citations for the next sentence, so I think you can remove the citations at the end of this one.
  • "Because Arsenal did not finish in the top two," Change to "Since Arsenal did not"

Those are all my comments. Z1720 ( talk) 01:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Z1720, for taking the time again to look at the article. Much appreciated. I hope I have addressed all your points. Edwininlondon ( talk) 16:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
My concerns have been addressed. I support based on prose. Z1720 ( talk) 23:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Direct quotes should be cited in the lead, even if repeated later
  • "The result put Arsenal top of the league on goal difference" - don't see this specific claim in the text
It summarises the first 3 sentences of the Aftermath section
Is the table position based solely on goal difference? Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah sorry, I now see what you mean. No, it is based on points first, then goal difference. I removed the detail about goal difference from the lead, and just stick to the main point: The result put Arsenal top of the league.
  • FN22: why italicize BBC Sport here but not in other refs?
Good catch. All consistent now.
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
There is no retrieval date when there is an archive date. I had missed a few and have just cleaned this up to be consistent.
This still isn't consistent - for example FN16 has both. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I have them all now. I added a bunch of archive links as well.
  • FN24 is missing author
  • FN45: work title should be italicized. Ditto FN48, check for others
Done. All newspapers now in italics.
This applies to all work titles, not just newspapers - eg Kicker. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Done. Thx!
  • FN49: the live link is actually working, but the archived link is a 404. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Good catch. Thanks very much for checking, Nikkimaria. Edwininlondon ( talk) 17:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I think I have fixed them all now. Thx. Edwininlondon ( talk) 16:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Willa Cather

Nominator(s): Urve ( talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Willa Cather, an author who lived with her domestic partner, Edith Lewis, for a number of years in the twentieth century. She is best remembered for her plains novels, making Nebraska visible to the world, though she also wrote historical novels in France and the American Southwest. She won a Pulitzer Prize in literature for her World War One novel, One of Ours. Urve ( talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Infobox says she was born in Gore, text says near Gore - which is correct?
  • FN1 is malformatted
  • FN6: The Mower's Tree is the work title, but the specific article being cited has its own titled, plus a date that is missing from the citation
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
  • FN17 is missing date
  • Willa Cather Archive is the website, not part of titles, and be consistent in whether you include publisher with these
  • Be consistent in whether you use title or sentence case for work titles
  • Be consistent in when you include publication location
  • FN23: given work title is a publisher. Check for other issues of this type.
  • FN21 is missing publisher. Ditto FN102, check for others
  • Fn35: are you citing the actual letter, or the introduction? The citation is unclear
  • Fn36: Home Monthly should be italicized. Ditto Red Cloud Chief in FN29, check for others
  • FN37 has the title plural, and I don't see that author credit there?
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations

Stopping for now and oppose - lots of formatting cleanup needed, please check throughout. Happy to revisit once that's been done. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Citation is what I am weakest at; usually use the preformed gadget, but as we can see, that leaves a lot to be desired. It will take a while to go through this so I will start working when I can. (I wanted to eventually switch to the shortened footnote system because of ease eventually, and I think this is a good time to do so.) Urve ( talk) 06:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. I will leave a review once Nikkimaria's comments are addressed. I have not worked on this type of article in the past, but I have very fond memories of Willa Cather as I studied Death Comes for the Archbishop for one of my graduate-level English courses and wrote a paper on one of its characters (Magdalena). I hope that I can help with this article as I am interesting in reading it and learning more about Cather. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Deutschland-class battleship

Nominator(s): Parsecboy ( talk) 15:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This article covers the last class of German pre-dreadnought battleships, which were built in the early 1900s. Interestingly, most of them were completed after the revolutionary HMS Dreadnought rendered their design obsolescent, but three of them outlasted Dreadnought by more than a couple of decades. I initially wrote this article a little over a decade ago, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review at that time. I've since thoroughly rewritten it with new sources, and it went through a peer review last month that helped to iron things out. Thanks to everyone who takes the time to review the article. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Have added alt text
  • File:Niemiecki_pancernik_szkolny_"Schlesien"_podczas_ostrzału_Helu_(2-64).jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The source lists the author as "Zell"; I can't find out whether that's a last name or a company. I wonder if @ Piotrus: might have some familiarity with who or what that might be. If not, I'll have to replace it (with this Bundesarchiv image, which should not be a proble). Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy ( talk) 20:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Can't help with Zell, very generic, but the next line mentions German WWII newspaper published in Poland ( [8]). This means that Template:PD-Poland may be applicable - granted, Poland was occupied at that time, but Poland obviously did not accept the fact (that's an interesting issue when it comes to copyright). Further, based on some discussions in Commons I remember, since the file was officially uploaded here under PD by the Polish National Archive, similar discussions when it comes to Bundesarchive generally ended with saying that "even if some facts are not clear/dubious, Bundesarchive has made the legal declaration this is PD so that's their responsibility, not our problem". So I think the picture is fine, as we have both the Polish-PD plus the backing of the official Polish institution. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I have returned... Will get started on this shortly. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 10:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • one thing in the lead, decap Invasion in the final para
    • Done
  • suggest "marking a significant increase in firepower"
    • Works for me
  • you could put "oa" in the infobox to specify which length is being shown
    • Done
  • "Deutschland had had a larger forward conning tower"?
    • Fixed
  • "equipped with three-shaft triple-expansion steam engines that each drove a screw propeller" is confusing. Would "each equipped with a three-shaft triple-expansion steam engine; each shaft drove a single screw propeller." work?
    • I think just removing the "-shaft" bit might solve the problem?
  • there is some repetition regarding the boilers
    • Replaced one of them
  • instead of the minimum, you could put the speed range in the infobox
    • Works for me
  • "carried an 147.5 kg"
    • Good catch
  • you could add the barbette armor to the infobox
    • Done
  • "four of her 8.8 cm guns were replaced with four 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns"
    • Fixed
  • "like her sisters'"
    • Good catch
  • "for four 8.8 anti-aircraft guns" rm excess space
    • Fixed

More to come. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • "the new armored ship Deutschland" armored ship? Wasn't she a heavy cruiser?
    • Yes, though the Germans initially classified them as "panzerschiffe" - but I suppose we should use the classification that we use in their article for consistency
  • fn 23 should be pp.
    • Fixed
  • author-link Friedman
    • Done
  • Koop & Schmolke doesn't have any unique detail?
    • I assume that it does, but it's not readily available so I haven't been able to consult it.

That's all I could find, nitpicks really. Nice job. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PM, and welcome back! Parsecboy ( talk) 19:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
All good, and thanks. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

R. A. B. Mynors

Nominator(s): Modussiccandi ( talk) 22:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

(The two week period between nominations was waived by a coordinator.) This article is about the Latinist Roger Mynors who wrote the standard editions of the Latin poets Vergil and Catullus. Though he's mostly known for those books, he did interesting work on manuscripts and catalogued several library collections. What's more, he is unique for having been the senior chair of Latin at both Oxford and Cambridge.

A recent nomination of this article was archived after it emerged that coverage of his publications needed to be expanded. Noswall59 and Llywrch generously helped me rectify these omissions at a peer review. These were the main obstacles at the last FAC and I believe the article is now in good shape. I will be grateful for any suggestions for improvement.

In addition to those above, I'm notifying all who commented on the last nomination: Gerda Arendt, Gen. Quon, Therapyisgood, SandyGeorgia, Caeciliusinhorto, Ergo Sum, Modussiccandi ( talk) 22:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Support I happily threw in my support last go around, and I still think that it is up to FA standards.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • "The final accomplishment of his career was a comprehensive commentary on Vergil's Georgics" - the text says this was done after retirement, which is correct?
  • The commentary was written in retirement and published after his death. So I would say the body is correct. I have adjusted the lead section to better reflect this. Modussiccandi ( talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Mynors was knighted in 1963 for his service to classical scholarship" - the text says he was knighted, but not why - source for this?
  • I have checked the sources. They all just say 'he was knighted' without giving a reason. I have removed the unsourcable bit accordingly. Modussiccandi ( talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Source for having influenced Tarrant?
  • The source is Gotoff (1991) p. 311. I had forgotten to add Tarrant to the body but I've added him now. Modussiccandi ( talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Publications list includes ISBNs for items published before that system was implemented - are these for later editions?
  • These ISBNs are those under which the books are sold by Oxford University Press today. In his edition of Catullus (1958), which I purchased last year, the year is still given as 1958 and no subsequent editions seem to have been made. I assume they added ISBNs to their older publications once they were introduced. But I am by no means an expert on this. Modussiccandi ( talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hm. I haven't heard of this being done - is it possible these were reprints? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • They must be; the copy of the Catullus text I own was clearly printed very recently. Does this need to be reflected in the bibliography? Modussiccandi ( talk) 09:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @ Nikkimaria: Is there a parameter in the "cite book" template? Or what is the best way to do this? My apologies for not pinging you sooner about this. Modussiccandi ( talk) 18:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You can use |edition=. Ideally it would be good to figure out the reprint date as well, but if that's not available just the reprint edition statement works. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • FN1: page? Ditto FN18, FN45. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • These sources are newspaper articles which I consulted via the online database Factiva. No page numbers were given but I presume these articles were printed on one page. Modussiccandi ( talk) 22:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Does Factiva provide permalinks? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe they don't. I've tried linking Factiva pages in an old version of an article I wrote but was asked to remove them when they turned out to be useless by a GA reviewer. See n. 1, 15, 17, 20 in the version linked. Modussiccandi ( talk) 09:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Those aren't permalinks - if they exist they should be somewhere in the Factiva interface on the pages for the articles. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Nikkimaria: Thanks a lot for this. Please see my comment on ISBNs above. You may have a better idea than me about whether it's common practice to retroactively add ISBNs to older books. Best, Modussiccandi ( talk) 22:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil

Not withstanding Nikki's points above, which seem resolved, spent a very enjoyable half hour reading over this today. The article is impeccably written, the sources are of the first quality, and comparing it as it stands now to when the last nom was closed; am confident that the scholarship has been brought up to date. Ceoil ( talk) 01:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from Ergo Sum

  • "both of England's leading universities" - since link goes to Oxbridge, I think it should include the "both of"
  • "country residence at Treago Castle" - was his residence the castle itself or was it located there as just a part of the castle/copmlex. If the former, then I would remove "at" and offset Treago Castle with comas.
  • "Mynors' reputation is that of Britain's foremost classicists" - this strikes my ear as odd phrasing. Perhaps it is a Britishism I am unfamiliar with? He cannot be multiple people, so I think it would have to be "one of Britain's" or some other rephrasing.
  • This seems to have crept in by accident. I couldn't resist fixing this right away. I'll attend to the rest later. Modussiccandi ( talk) 16:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You can use {{ Marriage}} in the infobox.
  • I would link gentry to the appropriate article.
  • "as a scholar" - is this a typical way of referring to Etonians, or does it refer to a particular scholarship? If not, I wonder what it adds to the sentence.
  • Yes, calling him 'a scholar' denotes that he won a scholarship to go to Eton. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "He became a fellow of Pembroke College" - this short sentence reads as a bit jarring. An "also" might soothe the reader a bit
  • Done. My drive to eradicate 'also' may have gone a bit to far here. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's generally preferable to have inline citations come at the end of sentences, or at least after punctuation. Unless there is a reason otherwise, Fn 17 can be moved to the end of the sentence.
  • n. 17 only backs up the fact that she was a medical researcher. The rest of the sentences together with the next one comes from n. 18. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Eton headmaster Alington" - I think you need a coma after headmaster
  • "first as a joint" - I assume "joint" refers to the subsequent "editor." Because the two are separated by dependent clause commas, it might benefit to repeat "editor" after "joint"
  • "Church historian" - which church? Is it Christian churches in general or the Anglican church?
  • Gerald Bonner, whom this sentence describes, was a historian of the early church. That's why I chose the general 'Church' over anything more specific. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "autumn of 2020" - Per MOS:SEASONS, use of seasons to refer to a part of the year is deprecated. If there is a month, that can be substituted, or simply 2020 might work just as well.
  • Because it is a complete sentence, "beginning of the poem's sixth book" in the caption needs ending punctuation.
  • Ditto "In his retirement"
  • My understanding of British honors is minimal, but if I understand correctly, one can be knighted as either a Knight Bachelor or a member of chivalric order, in which case, they carry post-nominals. I think it should be specified which one was the case for Mynors.

A very fine article. Congratulations. I wholly intend to support, pending the resolution of the above comments. Ergo Sum 17:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Ergo Sum: Thank you for a set of really thorough comments! I have done my best to address them. Please don't hesitate to ask if you require more detail on any of my above replies. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Quite happy to support. Ergo Sum 20:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, I participated at the peer review; now that topic-knowledgeable editors have been through, I am happy to support. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support for featured article status. Therapyisgood ( talk) 02:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as the earlier version, just stronger -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from Noswall59

As I said in the previous review, this is a very well-written, accessible overview of Mynors' life. It now also covers his contribution to scholarship in detail. I have read Winterbottom's 1993 obituary; I noticed that the article barely mentioned Mynors' edition of Cassiodorus's Institutiones, so I added it to the bibliography and a couple of sentences to the contributions to textual criticism. Otherwise, I'm satisfied that this is essentially comprehensive and further discussion of his textual criticism, if more can be said, belongs in the articles about the texts rather than here.

My final comment is therefore only a suggestion for the nominator. Having reviewed the article one more time, I wondered what they thought about a structural re-jigging as tested in my sandbox: User:Noswall59/sandbox5? I'm suggesting this because, to me, it now seems odd to have the bibliographic/palaeographic and Virgil paragraphs in the legacy section when they seem more at home in the scholarship one. And the mentions of the Festschrift and Balliol exhibition probably belong in the honours section. This is somewhat stylistic, and it doesn't seem to have bothered anyone else, but I actually think it makes more sense... What do you reckon Modussiccandi? There is nothing which makes me oppose this at present but I shall hold off on supporting pending your reply on the structural question. Cheers, — Noswall59 ( talk) 08:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC).

@ Noswall59: Thank you very much for your additions on Cassiodorus; they go way beyond the call of duty. I've also taken over your re-ordering. Since the "Contributions" section is rather long now, I've considered adding sub-headings. All but the last and first paragraphs are on his critical editions, so two sub-sections would only be one paragraph in length. I've added them in for now, do feel free to tinker with them. Be that as it may, I should like to thank you for your sustained interest in the article. I really appreciate your effort. Best, Modussiccandi ( talk) 09:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Modussiccandi. I'm happy with the article now and have gladly switched to support. A top-rate effort and a model for articles on similar scholars (hopefully the first of many!) I've added one further heading in the section, but I'm open to there being no headings or to you/someone else changing this. I've also red-linked W. S. Maguinness. He certainly seems notable enough for an article in the future. Thanks very much for your contribution and for your patience and adaptability! — Noswall59 ( talk) 11:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC).

Image review

Only five images:

  1. File:Portrait photograph of Rogers Mynors.jpg Tagged for deletion as missing evidence of permission. Since subject is dead, recommend just adding a template:Non-free use rationale 2 template to the free image and be done with it.
  2. File:Treago-Castle-375001 13a17522-by-Tony-Bailey.jpg CC-by-SA 2.0 licence
  3. File:Cristoforo Majorana - Leaf from Eclogues, Georgics and Aeneid - Walters W400118V - Open Reverse.jpg Has OTRS ticket.
  4. File:Beda Petersburgiensis f3v.jpg Published in 746. Copyright expired.
  5. File:Hereford Cathedral Exterior from NW, Herefordshire, UK - Diliff.jpg CC-by-3.0 licence.

One issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • @ Hawkeye7: Thanks for the image review. I have talked to the copyright owners (Balliol College, Oxford) and they've agreed to upload the image. Apparently they haven't provided enough verification. I'll talk to them again in the hope that they can clean this up. For the time being, I've added the template to the free image. Let me know if any more action is needed. Modussiccandi ( talk) 22:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    Support All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Amitchell125

Great writing, I agree with all the positive comments given so far. Amitchell125 ( talk) 12:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Spot check by Z1720

Checked and verified: Bonner 133, Fuchs 89, Gaselee 189, Gotoff 310, 310-11, 311, Johnston, Levine 416, Maguinness 198, Sewter 105, Souter 195, Williams 89, Winterbottom 389. I could not access Harrison, Nisbet, and Trappes-Lomax. Below are some notes on other citations:

  • For Gatch 543, I could not verify that "His was the first critical edition of this text since that of Charles Plummer (1896)."
  • Changed the wording to remove the claim that his edition "was the first since". Modussiccandi ( talk) 10:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • For Gotoff 309, I could not verify that the translations were for the Univerity of Toronto Press.
  • It says " Another engagement of his later years was translating the Letters of Erasmus for Toronto". I think it's common academic parlance to omit the word "press" in statements such as this. Modussiccandi ( talk) 10:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Bethany Hamblen is not referenced in the article, so it should not be in the Bibliography.
  • For Magguiness 200, I could not verify that "and added an index of personal names." or "His Oxford editions of the poets Catullus and Vergil in particular have proved important contributions to the field;"
  • Re. index: the source says "The provision of an Index Norninum, lacking in Hirtzel, is greatly to be appreciated", index nominum being Latin for "index of personal names". Re. Catullus and Vergil: I replaced this statement with a quotation to a similar effect by Gotoff. Modussiccandi ( talk) 10:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • For Oliver 51, I could not verify that "Mynors' second critical edition was of the poems of Catullus." I was able to verify the other statements.
  • You are right; it's not in the source. That statement was derived from the publication dates of his books. Do you think this crosses the border to OR? Modussiccandi ( talk) 10:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • For Peacocke 325, I could not verify "At Balliol, Mynors taught from 1926 until 1944, a time during which he mentored many future scholars, including the Wittgenstein expert David Pears."
  • Sorry for this one. The source talks only about Pears. I have now sourced the dates from Nisbet and the rest from Winterbottom. Modussiccandi ( talk) 10:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "They maintained a close friendship,[11] which exposed Mynors to other German philologists, including Rudolf Pfeiffer and Otto Skutsch.[12]" Why are these two separate footnotes? Can they be merged?
  • "Mynors established a new text of Bede's Ecclesiastical History for the edition he published together with the historian Bertram Colgrave. His was the first critical edition of this text since that of Charles Plummer (1896).[40] Collation of the Saint Petersburg Bede, an 8th-century manuscript unknown to Plummer, allowed Mynors to construct a new version of the M tradition.[40]" Why are two footnotes used here for the same reference?
  • In the paragraph that starts with "Mynors' second critical edition was of the poems of Catullus." Why are there three citations to [32] in a row? Can we delete the first two citations?

Thank you very much for this, Z1720. Please see my comments on your observations above. Modussiccandi ( talk) 10:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1

I saw this excellent article a while back and meant to comment then but subsequently overlooked it. You have already garnered a clutch of, well-deserved, Supports and I shall be pleased to add to them. Just a few queries/comments that struck me at the time.

  • “Sir R. A. B. Mynors” - this blend of knighthood and initials strikes me as odd. Looking at the Knight Bachelor article, and other examples of Kt. infoboxes, I think the usual form is Sir Roger Aubrey ....
Early life
  • “Mynors was born Langley Burrell, Wiltshire, into a family of gentry in the south-west of England” - there are a couple of things here: first, it’s missing an “in”, between born and Langley Burrell. More critical, I don’t get the “in the south-west of England”. Is this referring to Langley Burrell or to his family? If, as I think, it’s the latter, then I don’t think it’s right. The Mynors were Herefordshire gentry, and Herefordshire isn’t in the south-west. Assuming it is the family that is being referenced, then something like, “Mynors was born in Langley Burrell, Wiltshire, into a family of gentry from the midlands of England/Herefordshire”?
  • “The Mynors family had owned the estate of Treago Castle since the 16th century...” - following on from the above, I’d tweak this a little. First, I think it would help to clarify that Treago is somewhere other than Wiltshire, which amending the previous sentence may do. Second, I think “family” is probably redundant. Last, I think 16th should be 15th. Brooks/Pevsner in the revised Herefordshire Pevsner (2012) gives 1470 as the date of Sir Richard Mynors building Treago. Similarly, the Historic England listing [9], states “been in the hands of the Mynors family since early C15.” Although I see they use “Mynors family”, so you could ignore my earlier comment on this. So something like, “The Mynors had owned the Treago Castle estate, near St Weonards, since the 15th century”?
  • “He attended Summer Fields School in Oxford, and from 1916, attended Eton College” - could you replace the second “attended” with something else for variety, for example, “He attended Summer Fields School in Oxford and in 1916 entered Eton College as a scholar?
  • “His precocious interest in Latin literature and its transmission” - it may be that there is no other suitable term but “transmission” gave me pause, and I think it may trouble other lay readers. It is meaning “the ways in which classical texts were circulated and preserved prior to the invention of printing”. We don’t appear to have an article, which would have enabled a bluelink. If there is no other suitable word, I would recommend an explanation, either in the body or by way of a footnote.
  • “Hertford (1924), Craven (1924), and Derby (1926) scholarships” - well out of my depth, and certainly go with the source, but is the Craven a Fellowship, rather than a scholarship?
  • “focussed on the poet Vergil” - again, it is certain that classical scholarship has moved on, and Vergil may now be the preferred spelling. I only note that our article has Virgil, with “Vergil” as a redirect.
  • “his being employed at the Exchange Control Department of Her Majesty's Treasury responsible for the administration of foreign currency exchange” - again, to avoid the duplicate, perhaps “the administration of foreign currency transactions”?
Apologies - have to break off now. Back shortly. KJP1 ( talk) 14:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

One of the Boys (1989 TV series)

Nominator(s): Heartfox ( talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

An American primetime television series from 1989 with no article until March 2021?! That's the case with One of the Boys (1989 TV series), which I have created and expanded to hopefully becoming a featured article. It is currently a GA and underwent a beneficial peer review by Aoba47. I welcome any comments and look forward to addressing them. Thanks, Heartfox ( talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  • There's a ref error: "Snyder 1989. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." ( t · c) buidhe 02:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks for catching that, Heartfox ( talk) 03:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

  • File:One of the Boys 1989 title card.png has an appropriate FUR
  • Given how only one season aired, it wouldn't hurt to include the overall episode count in the lead. I would also expand that to include more production details.
    • Edited.
  • "they wed by the fifth episode"..... in the fifth episode
    • Amended.
  • Is "unsuccessful" pertaining to critical reception, viewership ratings, or both for I Married Dora?
    • Specified with additional Los Angeles Times reference.
  • "better" from "could receive better movie roles afterward" is POV
    • Changed to "thought she could receive better movie roles afterward".
  • When did filming conclude?
    • I was unable to find a source.
  • To avoid WP:SYNTH, I'd try to find a ref to back up the general assessment of "Critics deemed the show unremarkable". Don't make presumptions solely based on reviews already included within Wikipedia pages.
    • I could not find any overall assessments or retrospective comments.
  • Is five reviews all you can find?
    • That's pretty much all there is on, NewspaperArchive, ProQuest, Gale, and Google News Archive. I believe the fact there was no preview shown to television critics before the premiere has something to do with such little reviews. As you can see from Live-In or even The Masked Singer (American TV series), I do not hesitate to add reviews when they are available.

While this is rather short compared to many other TV show pages (which I suspect is at least partially because it only lasted for six episodes), it mostly seems comprehensive. Just get through these as well as Buidhe's concern on a reference error. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for your comments, SNUGGUMS. I have responded above. Heartfox ( talk) 08:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Looking better. Just two more things: remove the synth, and we may as well mention Clohessy (along with his character) by name given how the show's overarching plot focuses on him. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 13:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I now offer my support, and the image review passes as well. Very good work! SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 03:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Heartfox ( talk) 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ SNUGGUMS: I have added an additional image to the article and would like to inform you as you previously conducted an image review. Heartfox ( talk) 01:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
In that case, the FUR for File:One of the Boys 1989 cast.png is A-OK. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 02:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from MaranoFan

I have been waiting for you to nominate something. Given the great quality of your source reviews, I doubt a lot of work will be required but I will give it a look later.-- N Ø 05:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "a motorcycle-riding Venezuelan immigrant to the United States pursuing the American Dream by leaving her job as a waitress and becoming a bookkeeper at the Lukowski Construction Company" -- The way this is worded seems to place more emphasis on her riding motorcycles than her professions. Is it that notable a characteristic of this character?-- N Ø 13:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Removed; it's not notable. Heartfox ( talk) 21:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi @ MaranoFan: congrats on AATB! I was just wondering if you had any additional comments for this article. Thanks, Heartfox ( talk) 21:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I am not that familiar with these type of articles, so I randomly read the FAs Kampung Boy (TV series) and House (TV series) as examples. I may use them as a reference for the review.
  • I don't think just saying it is an "American sitcom" gets enough information across in the opening sentence. Is it possible to use a descriptive word between them, like "American romance sitcom" or something else?
    • Genres require sources and to my knowledge there were none that specified it further.
  • Is there a reason the character and actress have similar names?
    • There were no sources that acknowledged the similarity of their names.
  • "who gets hired to work in the office of a small construction company" -- Shouldn't this be active voice? "who begins working in the office of a small construction company"
    • Changed.
  • "quickly marries its widowed owner" -- Not sure "quickly" does much to enhance the reader's understanding here.
    • Removed.
  • "Numerous production companies oversaw filming" -- If there's just five, can't they be named?
    • Five production companies is a massive number for any TV show, particularly one that lasted six episodes. Are you sure it wouldn't be excessive to list all of them for a one-paragraph lead? I did change "numerous" to "five", though.
  • The lead mentions what the reviews referred to, but does not say whether they were favorable or negative.
    • There were no retrospective/all-encompassing sources that described the reviews either way.
  • I am a bit confused by the structure of the lead section. The sentence "It was one of the only American primetime series to star a Latin American woman in the 1980s." is the best and most attention-grabbing part. Can that be moved up and made the second sentence?
    • Done.
  • "Her best friend Bernice DeSalvo (Amy Aquino) works as a waitress" -- Does she only work as a waitress at Mike and Maria's wedding or all the time? This sentence appears kind of abruptly.
    • I tried reorganizing the paragraph but I really don't know where else to put it to be honest, so I reformatted the section it into a list which more closely aligns with MOS:TVCAST idk. This is back in paragraph form, with the sentence written differently.
  • There's another sentence that mentions things happening "quickly", but isn't this automatically implied since the series had just six episodes?
    • Removed.
  • Shouldn't the article structure be Background - Production - Premise instead of what it is now? I could be wrong, since I am not familiar with writing these type of articles!
    • It's supposed to be plot first but you're not supposed to have a plot section if there are episode summaries, so you're supposed to move the episode table first, but you can't because of the infobox, so cast and characters is next... the MOS a mess TBH but other TV FA's don't follow MOS:TV structure exactly (e.g., Abby, which is what I based this article on originally); every article is different. If you think it flows well that should be what matters.
  • "Alonso kept her singing career separate from the show and does not sing on episodes" -- Change this to "Alonso kept her singing career separate from the show and does not sing in it".
    • Changed.
  • "Scheuer stated she "earns laughs that aren't even in the script" -- What does this mean?
    • Paraphrased.
I don't doubt that you have done the best possible with the information available, but the article is still rather small. Critical commentary is limited and some structural issues hinder it from being a compelling and gripping read as of yet. I am regretfully leaning towards oppose.-- N Ø 03:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@ MaranoFan: Thank you for your comments and reviewing something unfamiliar. I have responded above and done my best to address them. Heartfox ( talk) 03:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article does look better after the changes made.
  • Second and third lead sentences could stand to be merged a bit. "It was one of the only American primetime programs to star a Latin American woman—María Conchita Alonso—that decade. She features as Maria Conchita Navarro, a Venezuelan immigrant to the United States who begins working in the office of a small construction company and marries its widowed owner, Mike Lukowski (Robert Clohessy)." This is accomplishing two things, improving the flow a bit, and moving the repetition of the words "Maria Conchita" out of the same sentence.
    • Changed; thanks for the suggestion.
  • I'm sure a little synthesis would be fine for the lead regarding critical commentary. It seems obvious from reading the paragraph that the comments directed toward the concept and script were negative whereas critics were more favorable to Alonso's acting.
    • SNUGGUMS offered their support because such synthesis was removed, so no.
  • Considering the small size of the article, I would suggest moving the details with citations in the infobox to the Background section. I think cites in the infobox are generally discouraged and the prose could stand to gain a few more sentences.
    • Moved.
  • "Alonso was initially averse to acting in television" -- Would "on television" sound better than "in television"?
    • Changed.
  • The description for the sixth episode is small. Maybe use the episode itself as a reference to expand a bit?
    • The episode is only available at the UCLA Film and Television Archive in Los Angeles.
  • Why do you say there are no sources describing the genre? I randomly opened this one and it clearly describes it as a "midseason replacement comedy".
    • I am confused as to what you are suggesting. "Midseason replacement" is not a genre and it is already described as a "sitcom" (situational comedy).
  • The same article describes Navarro as a "full of life, tomboyish, yet feminine" character. I think this gives us valuable insight into the character and should be included, again, given the relatively small size of this article?
    • Added.
  • The same Philadelphia Inquirer piece states Alonso had "many talk show visits with David Letterman and Johnny Carson". Why this is being used as a source for "there was little publicity for One of the Boys" is very confusing to me.
    • It is used to cite "She's scheduled to appear on Late Night with David Letterman on Thursday", which is paraphrased as "Aside from Alonso's appearance on Late Night with David Letterman". I unmerged the footnote. The other visits are in the past, not in 1989 promoting the show. I decided to remove the mention of her Late Night appearance.
  • Another insightful quote from the very same article is completely omitted: "My character has class; she's had an education. She's not the often seen fruit-on-the-head, koochy-koochy type."
    • I have expanded the section with more details.
  • "These six episodes were a trial run; One of the Boys would air a second season starting in September 1989 if it was well-received." -- The framing is a bit confusing. From what I understand, they did not go through with the second season. That should be more clear.
    • It is clear in the next paragraph? The sentence sets up what the result of the episodes is. It would air a second season if it was well-received, but in the next paragraph it is explained that it wasn't well-received. I moved this up.
  • My concerns about the omission of important details stated in the sources are by no means exhaustive, as I just opened one article.
While I initially thought the coverage received was limited, it seems the article really could be expanded more using even just the sources already included in it. Episodes could be directly used as references to expand on the plot. A picture of the cast or this picture of Navarro could be added so there is some visual demonstration of the people involved. At the moment the article is barely establishing the series's notability, it does not constitute the prose standard that unfamiliar-with-the-topic people coming to it from being featured on the main page will find engaging. I am going to refrain from formally voting but some concerns with regards to criteria 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, and 3, still remain. Regards.-- N Ø 10:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@ MaranoFan: Thank you for your time reviewing the article and leaving further comments; I've responded above. Where do you suggest an image of Alonso be added? It would cause sandwiching issues next to the infobox and leaves a huge white space in the critical reception section because {{clear}} has to be used. There were no images of the full cast I came across. I would note the article has already passed an image review. Thanks, Heartfox ( talk) 22:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I have added an image of the cast via the opening sequence. Heartfox ( talk) 01:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi MaranoFan, it has almost been a week and I was wondering if you would like to follow up on your comments/my responses/edits. Thanks again, Heartfox ( talk) 02:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I am uncertain about this sentence, One of the only American primetime series to star a Latin American woman in the 1980s, the show received inconsistent Nielsen ratings and was not renewed for a second season by NBC., from the lead. It has two different ideas linked together, when I think it may be more beneficial to represent them separately.
    • Moved to the start of the second sentence.
  • I think it would have been better to keep this part later in the lead and just make it into a separate sentence. I do not see a real benefit of adding it to the start of the second sentence as it is just taking a sentence that was already long and dense with information and adding more to it. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Does the last sentence work better? Heartfox ( talk) 04:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Looks better to me. Thank you! Aoba47 ( talk) 05:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Apologies in advance as this is super nitpick-y, but I think the word features sounds a little off in this part, The sitcom One of the Boys features Maria Conchita Navarro. I think saying is about would be sound better. For some reason, something about the word features in the context of a plot summary just seems off to me, but it could just be me.
    • Changed to "follows".
  • That works for me. I was actually going to recommend that as an option. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The phrase musical efforts in this part, for her musical efforts, seems odd and unnecessarily vague to me. When I looked at Alonso's Wikipedia article, it seems like she received these nominations for albums so I think it would be much clearer to say that instead.
    • The source (Walstad) refers to one album and one single.
  • Thank you for the clarification. Then why not just shorten the part, she had received two Grammy Award nominations for her musical efforts, to she had received two Grammy Award nominations as most people associate the Grammys with music (although they of course give out some awards for non-music ventures like narration). I think the musical efforts part just throws me off. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

These are my only comments and they are very nitpick-y. You have done a very good job with this article, considering how there is so little information out there about this series. I am always happy to see something super obscure like this be brought into the FAC space. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support the article for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 02:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments; don't worry about nitpicks. I've responded above :) Heartfox ( talk) 04:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 05:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱

Well, time to look at another short article for FA. The cite formatting is perfect, so nothing to say there.

I also will remind reviewers once again that an article being short doesn't make it incomplete. There's a lot of major network shows like this that get coverage only in the moment, and they're so forgotten there's not even any Buzzfeed list to remember them as "all-time classics" (and that cringey blog considers Jimmy Eat World albums and preschool shows classic, for crying out loud!). Trust me, searches for academic literature gave me nothing no matter what keyword tricks I tried. I also don't blame the critical reception section for being so short. All sorts of these shows from the 1980s and 1990s (and even still in the 2000s and 2010s) don't get that many significant opinions on the series themselves, and when they do, it's always for the first two episodes. Heck, good luck finding any newspaper reviews of later seasons of even some of the most-known TV series (I can say this as someone who's worked on Everybody Loves Raymond articles). The point is is that this is as complete as the article's gonna get, so it meets 1b in that regard. I do have some comments:

Thank you for your perspective. Yes, and it is even worse with this series because no preview was shown to television writers before the first episode aired. Since that's when most reviews would have been written, a lot less reviews are available to include in this article than even another six-episode one.
  • No section describing the premise of the series? I know the cast and characters section has descriptions, and I know it only ran for six episodes, but still... Given how little there is to describe the other starring actors in this series besides the lead actress, I would just make a non-list, full-prose premise section with the actor's names in parenthesis.
    • I changed it from prose to a list a couple days ago, but I guess I'll just rewrite the whole section into a paragraph again given the limited commentary available regarding the other characters.
  • Does the text in Note A really need to be a note? Why can't it be in prose?
    • Good idea.
  • "Alonso described Navarro as an educated woman with class.[2]" I find this short sentence not only screwing up the flow within the paragraph, but also under-presenting what the source presents. In the interview, she brought up the fact that she has education and class to indicate how different the character was from other Latinos in popular media, which is significant as it's established in the background section (and the note)
    • I will incorporate this in the rewrite.
  • Since Latino representation seems to be the major theme, how were Latinos typically presented in media around the late 1980s before this series? Maria Alonso states in The Philadelphia Inquirer interview that they were usually presented as "poor" or "maids".
    • I will add a sentence about that.
  • "The Philadelphia Inquirer's David Walstad described Navarro as a "full of life, tomboyish, yet feminine" woman " Nope. The source was interviewing the actress and quoted her as saying that.
    • I have fixed this.
  • "Episode tapings—which used stereo sound[20]" Is this significant in anyway? Every series had stereo audio in the late 1980s. That source certainly doesn't add notability to it as it's a listing, not actual coverage.
    • It is insignificant; MaranoFan suggested stuff cited in the infobox be mentioned in prose (the developer and composer weren't before their review), but I think this particular one is best kept as an infobox footnote.
  • I find the prose in the production, critical reception, and "Broadcast history" sections choppy, like a set of short sentences describing things.

👨x🐱 ( talk) 01:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I will look at ways to reorganize the sentence structure in these sections, but changes will inevitably be limited as there's not any new content that's going to be added.

@ HumanxAnthro: Thank you for your comments. I have left some preliminary responses above and will edit the article in depth tomorrow. Heartfox ( talk) 02:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@ HumanxAnthro: I believe I have addressed your comments with recent edits to the article. Let me know what you think and thanks again for your time, Heartfox ( talk) 02:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Comments below. Aza24 ( talk) 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Assuming "Los Angeles" in the Variety ref should include the state, like the other refs with locations; likewise with Miami, Detroit and Hollywood
  • I don't really understand the consistency in using locations, is there a pattern/some kind of standardization here that I'm missing?
    • Locations are provided when it is not in the work name; states are given when the Wiki article for the location doesn't list it. Should they all give the state? I'm not really familiar.
      • Considering the locations aren't linked to their articles anyways (which is probably for the best), I would think including the state every time makes the most sense. I now understand your approach to including locations or not, but the one that was throwing me off is USA Today—which doesn't seem to satisfy your criteria on that matter. Aza24 ( talk) 23:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
        • I've added states. USA Today has a location when it has a dateline. ProQuest gives McLean, Virginia, as the location of the paper as a whole. Should I include that as well?
          • Our article on USA today does as well, so I would think, of consistency's sake, such an addition is appropriate. Aza24 ( talk) 00:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Top notch from what I can tell—and impressive given the subject matter
  • I don't really understand "The Meeting" 1989 refs—where in the episode are we getting this information, the credits? Surely there are better sources, if so. Aza24 ( talk) 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The production information is from the opening and ending credits. However, because it is also used as a footnote for a plot summary I thought it would not make sense to list the credits as the info source so it's just the episode in general. Because most (but not all) was also listed in Leszczak, his book is cited as well.
      • Makes sense, but I'm wondering if that can be made clear in the ref; i.e. putting "(credits)" or something somewhere—if you see what I mean? Aza24 ( talk) 23:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Thanks; this is my first time using sfn in an article so I didn't know about the loc= paramater. I've added them in the refs.

@ Aza24: thanks so much for the source review. I'm open to addressing everything I just have some responses/questions above. Heartfox ( talk) 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Aza24: I've replied above. Heartfox ( talk) 23:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Great, pass for source review. Aza24 ( talk) 03:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations

Greed (game show)

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 ( talk) 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the short-lived Fox game show Greed, which was considered to be the network's answer to the success of ABC's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. It was hosted by Chuck Woolery of Wheel of Fortune, Love Connection, and Scrabble fame, lasting for roughly eight months from November 1999 to July 2000. The article just passed a GA nomination last month. I've brought a handful of game show articles to FA status before, but it's been a few years since I've been at FAC, so any and all feedback is welcomed and appreciated. Bcschneider53 ( talk) 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Aoba47

Addressed comments

I am leaving this as a placeholder. If I do not return to post my review by this time next week, please ping me. This article brings back fond memories of watching GSN reruns with my mom when I was in middle school. I just have one quick comment right now. The part about Jerry Springer being a host needs a citation as it is currently not supported by anything. Aoba47 ( talk) 03:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Please add ALT text to the infobox image.
  • I am curious on why citations are used in the infobox rather than putting that information in the article with the citations there? Either way is appropriate, but I would like to hear your reasoning behind this choice.
  • Moved the citations to the production section. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks like most of the information in the infobox is not supported by a citation. This includes Bob Levy being the director, the Fox Television Center being the location, Floyd Ingram being the editor, and the names of the distributors. This information should be supported by citations.
  • There are a handful of references in the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire article (a GA) that simply cite "End credits lists of appropriate U.S. Millionaire episodes." Would something similar be sufficient here? I'd imagine it would be difficult to find anything else since the Internet was in its infancy in 1999 and most webpages dedicated to the show are long gone... -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • From my understanding, it is better to cite this information through other sources rather than using the episodes as primary sources. You only mention webpages above, but have you looked into newspapers, magazines, or books? is a good source for newspapers. In the past, I have found this kind of production information on past shows in these sources. This show was run on a major television network so I would imagine this information can be found somewhere. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • So, I've checked the best I can and cannot seem to find a thing about any of these four things. I went back and watched the premiere episode and verified Levy as the director ( at 1:26:49 here), so I've gone ahead and used the cite episode template for that one and removed the others where a keyword search came up empty. Let me know if you think this can be resolved better. In the meantime, I'll get to work on the rest. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 18:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am honestly uncertain about this. I would not have any issue with sourcing this information through episode (especially since they are readily available for viewing), but I would like to hear from other editors as I am not experienced enough in this matter to confidentially say one way or another with certainty. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Obviously I'm the nominator so I shouldn't have the final say, but I've always been under the impression that it's a primary/secondary sort of scenario? Citing the episodes is essentially using a primary, direct source, which from my experience is allowed when necessary, albeit better if it can be further backed up by secondary sources if possible. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 23:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is a primary/secondary scenario. I have seen instances where primary sources are acceptable and other instances where it was not accepted. The likely answer is it depends entirely on context, with secondary being preferable but primary being acceptable if there are not any sources available. I guess I am more surprised that there is not a source that lists the production credits, when I have found similar credits for obscure shows that do not have full episodes anywhere on the internet. But, it is likely judged based on context, but I would feel more comfortable getting more feedback if that makes sense. Aoba47 ( talk) 00:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • And that's completely fair. I admittedly have minimal experience with, but the few sources that did turn up for me in my keyword searches were mostly just TV listings. Google and the Wayback Machine turned up very little as well. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 00:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The formally known as bit in the lead reads somewhat awkwardly to me. I think this information may be better represented in a footnote rather than as a parenthetical in the first sentence. That way, you can also include a citation to support this alternate name.
  • Done? Let me know if you want this tweaked further. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This part from the lead, that premiered on Fox on November 4, 1999, and last aired on July 14, 2000, with a total of 44 episodes in one season, seems unnecessarily wordy. I would condense it down to something like the following, that aired on Fox for on season between November 1999 and July 2000. I do not think the amount of episodes or even the exact premiere and finale dates are notable enough to be mentioned here.
  • I have a comment related to this part in the lead, with Mark Thompson serving as primary announcer. I would avoid that kind of sentence construction (i.e. with X verb-ing) as it is normally discouraged in FA writing.
  • I have two points about the tagline in the lead. The citation seems unnecessary to me. I have rarely seen citations used in the lead of a television article (and in those cases, citations are used to support controversial or contested information or when quotes are absolutely necessary or very beneficial to the reader). If the tagline remains in the lead, I would mention it in the article and cite it there. But that leads into my second point. Is it necessary to have the tagline in the lead at all? I have not really seen taglines used in television article's leads and this one does not seem particularly noteworthy to me.
  • Moved to the production section along with citation. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In the lead, I would link ratings and timeslot. Most readers will likely be familiar with these things, but I think it is always beneficial to remember readers who may not be that familiar with more television-specific jargon.

These are my comments for the lead and infobox. I only have relatively nitpick-y comments for the lead, but I do see some sourcing issues with the infobox that should be sorted out. Thank you to Nikkimaria for doing the image review below. My review will be mostly focused on the prose. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Aoba47: Thank you for your comments so far. I look forward to hearing further suggestions for improvement. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am glad that I can help. I will try to post my full review of the rest of the article sometime later this week. I have one more comment. If you are citing resources in foreign languages, I believe it is necessary to provide the English translation of the resource's title. There is a parameter for this in the citation template. Aoba47 ( talk) 05:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would think the "Gameplay" section would be in present tense rather than past tense.
  • It has been a while since I have seen this show so my memory is very hazy at best. I am not really sure what this part means, the contestant with the guess farthest from the correct answer was eliminated How can you be the farthest from the correct answer? I would think you are either right or wrong without any grey area in between?
  • The answer was always a number between 10 and 999. So for example, if the exact correct answer was 100, there's a good chance a contestant who answered 500 would be furthest away of the six. I think I've hopefully clarified this a bit in the gameplay section. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Instead of surviving contestants, I would use remaining contestants as the current wording sounds odd in this context.
  • The word "contestant" is used a lot in the article. I understand why given we are talking about a game show, but I think instances like the first paragraph of the "Qualifying round" cross over into excessive, especially where it is repeated twice in the same sentence.
  • Removed a couple, let me know if you think more should be done. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As I said above, I would recommend avoiding the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as seen here, with the contestant who had the closest guess becoming the team's captain. I would look through the article as a whole to find any instances of this and revise it.
  • Again, I have not seen the show in a while, but I vaguely remember the caption sometimes consulting with his or her team about whether or not they should quit or progress to another question. Would that be beneficial to point out (if it is true of course)?
  • While the other contestants are free to make their case, but the captain still ultimately makes the decision on their own. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This part, he/she was given a guaranteed, reads a little awkwardly as I believe this is the only time you use these kinds of pronouns in the article so it seems to go against the style already established in other areas of the article.
  • I do not think this part, each team member again individually decided to quit with their share of the team's collective, makes sense as the previous sections mentions that the captain can quit not the individual team members. I would also say can decide to quit instead.
  • I am uncertain what this sentence means: When the program became a permanent series, the top prize was changed to a flat $2,000,000. What do you mean by "a permanent series"?
  • Just means it was picked up by Fox for the remainder of the season and for more than the first few episodes that were rushed to order to compete with Millionaire. Woolery briefly mentioned this at the end of the last episode before they changed the top prize to a flat $2,000,000, which is when it was first called "Greed: The Series". -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if the part about who beat Warren's record needs to be a separate paragraph.
  • Please clarify in this sentence, It was considered to be Fox's response to the success of ABC's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire., how is doing the considering. Was it television critics, audiences, people at the network? It is too vague right now.
  • Do we know what day and time this show aired?
  • Thursday nights at the start, though it eventually became Friday nights to avoid going head-to-head with Milionaire. I think this information is reflected in the production section. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Was the tagline not used for the show? The way that it is worded right after what the show would have originally been called gives off the impression (at least to me) that the tagline was also not used in the final product.
  • Woolery occasionally referred to it on air (e.g. "Welcome to Greed, the richest, most dangerous game in America"). -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This part has not been addressed. I do not think it makes sense to pair the tagline in the same sentence with the initial show title as it gives off the impression that both are ideas for the show that ultimately did not make it in the final product. Since they are separate ideas without any real connection, I would advise you to separate them into different sentences. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Split into two sentences, is it better now? -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 23:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks better to me. Aoba47 ( talk) 00:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am uncertain about the short, one-paragraph subsections in the "Production" section as it does make the information rather choppy. My primary concern is more so with the "Set" subsection rather than the "Audition process" one.
  • I have a comment about this part, noted the inspiration from science fiction in his set, specifically from Star Trek and various castle settings in other video games. Given how it ends (i.e. and various castle settings in other video games), I think this could give off the wrong impression to an unfamiliar reader that Star Trek is one of these video games. I would solve this by just saying in video games.
  • I would be careful of how quotes are used in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section. Both the Pierce and Millman sentences used long quotes from their sources and I would limit the length of the quotes used and paraphrase more to give a better understanding of what the critics are saying.
  • I am uncertain about the opening sentence of the second paragraph of the "Reception" section (i.e. Favorability for Greed improved over time.) as "over time" implies to me a longer time span than only a few days. For instance, Pierce's review was published on November 10 while two of these "later" reviews were put out on November 17 and November 18. I think a better topic sentence can be used here, particularly one that more clearly represents this part of the lead, others believed Greed to be the more intriguing and dramatic of the two programs.
  • Could you expand on the Caryn James sentence? The "a success for Fox" quote is not particularly helpful so I would remove it and instead expand on how this show was more dramatic.
  • For small quotes like this ("has fared passably well."), the punctuation should be on the outside of the quotes. Punctuation should only be on the inside of the quotes when citing full sentences
  • Does Berman provide an explanation on why he would like the series to be revived? I would think there is more information here since he wrote an entire article about it.

I hope that my comments are helpful. Once everything is addressed, I will read through the article again to see if I missed anything. Also, a friendly reminder that two of my previous points (citations for information represented in the infobox and the translated titles in the citations) need to be addressed too. Have a wonderful rest of your week and stay safe! Aoba47 ( talk) 23:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Aoba47: I believe these have all been addressed, let me know if you find anything else on the second run-through. Thanks again, -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the responses and apologies for the length of the review. The article looks very good to me. I am on the fence about the use of the Jerry Springer image, but since that passed without any issue in an image review, it should be good. I would like to wait to hear other editors' opinions on if episodes can be used as the primary sources for production credits. I personally do not have any issue with it, but I would like to hear other people's opinions before formally supporting. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • After taking a day to reflect on this, I have decided to support the article for promotion. I trust that the nominator did their best to find secondary sources to support the production credits so I think the use of primary sources (i.e. episodes) should be okay. Good luck with the FAC! Aoba47 ( talk) 20:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Quick question: Where was Furman & Furman 2000 accessed? Thanks, Heartfox ( talk) 04:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Heartfox: I own a personal copy of the book. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 12:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "are asked a question with a numerical answer between 10–999. Each contestant enters their answers using a keypad in front of them." → failed verification
  • Removed, noting that it was on a keypad is probably excessive anyway. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The claim "Six contestants are asked a question with a numerical answer between 10–999" is not apparent in the book pages given. Heartfox ( talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Beginning with the show's April 28, 2000 episode (the first episode of Super Greed) and continuing for the rest of the show's run, the qualifying round was eliminated," → but how can you cite one episode and not know it was Super Greed before/after then?
  • "although some of the episodes that aired in June 2000 still featured the qualifying question" → only one episode is cited
  • Reworked this section, only the college episode is fully available on YouTube so it's tough to verify the rest. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "From April 28 to May 19, 2000, the show was known as Super Greed." → only the April 28 episode is cited.
  • Brought in a new newspaper source. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You can move the footnote to the end of the sentence.
  • fn 43 is by Zap2it, so I would put that in the agency= parameter. It also has a dateline of Los Angeles, so I would add place=Los Angeles.
  • "reruns of Greed have been broadcast on Game Show Network (GSN) at times since January 2002" → but the source is from 2002, how can it be "since"?
  • Tweaked, ref indeed only verifies GSN acquiring the show in the first place. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 2 date differs from website.
  • I have no idea what the deal is with this one. The date in the url is reflected in the citation, and the context of the article makes it clear it was written in 2000 rather than 2005, so I went with the former. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • what makes Mental Floss worthy of citing in a FA?
  • As I can recall, I've never had any pushback on it myself, though I've replaced it with a source from The Atlantic. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Warren was the program's biggest winner ... and briefly held the title of biggest U.S. game show winner of all time; combined with an earlier six-figure winning streak on Sale of the Century in 1986" → not in source.
  • "Warren was the program's biggest winner with $1,410,000 and briefly held the title of biggest U.S. game show winner of all time" → Is it explicitly mentioned in the episode that he was its biggest winner, and that he was the biggest U.S. game show winner of all time?
  • Woolery only mentioned on air that Warren had broken the record for biggest game show winner of all time, which obviously means he would have been Greed's biggest winner too. Since no one after Warren won the $2,000,000 prize, Warren ended up being the program's biggest winner through its conclusion. This LA Times source appears to mention Warren as No. 4 all time while Ken Jennings was on Jeopardy!, would this be sufficient for citing him as Greed's biggest winner too? -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This is kind of the same problem with "Daniel Avila was the only contestant to reach this level, risking his $200,000 individual winnings to play for the top prize (which had been increased to $2,200,000 as it was during Greed's progressive jackpot shows) on the episode that aired on November 18, 1999" → it can't say "only contestant" but cite one episode.
  • The DeMichael book notes that only one contestant reached this level, though it does not explicitly mention Avila by name, so I reworked the phrasing around it. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would say it can be cited for Greed's biggest winner.
  • "won $1,765,000" → source does not give the figure to thousands.
  • "Warren's record was shortly thereafter as David Legler won $1,765,000 on NBC's Twenty One" → sources do not mention Legler beating Warren's record. Someone else could have beaten it in the interim.
  • Same LA Times source I proposed above mentions Olmstead and Toutant at Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, followed by Legler at 3 and Warren right behind at 4. Both Olmstead and Toutant's wins happened after Legler, which would imply Legler broke Warren's record. I think we could use this source for both of these above two points, but wanted to explain my reasoning here and get the green light from you before doing so. Would this work? -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes.
  • suggest moving fn 32 to end of sentence
  • fn 33; is there better source than something that looks to be self-published
  • This is tricky because Thompson was pretty much under the radar on Greed, never referred to on air...this is the only source I could find. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it would need to be removed unless a better source can be cited.
  • Is this not a case of primary sources being better than no source at all? It's clearly Thompson's voice, not to mention he was with Fox for several other programs at the time, some of them game shows. If this is the difference between a support and an oppose I won't let it stand in the way. But I feel removing it entirely would be like omitting Johnny Gilbert from Jeopardy! or Rod Roddy from The Price Is Right. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think it meets WP:ABOUTSELF unfortunately, because it involves a third party (an employer). Is he not listed in the credits of the show?
  • It's crazy but unless I've overlooked it in the credits of episodes readily available, I don't believe he was. Fortunately, I believe I have a TV encyclopedia source that credits Thompson, which I accessed through a Google Books search and have brought into the bibliography. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Los Angeles Times, New York Times refs look to be url-status=limited
  • Tried changing this but it came back as an invalid parameter on my end? I assume it's because non-subscribers only get a limited number of free articles, but when I went to change the status to limited, it gave me an invalid message in the references section. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • My apologies; I meant url-access, not url-status. This also applies to The Atlantic. Heartfox ( talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The ProQuest links are url-access=subscription.
  • fn 41 is from a WP:FORBESCON, and is more opinion than fact I think, so I would only use it for his opinion in the reception section. Are there other sources that point to Gail Berman?
  • Haven't seen one yet but I'll check, I'd imagine there might be something that discusses the general shift in Fox's strategy even if it doesn't mention Greed explicitly. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Think this is done now with a new newspaper source. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 18:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would remove the Forbes contributor citation from statements about third parties. The article in The York Dispatch is by the Los Angeles Daily News so that would be the agency= and it has a dateline of Pasadena, so I would add place=Pasadena, California. Heartfox ( talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • " as Greed was created before Berman's time at the network" → no source given
  • "Greed premiered with a 4.0 rating in adults 18–49" → not in fn 76
  • I highly suggest providing complete viewership/ratings for the premiere (and finale if possible). For example, this clipping shows it got 9.86 million viewers, which is more useful than "nearly 10,000,000".
  • Done for the premiere, will check the finale (though it should also be noted that there was nothing particularly special about the last episode due to the show's abrupt cancellation). -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

* Did it air outside of the United States?

  • Not to my knowledge, the format was licensed internationally but I do not believe the American version was broadcast itself. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe I saw a piece on ProQuest that it aired on Global in Canada. Maybe try searching again. Also for the ProQuest links you only need to do<the document number>/ and you can remove all the excess wikipedialibrary.idm stuff, as well as [FINAL Edition] from the title as it's just the newspaper edition not the actual title of the article. Heartfox ( talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel there are sources in The Wikipedia Library that have not been consulted. For example, this USA Today article has valuable background/production info but is not used in the article. There are also many unused reviews which would enhance the critical reception section. I will have to oppose because I don't think it is well-researched enough and there are issues with text-source integrity. I would not consider this article "complete" at the moment. Heartfox ( talk) 23:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Heartfox: Thank you for your review. I'm sorry to hear you don't think this is well-researched enough, especially since I've done just as much (if not more) research for this show than any of my other game show FAs. That's not to say there isn't more out there, of course, so I'll do my best to see what else is out there and hopefully change your opposition into support. I do, however, hope most of the text-source integrity issues have been fixed now and that I can clean up the last few shortly. Feel free to give this a second look to see if my changes have indeed addressed your concerns. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, please take your time and I will come back in a few days and respond to the comments and probably leave more. I anticipate my oppose will be temporary. I am checking Furman & Furman at, and unless it's a different edition, some statements in the article still don't match the book (so maybe I would just cite the premiere instead for those basic facts if they aren't in a secondary source). Heartfox ( talk) 08:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Heartfox: Thank you for your patience. I believe I have addressed the final few bullet points, and I would appreciate a second look to ensure I didn't miss anything. In the meantime, I'll see if I can find some more reviews. Thanks again, -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 18:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I have struck comments addressed and replied to other ones. I am also noticing there is not specific source for the program last airing on July 4? The cancellation date is not necessarily the last broadcast date. Heartfox ( talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I assume you mean the 14th? I have another book source that lists July 14 as the end date, I'll go ahead and add it in as I continue to address the rest of these points. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Heartfox: I think all the points have been addressed (or at least noted) now. Ready for another look to see what still needs to be done. Thanks, -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 00:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Heartfox: Further updates made, many thanks again for your patience. Hopefully we're getting close. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
All of the original comments have been addressed, and I've struck my oppose. I'm not sure about the reliability of the DeMichael book to be honest; what is Marshall Publishing and Promotions? I'll reread the article and leave more comments soon. It looks much better so far! Heartfox ( talk) 04:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Marshall is admittedly a smaller, independent publishing company, although a) I've used the book for a GA or two before and b) I've never had any problems, nor I have I discovered any factual errors (intentional or otherwise) in the book. Glad to see all the issues from the first read have been resolved for now. I look forward to further comments and suggestions for improvement. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 04:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • some sources have publishers while others don't; it's supposed to be consistent.
  • Could you possibly be a bit more specific here with which sources need them? I thought I remembered hearing a while ago that "The New York Times Company" wasn't needed in the publisher field for NYT refs due to the redundancy. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • New York Daily News, NY Post (also needs a link), Dayton Daily News, maybe the international ones idk

* some works cited more than once have links while others don't; it's supposed to be consistent.

  • Think I got this taken care of, let me know if I missed anything. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • are there alternatives to the New York Post sources? It would be better to use something else in an FA given WP:NYPOST.
  • Replaced the one but not sure I can get that quote anywhere else, I'll see if I can find anything though. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

* looks like fn 61 work has an article, Dagbladet Information, fn 65 Walla!, fn 67 Asharq Al-Awsat, fn 73 Aftonbladet.

  • is there a sentence in fn 67 that points to a Lebanese version? I had trouble finding it with Google Translate.
  • I could have sworn I saw Lebanon was listed as the greater Arab World originally with this ref, I've gone back to that for now.
  • Asharq Al-Awsat should be italicized and there's also a dateline and author in the article but to be honest on Google Translate it didn't mention anything about a version of Greed, unless I'm reading it wrong. I would just remove it at this point as it's not very clear what country it pertains to or if it existed, unless an editor who reads Arabic can translate it properly.
  • " If the captain quits after any of these four questions, the money is split evenly among all five team members. Giving/accepting a wrong answer ends the game and forfeits all winnings. The team member in the lowest position (farthest from the correct answer when a qualifying question was played) gives the answer to question 1, and each question after that is answered by the member in the next higher position." → there's no citation at the end
  • The Furman & Furman book refers to the lowest positioned contestant as "contestant number four," and so on from there. I've cited the book and moved the ref to the end since there would have been three of the exact same ref in the paragraph, let me know if you want this tweaked further. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • If something is not explicitly stated in the book then please just cite an episode or something; I don't have time to check every sentence. The whole paragraph is not verifiable on page 36.

* "otherwise, the challenge winner keeps their original position within the team." → no citation

  • Removed as it's irrelevant to the gameplay anyway. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

* fn 16 is cited twice in one paragraph but it's the only source in the paragraph

  • Tweaked, again, let me know if you want this differently. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I still think the critical reception section is shorter than it could be.
  • I feel like we've got a good handful here already, I'll see if I can track down a couple more later. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There's really only six reviews from critics (not counting Philbin or Berman which aren't really reviews), which isn't that much. I would say 10 is a better number. Heartfox ( talk) 03:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Further comments above; these are the last ones. Heartfox ( talk) 23:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Heartfox: Thanks for the follow-up. Done some, will come back to the others later this weekend. -- Bcschneider53 ( talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

While this one's on the shorter side, I believe everything is covered thoroughly - this isn't the most large-scale topic. Formed in mid-1864, the unit was generally unkind to railroad property on multiple occasions, saw some minor fighting, and played a significant role in the Battle of Little Blue River. At some point in 1865, the unit dissolved, although the details are really hazy. What is known is that most of the unit's men didn't care enough to get their official surrender paperwork. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Image review—pass: File:Battle of the Blue by Benjamin D. Mileham.jpg is possibly PD but the licensing needs more documentation, we need to document Mileham's death date to apply the stated PD tag, and the creation of the painting is not equivalent to publication. ( t · c) buidhe 03:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Can the Price's Raid section be split into subsections for improved readability? ( t · c) buidhe 03:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @ Buidhe: - Couldn't find dod for Mileham, so I replaced it with a different artwork of Price's raid by a person confirmed to have died in 1914. I've also added three subheads to the Price's Raid section. Hog Farm Talk 13:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • FN14: website isn't needed here
    • Removed.
  • The "Official Records" source credits editors who should be included here. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @ Nikkimaria: - Thanks for making me do this. In the process of hunting down the editors, I discovered I had actually been using a 1902 reprint edition, instead of the 1893 original, and have changed the citation as well to reflect that. Hog Farm Talk 21:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


  • the historian James McGhee believes that the unit did rejoin the Confederate army do you really need the first "the" here?
    • Not sure, so I've removed it both in the lead and in some similar phrasing in the body
  • In July, anti-secession state legislators held a vote rejecting secession, while Jackson and the pro-secession legislators voted to secede in November, joining the Confederate States of America and functioning as a government-in-exile. If the anti-secession state legislators voted against rejecting secession, how did the state actually join the Confederate States of America? confusing.
    • Missouri had two competing governments; I've tried to clarify this
  • the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign can you link Atlanta campaign?
    • Linked
  • gave Lincoln an edge in the election over McClellan according to our article on 1864 United States presidential election, Lincoln won by more than an "edge". Therapyisgood ( talk) 14:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Does "gave Lincoln an advantage in the election over McClellan" work better?

Are the changes made satisfactory for you, @ Therapyisgood:? Hog Farm Talk 23:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to hear someone outside of MILHIST comment on WP:LENGTH as it applies to this article before I support (ie is the article or sections too long?). Therapyisgood ( talk) 16:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • Don't think that the Boonville action is worth mentioning in the lede
    • Removed
  • Most of the first para of the Background section needs to be compressed. All the reader really needs to know is that there were two competing gov'ts in the state and that the Union had de facto control.
    • I've got this paragraph compressed down to five sentences.
      • Great, but there are still unimportant or irrelevant facts therein. How does the guerilla warfare and Price's previous command of the Missouri State Guard relate to the regiment's history?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Both of those are now gone. Anything else that needs trimmed? Hog Farm Talk 17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
          • That'll do, pig, that'll do. (See Babe if you can't place the phrase.)-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Ten companies of the regiment are known to have existed. One was designated with the letter G, and another with the letter H, while the designations of the other companies are unknown Suggest combining these along the lines of: "Ten companies are known to have existed, but the only confirmed designations are G and H companies" or somesuch
    • Done
  • capture of Jones's Hay Station Proximity alert for the name; suggest changing it to "the station" or similar
    • Done
  • link rear guard
    • Done
  • Price ordered Shelby to form part of the pursuit of the retreating Union soldiers.[18] Nichols's regiment participated in the pursuit, which was unsuccessful. Combine these with along the lines of "Prince ordered Shelby and his brigade to participate in the unsuccessful pursuit of the Union soldiers" or something similar
    • Done
  • hyphen for 300 men, rear guard action
    • I think I got these in the right place
  • Can you explain a little more how the regiment allowed the Union troops to escape at the 2nd Battle of Lexington?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Clarified - Also rephrased to make it clearer it was the whole brigade being out of position.

@ WP:FAC coordinators: - Since this one seems to be coming along pretty smoothly and has passed image and source reviews, may I have a dispensation for a second nomination? Hog Farm Talk 21:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I would normally want to see a third support and for it to be three weeks since it was nominated. But I am happy to follow Ian's lead. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you may unleash another. Gog the Mild ( talk) 12:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Z1720

Please consider this a non-expert review.

  • Since the article is short on information, as stated by the nom above, I searched for additional sources on Google Scholar, Google Books, JSTOR, a (Canadian) university library, ProQuest and I could not find additional sources so I believe this article represents the available information for this topic.
  • "Jackman was elevated to brigade command, and Nichols took over leadership of the regiment." Remove the comma.
    • Done
  • "with a Union surrender before the time Nichols's men arrived." Remove the time
    • Done
  • In the References section, "Official Records 1902" points to The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, so the title is used to identify this source, not the editors. In "Kennedy 1998", the editor's name is used to point to The Civil War Battlefield Guide Either the editors should be used to identify the sources with an editor (recommended) or the title should be used. Please standardise (sorry if this is unclear)
    • Done

Those are all my comments. This article is well written and I struggled to find problems with it. Z1720 ( talk) 01:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @ Z1720: - All points have been addressed. Did I get everything done correctly? Hog Farm Talk 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yep, support based on a prose review. Z1720 ( talk) 01:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The 1975 (2019 song)

Nominator(s): — Bilorv ( talk) 01:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

One might expect The 1975's fourth song titled "The 1975" to be a difficult search term, but unlike the other three—which are about... um, oral sex—this one has the keyword "Greta Thunberg", who delivers this protest song about climate change. If promoted, this will be the first green plus from the nominated Good Topic Notes on a Conditional Form (for which all credit goes to (CA)Giacobbe) to turn into a gold star. I'm confident that the article is comprehensive and look forward to suggestions for further tweaks and improvements. — Bilorv ( talk) 01:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

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

  • The song was released on 24 July 2019, - is it fair to say it was released as a single?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Check the footnote on this—"People" is now acknowledged as the lead single (implying that "The 1975" wasn't a single, because of the way it was/wasn't released), though some news reporters at the time of "The 1975"'s release were a bit lazy and threw the word "single" around. It's possible you could call this a promotional single but I looked for sources saying such and in their absence, I think that's original research. Let me know if the footnote placing isn't the best it can be to draw attention to this. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The band previously opened each of their albums with an eponymous song featuring the same lyrics; however, the fourth version deviates from this set of lyrics. - I don't know what this means? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I could tell what it means. Unlike the band's other opener of albums that are self-titled, this one is not about oral sex. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 22:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • It's the "featuring the same lyrics" bit that has poor wording... Same lyrics as what? I realise the answer is "same lyrics as each other", but on first reading this wasn't clear at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Yeah I agree it had this ambiguity, but "shared set of lyrics" (and the other changes) hopefully fix this. — Bilorv ( talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • So, there are four albums, and all four start with a song called "The 1975", the first three have the same lyrics as each other, but this one was different? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, exactly correct in the latter point here. I've tried to rephrase. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In it - probably worth saying in the 2019 version, as "it" is a bit confusing to me given the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Our House Is on Fire" - caps needed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Confusion abounds. In my copy of No One Is Too Small to Make a Difference, the title is capitalised (minus "Is", but our style is to capitalise it), though you can find examples and non-examples of capitalised/uncapitalised speeches on Wikipedia e.g. Ain't I a Woman? vs Never was so much owed by so many to so few. I do think caps is right (it's a title of a work). There's also an italics/quotes question but I think the No One article is just wrong to be using both quotes and italics(!) and it seems like most articles are using quotes. So I'm defaulting to no change but let me know if you feel strongly. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I think the question is not how it appears on the track, it's the capitalisation of the speech. I'm happy if that is how RS's describe the speech (and not the derivative work). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Yep, I think that's the case. — Bilorv ( talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Probably worth mentioning the relationship between Greta and Rebellion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The body mentions that the donation was at Thunberg's request, but though Thunberg and XR are conflated by news commentators, or perhaps part of the same phenomenon, I can't see any formal ties. She's spoken at an XR speech but hundreds of other organisations too—no more relation to XR than she has to the UK parliament. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • by the 1975 - by the band, or we're in super complicated territory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Done — Bilorv ( talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Sure. I realise this is a super difficult topic, due to this sort of thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The band opened their encore with "The 1975" before the COVID-19 pandemic halted their touring. - probably worth mentioning "When touring in 2020, the band opened their encore with the song...." or it's confusing what we are talking about. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • We generally like images to have the face pointing towards the text, or on the right. Is there any reason to not right-align? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • No particular reason, changed to right-align. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • instead be an "era" of two albums, which were recorded together - this probably needs some explaination.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay how about just On 31 May 2018, the band announced that they were splitting the planned Music for Cars content into two albums.? — Bilorv ( talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The 1975" is the opening track on the second of these two albums - this might be a litle confusing, because "The 1975" is also the title of the opening track of the first of these two albums. Perhaps change this around, and say "The second of these two albums opened with a track titled "The 1975". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Done — Bilorv ( talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Greta Thunberg. Thunberg - try to avoid repeating words like this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Done — Bilorv ( talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thunberg began skipping school - began to not attend... Skipping is a bit informal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Changed to "missing school". — Bilorv ( talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The "Our house is on fire", maybe this would be suitable as a WP:REDLINK? I'd be surprised if her speech wasn't notable in its own right. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The closing lyrics are: "So, everyone out there, it is now time for civil disobedience. It is time to rebel. - it's not really my favourite to say "these are the lyrics", without making commentary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The point of this bit is more to explain what the song is about but civil disobedience is mentioned at the start of the paragraph. I've replaced it with She says that the rules in place need to be changed and urges rebellion because it's a fair part of the speech in which she argues that rules in place are insufficient and acting within them is insufficient. — Bilorv ( talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Healy described the song as "quite beautiful superficially", but also "quite sad, quite pretty" and "quite ominous" - do we need to quote here? Couldn't we say "song as superficially beautiful but also sad and ominous." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Done — Bilorv ( talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 13:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the review, thanks for taking the time. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski: anything outstanding or any more comments coming, or are you happy to "support"? — Bilorv ( talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Happy to support now, unless there is a big old issue someone else picks up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 14:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱

A song named "The 1975" with Great Thunberg?... Oh, it's not about sex. Thank god. Otherwise, I would've sworn the song was about a sex doll of her....... I'm not kidding, that exists.

Great work on 1975 articles. I find they get bloated at points, but they're great nonetheless, although that's for another discussion. This article looks really well put together, as the prose is understandable and most of the sources are reliable. However, I have a few major issues:

  • The first paragraph of "Background and recording" has no place in this article. It doesn't connect to anything else, and the only relevant point is that it's the first track on a single album. Readers have the respective album articles if they want to learn more about the history of those.
    • I'm going to push back on this: it's normal to give surrounding context to minor works within a broader context e.g. on the Black Mirror articles I've been working on, they all have a paragraph about the series they're within (example: top of San Junipero#Production). Odd coincidence in that series 3/4 of Black Mirror were originally commissioned as series 3 and then split into 2, and Music for Cars was originally album 3 and then split to albums 3/4. Another example that springs to mind is the Boat Race individual articles, number of GAs must be in the three digits by now (example: The Boat Race 1909#Background). As for the connection here, a lot of the secondary coverage about this song talks about how it was used on Notes on a Conditional Form (transition into "People", used to set the tone for the album), and it connects to a lot of "Release and promotion" content. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I am well aware (and have written and edited) many articles have background sections to establish context. However, these sections usually cover the parts of a wider context that most affect or relate to the rest of the article. I see zero how an album being split into two affected how this song was made, released and promoted. Am I missing it? 👨x🐱 ( talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • How the song was made—as part of the Music for Cars "era" of the band's music, which means that its production cycle overlapped with other songs in that era and they used the recording studios that they were using at the time and perhaps (depending on who you ask) there's a common musical style. The article later mentions some ideas about this being part of how both albums marked a transition to more overtly political messaging. (And the background ambient music in this song is the same sort of stuff they use on A Brief Inquiry... and elsewhere on NOACF, so clearly written/produced as part of the same sessions, but that's original research on my part.) How it was released—the initial early date that Healy promised followed by continual rescheduling led to a lot of the NOACF album music being released prior to the album dropping. If it had been one album or released on time then this song would be part of another album, or never recorded, or would have been recorded several months earlier. How it was promoted—promoted on tours for Music for Cars (including tours for the first of the two albums). In essence, the production cycle was not of two consecutive albums (in which case I wouldn't mention the previous album). The production cycle was two albums at once. Maybe I can draw out some of these connections in the paragraph in some way? — Bilorv ( talk) 00:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Point taken. I didn't catch that connection at first when writing. I just thought sentences said the songs of both albums were more political than previous albums, and that they had four tracks from Notes ready as of 2019. I didn't connect or catch those were a result of the album split. I can't tell if I didn't read closely enough or if the article could've made this clearer to the reader, but I would do what you're suggesting nonetheless to be safe. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Alright, see what you think about the newer iteration of this paragraph. — Bilorv ( talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
              • Now removed the paragraph entirely as initially suggested per feedback below. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the type= feature in the Infobox template be "Promotional single"? It obviously wasn't first released as part of the album release.
    • Talked about this above—would be original research to call it a promotional single, in my view. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Reception section, although well-paraphrased, suffers from having that "A argued B" thing WP:RECEPTION frowns up.
    • Can you give an example or two? I have actually used Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections immeasurably often over the last few years and it's what I was going for here (assuming this is the page you meant— WP:RECEPTION actually didn't redirect there even though listed as a shortcut, but I've boldly changed that). They say "Avoid 'A said B'. ... Variants include 'A of B said C' and 'A said that B'." I've aimed to use a good mixture of those and vary sentence rhythme and combine reviewers' points where possible, but at a certain point I think summaries of reviews are a bit constricted in possible formats so feel a bit repetitive. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Actually, on a second closer look, this is actually well done. I suspected it used a "A said B" format because the first half of the section seemed to be just a list of opinions. The opinions are actually consolidated in the first paragraph, in that they're about how the song handled Greta's message. I'll admit I rushed to judgement when I made this statement. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
      • However, I feel this part is pretty quotefarm-ism despite being about the same topic: "A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song, including Dillon Eastoe of Gigwise, who had to "pull over and cry" upon first hearing it in the car.[55] Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine described it as "soul-stirring".[24] A PopMatters reviewer saw it as "evocative and gripping", while Madison Feller of Elle said that the "pretty stunning" track gave her chills.[18][56] The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack analysed the speech as "intelligent and stirring".[57]" 👨x🐱 ( talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, this was a weaker passage. I think fewer examples can get the point across so I've gone with: A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song, including Dillon Eastoe of Gigwise, who had to "pull over and cry" upon first hearing it in the car, and Madison Feller of Elle, who got chills from the song.[57][58] The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack and Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine found it stirring.[59] I think it's an appropriate amount of weight to one of the most major axes of feedback, but if it's still belabouring the point then maybe I could even just contract it to just mentioning the two reviewers who found it stirring, and the rest as additional references. — Bilorv ( talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I wouldn't use an opinion from the Washington Examiner, a conservative publication that, like other far-right publications, is filled with climate denialism. If he's writing that "climate change was not the issue that should be sparking global protests" and the journalist that wrote that also prominently appears on Fox News, it's very likely he's denying the issue of climate change, or trying to bullshit his way looking like he thinks it's an issue while writing for a source that doesn't. I would not give validity to such an questionable claim as that.
    • Alright, WP:RSP notes some disputes over the reliability of the source but this comment and the idea here of avoiding WP:FRINGE have pushed me to remove it. But to clarify a couple of the facts, I'll note that Schultz is a woman, and I don't see any connection to Fox News. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 ( talk) 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That's (CA)Giacobbe you have to thank for the other articles, by the way, didn't mean to claim credit for the GT nom so I've adjusted the wording. Replies to these comments coming now. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Replied, let me know what you think. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
More comments
  • ""The 1975" is a protest song, where Thunberg delivers a spoken word performance" Neither CNN or The Guardian cites categorize the song as these two genres. Speaking of CNN, the cite as well as ref 3 (BBC) categorizes it as ambient music track. I would suggest using that alongside the PopMatters cite to further confirm its genre as ambient. The Guardian also categorizes it as "minimal" which I don't see in the article.
    • Telegraph source was originally there for "protest song" but got lost in a reshuffle—fixed. Insider added as "spoken word" as you suggest below. Ambient music mentioned and on its next mention we now say "minimal" with the Guardian ref. — Bilorv ( talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Interesting, and unique criticism of the song in ref 3 that I don't see in Reception: "The essay is direct in its message but short on actual practical measures which she thinks should be put in place." That same cite also attacks the 1975 for flying on airplanes for touring which I think strongly relates the subject matter of this song: "The 1975 are currently on a world tour, and will play gigs in Italy, Korea, Romania, Singapore, Ukraine, Dubai and Australia in the coming weeks. It is likely they will fly to many of those countries, despite air travel being a significant contributor to climate change."
    • Now mentioned the plane thing just before the measures they announced they were taking to reduce negative environmental impact. Added a sentence to Reception: A writer for the BBC viewed the song as light on concrete suggestions, but direct on messaging. I don't think it's clear that it is criticism specifically, as the BBC haven't marked it under a byline and they have at least the claimed position of not making value judgements in the organisation's own voice ("impartiality", as they call it). — Bilorv ( talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • AllMusic is not a work and its name should not be formatted as such in the citation template and prose.
    • Done — Bilorv ( talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I just found the Insider album review categorizes the song as spoken word. Use that cite for the categorization.
    • Done — Bilorv ( talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 ( talk) 14:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me know if any of these issues haven't been resolved sufficiently or if there's anything more. I think the article is looking better from these changes. — Bilorv ( talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@ HumanxAnthro: anything outstanding or any more comments coming, or are you happy to "support"? — Bilorv ( talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

  • I would avoid one-word quotes like "failing" and "heartfelt" as I do not think they are particularly beneficial to the reader and it may detract from other quotes. I have received this note in a past FAC so I just wanted to raise this to your attention as well.
    • Before I do this, just to clarify: is the suggestion here to say the words but without quotation marks, or to use a near-synonym/paraphrase/rephrase to avoid the quote? — Bilorv ( talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would think that either option would be appropriate. Aoba47 ( talk) 23:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Alright, done a mixture in the end depending on what I think worked best. — Bilorv ( talk) 00:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that is the best way to address this. Aoba47 ( talk) 00:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In the "Background and recording" section, the 1975 should be linked on the first instance. The lead and the body of the article are treated separately so the band should be linked on the first instances in both.
    • Done — Bilorv ( talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a note, but the FAC instructions discourage the use of the done graphic as it could "slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives". Aoba47 ( talk) 00:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a super nitpick-y note, but for this part, a perceived convention of guest appearances in music being, I would say their perceived convention to more so emphasize that this was coming from them (if I am reading this part correctly).
    • Correct interpretation, Done — Bilorv ( talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This is probably a very dumb question, but I will ask it anyway. I am uncertain about this part, The song was produced by the label Dirty Hit. How can a song be produced by a record label? I have mostly seen the word "produced" associated with the song's producers and not the label.
    • Not a dumb question at all. After some thought I think "produced under the label Dirty Hit" might solve your issue with this. Daniel and Healy are the credited producers, but (at least if it's anything like the normal music production process) they're utilising the label's resources and working with them at the various tasks that make up production. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think "produced under" sounds better so that works with me. Aoba47 ( talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The article repeats that this song is the first on the album (Notes on a Conditional Form opened with a track titled "The 1975". and "The 1975" is the first song on the 22-track Notes on a Conditional Form.) and it comes across as unnecessarily repetitive rather than helpful. I would only say this information once. I would recommend keeping it where you think it is the most relevant.
    • Alright, fair enough, kept in "Background" only. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am uncertain about the link in the part, more explicitly political messages, as I believe it comes across as an Easter egg. I do not think that it is immediately clear that the "political" link would lead to the article on music and politics. If you want to keep the link, I think more clarification in the prose would be necessary.
    • Removed (I think someone else added this as I also find these quite EASTER-y). — Bilorv ( talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For this part, the Conservative politician Theresa Villiers, please link Conservative as it would be helpful for unfamiliar readers, particularly those living outside the UK.
    • Done — Bilorv ( talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In the note, the four citations seem like an example of citation overkill and I would recommend bundling the citations to avoid this.
    • I think bundling loses the link with the original reference, so that I have to make a copy (undesirable as changing one won't change the other and you then can't see all of the source's usages from the reference "^ a b c"s, right?). So not ideal for references used elsewhere. I've just named the publications and given the references after the name mention. Or maybe I could take one out and leave us with three citations. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The separation of the citations behind each of the publications solves this problem for me at least so I think it should be fine. Aoba47 ( talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not required for the FAC, but I would strongly encourage you to archive your citations to avoid link rot and link death.
    • IABot was down when I tried this last, but now done. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • IABot can be quite temperamental at times so I understand that lol. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 ( talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but has there been any scholarly articles written about this song? It looks like most of this citations are online sources, which is understandable since this song is relatively recent. I was just curious about the scholarly coverage as this seems like the type of thing that would invite that kind of attention and study.
    • No, I did search for this but I couldn't find anything with a non-trivial mention. I think you're right about it maybe being too recent. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope my comments are helpful. I have focused on the prose and will leave the sources, images, and media to other editors. Once everything is addressed, I will support this article for promotion. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 ( talk) 04:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, absolutely they're helpful. One clarification requested and the rest I've made an attempt at addressing. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for address everything. I support the article for promotion. Best of luck with the FAC and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 ( talk) 00:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, enjoy your weekend too. :) — Bilorv ( talk) 01:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Note--I replaced the graphics with plain text, cue FAC advice: "Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives." ( talk) 01:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry about that, . I have read that before but it's a habit from GA and I completely forgot. — Bilorv ( talk) 09:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
      • No worries. Good luck with the nomination! ( talk) 11:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Giacobbe

Great work on this article. It's a great read, informative, and meets all the FA criteria. I can't think of any issues that haven't already been addressed by the above posters, so it's a support from me! Giacobbe talk 15:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, (CA)Giacobbe, I appreciate it. — Bilorv ( talk) 15:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Tom

After reading the article several times, I think that the prose looks great, the references are very well organized, and the media is appropriately used throughout the article. The only thing I think is a little bit redundant and not directly related to the article itself, is the first paragraph of the 'Background and recording' section. It seems to be more appropriate for the album article. Nevertheless, I will Support, and leave the decision of removing or not removing the section to the nominator. — Tom (T2ME) 17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Since you're the second person to raise this, consider it done. However, I have moved the sentence saying it's the opening track of Notes on a Conditional Form to "Release and promotion" as I think it wouldn't make sense without it. Let me know if you think this change introduces any problems or confusion. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Awesome! I think the article is in great shape now. Congrats! This most definitely deserves the golden star. :) — Tom (T2ME) 12:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Not all images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Replaced the Spotify link with a magazine that uses the exact cover art (at a higher resolution than we do) and a permanent archive link. Not sure where the ALT text is missing—don't think the audio needs one (though it does have captions). — Bilorv ( talk) 14:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

  • I see nothing from the attributed ref supporting "the band had previously criticised their perceived convention of guest appearances in music being primarily intended to improve chart positioning", which sounds like a rather contentious claim.
    • Yep, that's because I'm getting confused between the two main Guardian sources used. It comes from this one: The 1975 have never done a feature before, and have criticised it as a shameless grab for chart positions. Now cited. Went through all the instances of Guardian sources and fixed one more case where I cited the wrong one.
  • "humankind is failing to solve the problem"..... I feel humans are would be a better choice of words
  • Don't try to hide how "Daily" is part of the name for The Daily Telegraph
  • "David T.C. Davies" should have a space between the initials
  • Two reviews alone doesn't seem like much to support the "A number of critics" portion of "A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song"
    • This is meant to be a " topic clause", so to speak, so that the four references and quotes following—Gigwise, Elle, Atwood and The Big Issue—are evidence of the statement. There were other reviews which said a similar thing but I didn't want to ref bomb and I don't usually reference the statements which just summarise what is to follow. But if it's confusing, maybe I could add a note at this point with the references, "Critics who found it emotional include ...". — Bilorv ( talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure what the "stirring" bit is supposed to mean in this context, but I couldn't find Mitch Mosk here at all, only Malcolm Jack.
    • Just the literal meaning of the word "stirring"—that it brought about strong feelings—as both of the critics used that word. It's just missing the Atwood cite inline (the source is used elsewhere in the article), which I've added. — Bilorv ( talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Overall, it's looking pretty good, just needs some adjustments to be FA-worthy. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 01:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Replied/fixed these. Let me know if any of them can be improved further. — Bilorv ( talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

My bad on the "felt emotional" bit, and this is now something I can support for FA following its improvements. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 14:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review from Nikkimaria

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Who is the host of Sound Like A Plan?
    • Greg Cochrane, a journalist who's written for NME, the BBC and The Guardian. Also the musician Fay Milton (of Savages). Reliable coverage of the podcast in NME and Kerrang!. — Bilorv ( talk) 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • FN13 is missing author
  • What makes a high-quality reliable source? Dork? Consequence of Sound?
    • (1) is used as a primary source interview, and it's a video, so they just need to be reliable enough that we're confident the video hasn't been falsified, tampered with or selectively edited. You can read a bit about the publication in MediaWeek (a trade magazine) and Sydney Morning Herald—it's published by Pedestrian Group, associated with lots of reliable sources in Australia. It's journalists are paid professionals and it has a way to submit corrections. (2) Removed Dork. (3) Consequence of Sound just needs to be significant for opinion, as it's used with attribution under "Reception". It's one of the most significant indie music publications worldwide, and as such is cited very frequently by some of the most widely-distributed music publications: three recent examples from NME, Rolling Stone and the BBC. — Bilorv ( talk) 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Fn29 has the date in the wrong parameter. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Two fixes and two replies—thanks for your review. — Bilorv ( talk) 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

William Lyon Mackenzie

Nominator(s): Z1720 ( talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Journalist. Politician. Rebellion Leader. William Lyon Mackenzie held many roles and got into a lot of trouble. He tried to reform the Upper Canada political system (what is now known as Ontario, Canada) and became Toronto's first mayor. He led the Upper Canada Rebellion, went a little crazy, and fled to the United States when government forces defeated the rebels. He organised an invasion of Upper Canada with American volunteers but was arrested by the American government and pardoned by President Van Buren. Upon his return to Canada, he became a politician and ranted against government proposals.

There are too many people to thank for their comments, both informally and in the PRs and GAN, so I will post a note on their talk page. I hope you enjoy reviewing this important biography in Canadian history as much as I enjoyed researching it. Z1720 ( talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive2. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Watchlisting with an eye towards supporting; please ping me when independent reviewers have been through. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive1#SandyGeorgia SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Image review—pass
  • File:Second market in York (Toronto).jpg, File:MrsMackenzie.jpg when was it first published? ( t · c) buidhe 21:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Second market image: work produced in 1888. MrsMackenzie: work produced in 1850. I updated the copyright tags on both images at Commons to reflect that. Let me know if you need more information. Z1720 ( talk) 21:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Date of production is not necessarily the same as publication. AFAIK the former work was not free in Canada on the URAA date based on author's death date, so it would need pre-1926 publication to be PD in US. The second doesn't have author information so it's not clear when its Canadian copyright expired, although if it was made in 1850 I assume it's old enough. ( t · c) buidhe 22:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I posted my followup on this FAC's talk page. Z1720 ( talk) 23:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

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

  • Reform movement. - pipes to a redirect Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 12:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed
  • He is considered the best-known Reformer of the early-1800s. - bit wishy to me. Best-known could mean two things here. The best known person who was a reformer, or the person best known for being a reformer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 12:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • What about "He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." Z1720 ( talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Dundee, Scotland - no need to link Scotland. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Removed
  • gold medal and chain - is this a gold medal and a chain, or a gold medal and gold chain? (Or, a medal and chain combination that is gold). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The source doesn't say, and the source says the medal was worth £250 so I removed "and chain" Z1720 ( talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Upper Canada Rebellion (1837–1838) - do we need this info/navbox here? Seems out of place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • This was placed before I started editing the article. I tried moving it to the bottom of the article but the formatting was weird. I am not sure if it should go somewhere else, so I removed it, as most of those links are in the article already. Z1720 ( talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is Rensselaer Van Rensselaer part of the Van Rensselaer (family)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes. The family name is wikilinked later in the article. Z1720 ( talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Small suggestion - create a redirect for the name to that article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
        • I am keeping Rensselaer Van Rensselaer as a red link in case his own article is created in the future. I changed the wikilink of "his family name" to "the Van Rensselaer family name" so its clearer where the wikilink is going. Z1720 ( talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • He was released on $5,000 (equivalent to $120,547 in 2019) - hmm, this article uses GBP in most places. If we are to use a converter, perhaps they should all go to pounds? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Something similar was expressed by a previous reviewer. I think most readers would understand that Mackenzie is paying his bail and fines in USD because he was arrested by the American legal system. Would posting the inflation in GBP cause the reader wonder why the inflation is calculated to a different currency? Also, would the conversion from USD to GBP happen before inflation is calculated, or after? I decided to keep the inflation converstion in USD because it was the simplest thing to do at the time. Z1720 ( talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments
  • Mostly all fine. No real issues. Seems very good. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks Lee, responses above. Z1720 ( talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • @ Lee Vilenski: in case they didn't see the responses above. Z1720 ( talk) 15:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Naught to worry about, happy to support, but I have made some replies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 13:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


I've got this weekend off work, so I'll try to review this over the next couple days. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 23:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @ Z1720: - Ping me when Johannes Schade is done, and I'll review. I'd rather wait to review, because I don't want to work at cross-purposes. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am in the same boat. As the review is lengthy, I am going to unwatch for now; please ping me when Johannes Schade is finished reviewing (and I would suggest they move the lengthy review to talk). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Dear User:SandyGeorgia It seems I deleted your comment above by working on an old version. I am so sorry this happened. I am finished with my contribution here, if it was one. Z1720 and I got both a bit tired of it. You say "I would suggest they move the lengthy review to talk". I have move the conversation to Talk:William Lyon Mackenzie. With thanks, apologies, and best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 18:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


  • "In 1834, York became the city of Toronto and Mackenzie was elected by the city council to be its first mayor, but he was not reelected the following year." - This makes it sound a bit like he lost election, when he really wasn't actively running. Rephrase?
    • What about, "He declined the Reformer's nomination to run in the 1835 municipal election."
      • That would work wonderfully.
        • Done
  • ". He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." - Not sure that the hyphen is needed
    • Removed
  • What the Family Compact was is explained in the lead, but not really in the body.
    • Removed pre-1833 references to the Family Compact, explained who they were when they were named by Mackenzie in Sketches of Upper Canada in 1833.
  • Second paragraph of Election to the Legislative Assembly, four of five sentences all start with "He". Can this be varied some?
    • Replaced one "He" with "Mackenzie". I tried rearranging sentences but it's difficult in this section. Z1720 ( talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "with each new constituency (also known as a riding) " - Piped link Riding (division)#Canada?
    • Done
  • "Van Rensselaer, Mackenzie and 24 supporters occupied Navy Island on December 14" - Link Navy Island
    • Done
  • "Durham sent an agent to interview Mackenzie, who reported that Mackenzie's grievance was with the composition of the Legislative Council vague references "to lift the hand of tyranny from the soil" - Something seems off here grammatically to me. Missing a word?
    • The grammar was off, I reworded this sentence. Z1720 ( talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "calling the legislature illegitimate after the Governor-General reinstated the Mackenzie-Cartier Administration without an election" - Is this an error for Macdonald-Cartier?
    • Not sure what you mean. Z1720 ( talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I think it should be "Macdonald-Cartier Administration" based on context, rather than "Mackenzie-Cartier Administration". Is this correct?
        • You are correct. Fixed.
  • "He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." - From the lead - I didn't see this explicitly stated in the body
    • From "Historical reputation" section: "Historian Albert Schrauwers described Mackenzie as the "best-known reformer" of the early 1800s." Lee stated above that the meaning was unclear, so I changed "best-known" to "most recognizable" in the lede. Should I also change the wording in the body and remove the quotation marks? Z1720 ( talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • No, it's fine as is. Just me not seeing something.

Good work. Hog Farm Talk 15:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @ Z1720: - replies above. Getting close to supporting. Hog Farm Talk 18:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Replied above. Z1720 ( talk) 18:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2 b, 2c, 4, and source reliability and formatting. Did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 02:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, that the post-pardon papers failed due to lack of subscribers
    • Added info in the body. Z1720 ( talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Still issues here - for example the lead claims he "discovered" documents outlining financial transactions, but the body says only that he "copied" them. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I cross-referenced the lede and the body to fix this. It's ready for another check. Z1720 ( talk) 15:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Similarly some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, the role of Alexander Macdonell
    • Removed the ones that would be off-topic to explain, added info for the ones that were not described. Z1720 ( talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Explanatory notes should generally be in a different section to references
    • Done
  • FN262: if you're going to cite the updated version, this should also credit the author who did the update
    • Added
  • FN263: page? Ditto FN265, check for others
    • Added. The other articles are accessed with online editions of the sources and a link is provided. Z1720 ( talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author in Works cited?
    • They should be oldest-first, but the Gates sources were in the wrong order. I fixed it. Z1720 ( talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Archive link for Armstrong 1971 is non-functional
    • I removed the archive link. I think it broke because it couldn't archive the Proquest website. Z1720 ( talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Was the print version of DCB the one consulted, or the online version?
    • Although I used the online version originally, Johannes Schade said I should reference the print version instead. During the changeover, I verified the information (as I had to find the page numbers) and the information is now cited to the book. Z1720 ( talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Volume statements generally shouldn't be part of the title
    • I assume you are referring to Dent. Fixed. Z1720 ( talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
    • Done
  • Hamil is missing publisher
    • Fixed
  • What makes Hoar a high-quality reliable source?
  • Dundurn Press or just Dundurn? Check for consistency. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • WorldCat and Google say Dundurn, so I changed Gates's reference to Dundurn. Z1720 ( talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Nikkimaria. I have commented above. Z1720 ( talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi Nikkimaria, a few days ago an editor converted the newspaper articles from <ref> to sfn. Do you have any concerns about this change? Z1720 ( talk) 14:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not required, and if you were so inclined you could revert per CITEVAR. But if that is not an issue it's not a concern. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't mind the change, just wanted to make sure it didn't change the result of your source review. Z1720 ( talk) 15:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by GP!

  • Support: As the GA reviewer for this article a few months ago, I have watched its steady improvement over the past several weeks and have deliberately refrained from commenting here until some other uninvolved editors had a chance to look. Their reviews in tow, I am confident that my own impression has been confirmed, which is that this article is incisive, well-written, well-referenced, comprehensive, neutral, and interesting, representing the very best of what Wikipedia has to offer. As such, I am delighted to offer my support to this FA nomination (based on assessment of criteria 1, 2, and 4 ... I have not independently examined images). Go Phightins ! 22:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Royal Calcutta Turf Club

Nominator(s):   Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Re-nominating the article, as I couldn't complete it last time due to being tested positive for COVID. I have tried to solve the issues mentioned last time (except 1-2 things which I am currently doing).   Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from buidhe

  • Image licensing looks satisfactory. ( t · c) buidhe 23:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • "Horse races were initially organised for the British cavalry" - this is implied by the text but not explicitly supported
  • done: Changed races to events   Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The same issue exists with that, though: the text says horse events were popular with the cavalry, and then goes on to say organised races were held at Akra, but doesn't explicitly say that they were organised for the British. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "RCTC-organised races were among the most important social events of the bigwigs' calendar" - source?
  • "At the opening of the Christmas..."   Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That sentence states that Christmas race week was an important social event; it does not say that races (plural) were "among the most" important. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "the Calcutta Derby Sweeps, organised by the RCTC, was the world's largest sweepstake in the 1930s" - given the note about potential miscalculation, is this claim adequately supported?
  • FN29 doesn't link to anything
  • What makes racingpulse a high-quality reliable source? puronokolkata? Bhattacherje? Golf Doctor?
  • How to determine a source as high-quality reliable source?   Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 'PuronoKolkata' article is backed by sources. Racingpulse is managed by journalist. 'Golf Doctor' is from The Charlotte Post.   Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Golf Doctor source is supporting a historical claim rather than any sort of contemporary account for which a journalistic source would be more likely to be presumed notable. Being managed by a journalist doesn't automatically make something reliable. Regarding puronokolkata, how do we know that sources have been correctly interpreted? What is the expertise of the author? Are there fact-checking procedures in place? And what about Bhattacherje? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Basu has a typo in location
  • Sorry, couldnt find the mistake.   Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It has the name as 'Kolkota' while all others use 'Kolkata'. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • done: Corrected   Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  17:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • When are you including publication location?
  • Was unaware of this.   Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Check alphabetization of Sources - sometimes you're including "The" in the alphabetization and other times not
  • The links don't appear to be working
  • There are no citations to the Obituary in the Sources list, and the link is broken.
  • done: removed it.   Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

There seems to be little sign of this gathering a consensus to promote. If it has not attracted more interest by the time it has hit the three week mark I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild ( talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 1981 action-adventure film Raiders of the Lost Ark (a.k.a. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark). Though not my favourite film in the series it's the most important one, not just for the film series itself but for its influence on films that followed, it's massive success, and somehow George Lucas was making this and The Empire Strikes Back simultaneously. Questionable talent that he may have become, the man was a genius at his peak. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from theJoebro64

Gonna leave some comments soon. I may make slight edits while I go through, as I think it'll be easier than just leaving comments on minor points. JOE BRO 64 13:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks TheJoebro64 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!
Yo, TheJoebro64, pinging you bro. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the nudge. I've read the article fully and don't see really anything to nitpick. My only issue was a minor quirk in the Writing section; the "they" in "They agreed to use 'Jones' instead" refers to Spielberg, Kasdan, and Lucas all, correct? I think it should be clarified because it's the start of a new paragraph. Otherwise I don't think I need to hold this up much longer so I'm throwing in a support. JOE BRO 64 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Changed, thanks TheJoebro64!! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱

Excited to review this. BTW, given the comments you've received on your previous, if you'd like to review other featured articles in the review, I would strongly encourage it. I'm planning some film FA nominations in the future, although I don't have any right now.

Initial comments and lead
  • I'll start out by saying every citation here is from reliable sources and formatted perfectly from a skimthrough, so that's a good sign.
  • Poster doesn't have WP:ALT description.
  • "While the pair had ideas for notable scenes in the film" Clarify. Are we meaning concepts for scenes that would be known years after release, or scenes that are the most essential in progressing the plot?
  • An oddity I noticed with the locations listed. I get why La Rochelle and Tunisia were there because they were filmed the most prominently judging by the filming section, and I get Hawaii because even though it was filmed there for one scene, it was filmed in several areas of the state for the scene. However, I don't know why the entire state of California is listed. Only one scene used only one location of California, a University. Additionally, by that logic, shouldn't England also be listed since it was also used for one scene in location of the country, Rickmansworth?

More comments coming soon to a theater near you. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 20:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Added an ALT caption for the poster. I changed the lead part to setpieces and stunts. The gist of it from my research is they had an idea like "Oh let's have a big boulder chase Indy" and it was Kasdan's job to get Indy in front of the boulder and then NOT in front of the boulder, if that helps understanding. England is technically mentioned but not in an on location capacity so I've reworded and took out California. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi HumanxAnthro, did you see my response? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Excuse the delayed reactions yet again. A result of juggling everything at once. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Media review from SNUGGUMS

Are you by any chance hoping to get this featured on the main page for its 40th anniversary in June? Either way, here are some comments:

More to come later. From a glance at the prose, I'll say now that "notable" from "notable scenes" is inappropriate POV and editiorializing, and that you could link to Indiana Jones (character) in the "Cast" section. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 02:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, I might be cutting it close but I'd like to get it there for its anniversary. I didn't anticipate Die Hard's FA taking so long (thanks for your help with that). I have enough 80s films setup now that I'm set for 40th anniversaries to appear on the front page until 2024 if I can get this one done (Got to get Ghostbusters up to FA). Too late for The Empire Strikes Back sadly but of the ones I've done it's the one I'm least interested in so I put it off until last.
  • I've replaced the Karen Allen one with one with a clearer author. I assume if its on Wikimedia it's already been verified but this doesn't appear to be the case very often in reality. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've removed the Raiders March file. It was already in the article but I admit I wasn't in a rush to remove it because these 80s film scores are boss and I love listening to them. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I can see your point on the trailer but I just thought it was an interesting aspect to see HOW the trailer was marketed to people at the time. It's 40 years old so I don't think it's too promotional, but I feel it's justified. Normally I'd include an image of the theater it premiered in but it doesn't appear to have had a standard big time premiere anywhere notable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Indiana Jones Spectacular image is attributed to Cybjorg, and doing a reverse image search it only seems to come up at Fan Wikias that have sourced it from here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna stick up for the Sean Connery image as similar to the Jeremy Irons image in Die Hard, in that he is mentioned in the text accompanying the section and it's relevant to that, even if its 60% decorative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, also Indiana Jones character is linked in the plot section, that's why it's not in the Cast. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough on the linking. File:Karen Allen (8707577445).jpg is definitely a better choice for Allen since I could verify its copyright status. As for the "Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular" pic, it's too bad Cybjorg hasn't edited since 2018 or we could ask that user for clarification. You're better off replacing it with something else or having no pic of it at all. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Other comments from SNUGGUMS

  • Starting two consecutive sentences with "it" like you've done in the lead's third paragraph feels repetitive
  • "that includes three more films"..... are you only saying this instead of "four" because the fifth film hasn't been released yet?
  • The use of "affair" (both in "Plot" and "Casting") makes it sound like Indy and/or Marion were unfaithful to other partners during their first entanglement (which I don't recall being the case but maybe I'm forgetting something here when it's been a long time since I last watched the movie). You could simply say "relationship" instead.
  • "An imam deciphers the medallion for Jones; one side bears a warning against disturbing the Ark, the other the correct measurements for the "staff of Ra", an item used to locate the Ark" is quite a mouthful! I'd split it into separate sentences by turning the semi-colon into a period.
  • The plot's last paragraph is rather short with only two sentences. Super tiny paragraphs like that are discouraged because they make the flow of text feel choppy.
  • From "Conception", "Development and pre-production", "Post-production", and "Special effects", I'd avoid having two sentences in a row begin with "Lucas", and there's a similar issue with "Spielberg" under "Writing"
  • Within "Casting", remove the colon from "Those considered for the role included"
  • The use of "Ironically" from "Ironically, the actors' strike of 1980" is inappropriate editorializing
  • Not sure what you mean by "hold their own" from "who could hold their own against their male counterparts"
  • "after his wife's grandmother"..... grandmother-in-law
  • "because the pay was better"..... it offered more money
  • For "Filming", I think you can guess my thoughts on opening two straight sentences with "the", and its last paragraph should be merged to expanded to avoid looking so stubby
  • "Post-production lasted a few months"..... can you be more precise on whether this was 3, 4, or 5?
  • Three consecutive sentences starting with "he" under "Music" is even worse than the prior concerns of two in a row.
  • From "Stunts", the term "several" is an ambiguous word that's best avoided whenever more specific descriptions can be used, its first paragraph should be expanded/merged, and too many sentences from its second paragraph start with "the"
  • "Allen was reportedly so scared"..... any confirmation or denial on this?
  • It should be obvious by now what I'd do with the fourth paragraph's use of "the" to begin sentences in "Stunts"
  • "Visuals and sound" has a bit of repetition with "Slocombe" openers
  • Expectations on Superman II don't seem very relevant here, and neither do the other 1981 films predicted to earn the most money that year
  • Wanna guess what's wrong with the first paragraph of "Critical response"?
  • "Several reviewers noted the film's PG rating"..... I'd use "asserted" or "believed" instead of "noted", and see my previous comments on "several"
  • Spell out Videocassette recorder for "Home media". Don't just assume all readers will know what "VCR" stands for, though it's fine include that abbreviation right next to it in parantheticals.
  • Link the first instance of VHS, and it looks like you forgot a comma after its mention within "Like the VHS it was a success".
  • Another misuse of a colon for the overly short first paragraph of "Other media", and almost every sentence of its second paragraph starts with "The" or "A".
  • "There is irony in the Nazis attempting to use a Jewish artifact to subjugate the world"..... see my prior comments on using "ironically"
  • Wanna guess how the third paragraph from "Cinematic homage and nostalgia" could be improved?
  • Under "Legacy", it feels like puffery to say "significant and lasting impact" when you could simply say "lasting impact" or "major impact"
  • Don't italicize Rotten Tomatoes from "Modern reception", and try not to have back-to-back "In *year*" sentences (this is how literally each one from the fourth paragraph starts!)
  • "Several publications have ranked it as one of the greatest films of all time, including:"..... do I have to spell it out again?
  • "A 2013 episode"..... "A 2014 essay"..... see where I'm going? You could at least mention the Esquire writer by name.
  • The last paragraph from "Prequel, sequels and adaptations" could use some elaboration
  • Remove the italics from "Creative Bloq", "Cinephelia & Beyond", "Syfy", and "Collider"
  • How trustworthy are "Moviefone", "Screen Rant", "SuperHeroHype", "TravelPulse", and "The Ringer"?
  • "Slashfilm" → "/Film'
  • Ref#194 has a stray comma in its title
  • Capitialize the W for Wired (magazine)

While this definitely needs some work to become FA-material, instinct tells me you can spruce it up enough within a reasonable time. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

OK I think I've hit all your points. As for the website reliability, can I just say how much I hate Infinite Scroll stopping you getting to the bottom of a webpage. MovieFone has an About Us page and it's a long standing company, it's been around forever and reliability is the foundation it was built on. TravelPulse is owned by a big company as well and has a named page of editors and senior staff. ScreenRant has robust pages about About Us, Press Kit, and Fact Checking Policy. It does allow for contributors but you have to link to previously published works. The Ringer is another major website owned by Spotify, and they are currently hiring a new Fact Checker. SuperHeroHype is owned by Mandatory (formerly CraveOnline) which in turn is owned by Evolve Media. It's a big fish but the site itself doesn't have much in the way of policy. Given the thing it is sourced, I can easily replace this one if necessary. RE: The Superman and other films stuff, it's context for the year and what Jones is competing with. I used it to similar effect on Ghostbusters II to show how it was expected to beat those films and didn't. Here it's showing Superman II et al. were expected to do well and Jones wasn't, which is relevant later in the BO section when we get into discussing Raiders's phenomenal success, and Superman II is also brought up in the themes section, so I think for the size of the content, it provides much needed context and setup for later references. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This is looking better. I did a bit of copyediting myself here, and have no qualms with File:Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular! (8187488890).jpg. Getting into the last section, it wouldn't hurt to add some bits on how novels, comic books, and video games expand on stories of Dr. Jones et al. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 20:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
OK I will take a look tonight/tomorrow, feeling pretty wrecked today. Thanks for your input Snuggums it's much appreciated. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi SNUGGUMS, I've added an expanded segment on this touching on the notable legendary items and quests he is involved in in novel/comic/game form. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Following sufficient improvements, I'm happy to give my support! You're also welcome for that and the assessments. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from A. Parrot

  • Drive-by comment from A. Parrot. The article is certainly comprehensive—approaching it from an Egyptological viewpoint, I certainly appreciate the thematic analysis—but it may actually be too much so. I know the article was trimmed somewhat in response to Sandy's peer review, but it's still at 11,593 words. As much as size limits tend to be ignored these days, I feel like the level of detail here may tax even a fairly determined reader, and there's a lot that doesn't feel entirely on-topic. For instance, while the gist of the "context" section is certainly relevant, there's no reason why we need details about which movies were projected to do best that season. Similarly, the section on accolades doesn't need to list the nominees that Raiders lost to (many FAs on Oscar-nominated films don't do that, and if readers really want to know, they can click on the article for the Oscars that year). A. Parrot ( talk) 04:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Parrot, thanks for your comments. I understand your perspective, but I will say that personally I regularly read these articles top the bottom with ease, particularly Groundhog Day and Ghostbusters II, which are of comparable length, Groundhog Day in particular because it's just a fascinating read, if I do say so myself. I don't think length is the issue as much as fluff and I agree, and as you say I have culled it quite a bit since the peer review. I can remove the award winners, I just felt this was a natural way of linking to more overlooked articles, since even as an 80s child I have never heard of some of them and would otherwise never come across the articles, which in turn may lead to the improvement of those articles. However, I'm not bound to that and can remove them if you prefer. The context section I feel is more important because it's setting the stage for what is expected to do well versus Raiders, which is kind of a meh on pre-release. Mainly it establishes that superheroics and comedy are the ones meant to do well. This is something I thought worked really well on Ghostbusters II which is the alternate, that Ghostbusters II is meant to do well and it ended up not doing so. I think especially with older films like this, where the history isn't just "and then we sent everything to the CGI department", and where it's history is occurring over multiple decades, it will veer on the longer side to do it justice. Anyway, let me know what you think A. Parrot Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the point about box office expectations can be made more succinctly. When an article exceeds 10,000 words, I think it's advisable to start summarizing instead of detailing wherever possible. A. Parrot ( talk) 07:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I've trimmed it down a little, I know that HumanxAnthro is good at this stuff as well so it will likely come up in his review. As with the Die Hard review however, I will mention the themes section is 1,100 words and supplemental to the topic of the film itself, but a requirement of this level, and so it is difficult to cut 1,100 words to compensate for that section. Thanks for your input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
As a frequent FA reviewer, I can tell you a lot of experienced reviewers get pretty strict with making sure there's context or background for everything, to the point of comicality and violating 4 of the FA criteria at points. I think, however, context sections are useful in plenty of instances, box office sections included, especially since major studio films get released in these economic contexts and are possibly affected by them. I have to say that where DarkwarriorBlake's Box Office sections go too far is bringing up the grosses of other films on the weeks the main subject debuted or ran. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 19:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd say it's VERY tight, but I've bought it down to exactly 10,000 words not including the themes section, so that's 10000 words relating to the film itself, and I trimmed some of the BO section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, the first nomination didn't work out but at least one editor who had raised concerns back then appears to have been satisfied by changes performed at Peer Review, so I am trying again. This article is about a rather unimpressive-looking volcano in Peru which in 1600 had a major eruption. This eruption devastated the surrounding region and caused worldwide climate change, including one of Russia's worst famines. Pinging participants of the PR, these mentioned there and of the previous FAC: @ Gog the Mild, Iridescent, Femkemilene, ComplexRational, Fowler&fowler, MONGO, Ceranthor, SandyGeorgia, AhmadLX, Heartfox, Buidhe, and Z1720: Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Image review licensing looks good ( t · c) buidhe 04:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Fowler&fowler

  • Notes: this is the lead. Its language should be accessible and explain the science easily. "Central Volcanic Zone" redirects to a section of the AVB, so no need to repeat. No need to explain either that the SA plate might have an oceanic half, but some clue should be given of its birth (without going into the convection in the mantle). More later. Good to see this. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hmm. This is better, but the past tense is problematic (subduction is still occurring and Huaynaputina still exists and still could erupt again). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems like I missed one other issue ... " and by the former's molten contents being forced up" isn't really how the process works. The article does not discuss this but the main process is the release of fluids by the downgoing slab into the overlying mantle, which causes the latter to melt. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That's in, minus the last sentence which isn't supported by the rest of the article (yet). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Second paragraph, lead
  • "During" has the meaning of "throughout," or "in the time of" and is more commonly applied to a time that has ended.
  • Better in my view: "In the Holecene ..."
  • Witnessed by people in the city of Arequipa,
  • Arequipa was established in 1540, and after 60 years, it was most likely still a colonial settlement.
  • Better in my view: the "town of" or "the settlement of" (later on we say "Arequipa Metropolitan Area" so people will know soon enough that it is a city now.)
I think that by contemporary definition it would be considered a "city". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This index was not around then and is quite likely based on historical reconstructions
  • Better in my view: this eruption has been computed to measure 6 on ..."
  • infrastructure a
  • "infrastructure" is a modern word (ca. 1920s or 30s), with its meaning these days including power-plants, highways, airports, ports, dams, railroad tracks and whatnot.
  • Better in view: "the foundations of buildings" (if that is what is meant; if not, perhaps you can explain a little more what is)
  • It's a bit more the modern meaning, not simply architecture. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • economic resources
  • This too is vague in the context of a relatively new colonial settlement.
  • Better in my view to mention the most salient resources by name.
  • I don't think it's that much specified beyond "agriculture". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The eruption had significant effects on Earth's climate; temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decreased, and millions of tons of acid were deposited. Floods, famines and cold waves resulted in numerous places in Europe, Asia and the Americas. The climate disruption caused social upheaval in countries as far away as Russia and may have played a role in the onset of the Little Ice Age.
  • There are some coherence issues here: "millions of tons of acid," whose origin and effect are unexplained, appear in the middle of climate. Social upheavals appear between cold waves and the Little Ice Age.
  • Better in my view: The eruption had a significant impact on Earth's climate: temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decreased; cold waves affected places in Europe, Asia and the Americas; and the climate disruption may have played a role in the onset of the Little Ice Age. Floods, famines, and social upheavals resulted.
  • (Note semi-colons are allowed in lists, especially ones with internal commas.) If the eruption really did have such an impact, then it is likely that floods, famines, and social upheavals were more widespread than in a few countries we are able to list. Also, this was a violent physical event; it is a situation for which we can–without stylistic worries–use the word "impact" in its figurative meaning.
  • That is probably a better formulation, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Third paragraph, lead
  • Huaynaputina has not erupted since 1600. There are fumaroles in its amphitheatre, and hot springs occur in the region, some of which have been associated with Huaynaputina.
  • Probably better if second Huaynaputina ---> "this volcano." and "This volcano" in the following sentence ---> Huaynaputina
  • lies in a remote region, where there is little human activity.
  • Better in my view to make the clause restrictive: i.e. "lies in a remote region in which there is little human activity."
  • "Even so" is probably more precise than "still," or "Although H. lies in a remote region, there are ..." (but this is not a biggie; I use "still")
  • "Surrounding area" can mean "immediately surrounding area," which can be confusing; better in my view: there are about 30,000 people living in its proximity, and another 1 million ..."
  • If an eruption similar to the 1600 event occurred, it would likely lead to a high death toll and cause substantial socioeconomic disruption.
  • occurred--> were to occur
  • likely--> quite likely. (Your last volcano article was written in British/Commonwealth English which shuns the adverb "likely," a relatively recent Americanism, preferring "very likely." In this instance, the more modest "quite likely" is probably better. (Note: I tend to use only "likely" myself, though usually in informal situations.)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That's the lead. I hope I haven't made any typos. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review

  • Text-source integrety okay per previous FAC. I did noticed two more citations with improper name formatting. In FN 151, van den is part of the surname. In FN176 there is a double surname again formatted as a non-Spanish surname. Check if that is consistent throughout. FN160 seems dead. FemkeMilene ( talk) 11:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    @ Femkemilene:Corrected, with the catch that I don't know much about the formatting of Spanish (sur)names. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


  • I still think a number of technical terms need to be explained a little. Holocene, for example, should be described; something like " Holocene, the current geological epoch, ...". I will list others as I go through the article.
    Thanks for that, AhmadLX. I've added a note for Holocene. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Peruvian Geophysical Institute announced in 2017 that Huaynaputina would be monitored by the Southern Volcanological Observatory." Any latest information on this? Did they do so or just said and forgot it afterwards;).
    Well, this is an odd one. Google News has both an article in 2020 saying the SVO will be ready in February 2021 but earlier articles that say it already exists. This one implies it already exists. Not sure how to resolve this. I've added the seismic monitoring part, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Andes not linked at its first instance.
    Isn't the lead link enough? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay fine.
  • "Huaynaputina lies at an elevation of about 4,850 metres (15,910 ft)." This is vague. Is its base at that elevation (as "lies" would suggest)? Or the highest point on the rim? Or the floor of the amphitheatre? Should be changed to something like "The summit of Huaynaputina lies at an elevation of about 4,850 metres (15,910 ft)."
    The source does not specify and none of the others I've seen discusses this aspect. I am guessing that the unusual morphology of the volcano makes it hard to assign it a height. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
This one says "Summit Elevation 4850 m (15912 ft)".
Hmmm. That source does not explain how it comes to that conclusion and the last digit (0) makes me wonder if they are approximating. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
It is the very source that you've used in the article to support the elevation thing.
Yes, but as I've said this volcano does not quite have a "summit" so I am wary of interpreting it as such. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Tephra, Speleothems: short description.
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The duration of the eruption is not well constrained but may have lasted up to 12–19 hours.[94] The event ended on 6 March with ash fall;" What was happening between 20 February and 6 March?
    Added a sentence, but I invite suggestions on how to reduce the two mentions of "ash fall". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe something like "The event continued with earthquakes and ash fall for over/about two weeks and ended on 6 March."?
Yeah, that's better; implemented it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "It has been proposed as a marker for the onset of the Anthropocene." Important term; short description.
    I admit, the source there does not bother to actually state an explicit definition of the term and its importance; it's more like several allusions. Do you have a proposed explanation? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the controversy regarding the exact starting point of the epoch is not relevant here. We can just brief that it is a period in Earth's history in which human impact on global climate has been considerable. This can be helpful.
I agree that the controversy doesn't matter, but even from the source currently used it doesn't seem like everybody defines it as "a period in Earth's history in which human impact on global climate has been considerable." Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think you need links for crops and livestock.
    Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "...while in Moquegua children were reportedly running around and women screaming." This has nothing to do with "Religious response".
    True, but I don't see a better place for it and it's kind of important. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
IMO, it is completely trivial. People scream in every disaster. There is nothing unusual about it to warrant a mention here. If people didn't scream and run around in such an event, that would be something of a note.
I am going to disagree on this one. I think that sentence helps underscore that this was an actual human tragedy rather than a statistical pattern. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "56.59 million tons Global [200]". [200] cites Gao et al. 2008 for the value. I couldn't find anything on Huaynaputina there.
    No, but Gao et al. 2008 points to this database which has the value. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Huaynaputina eruption[133] decreased the amount on solar energy reaching Earth by about 1.9 W/m2." Please add % drop.
    The source doesn't mention a percentage and I am kind of iffy of applying WP:CALC here; insolation variations while small are non-trivial. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Unlink Iceland, Canada, Taiwan, California (I'm not sure about the other US states but this one is certainly well-known), Kazakhstan, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Switzerland, England, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Latvia, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Scotland, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Taiwan (again), Thailand, Japan, Korea, Nepal. AhmadLX- (Wikiposta) 15:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@ AhmadLX:Is there any other problem that needs addressing? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Although I believe that several of my concerns were dismissed through unconvincing arguments (both here and in PR), I, nonetheless, think that this now meets the criteria. so I support. AhmadLX- (Wikiposta) 15:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  • The Quechua name of Waynaputina from the infobox should be mentioned in the names section
    Removed it pending a source as I can't find anything endorsing that spelling. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely for sure what the value of link to List of volcanoes in Peru in the infobox is
    For people who want to know more about Peruvian volcanoes? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Is the redirect El Misti the correct link in the context of " Other volcanoes in this zone from northwest to southeast include Sara Sara, Coropuna, Ampato, Sabancaya, El Misti, Ubinas, Ticsani, Tutupaca and Yucamane"?
    Yes, it's a common name for that volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "The event continued with earthquakes and ash fall for about two weeks[82] and ended on 6 March;[5] the air was clear of ash from the eruption on 2 April 1600 - is the " an error, or is it an unclosed quote?
    An error. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "the Huayruro Project began in 2015 and aims to rediscover these towns" - Any update on this?
    Not that much, and what little there is is a bit too specific I think. It's more about the towns than the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • While the flora of the volcano is mentioned, fauna don't seem to be. Even if wildlife is not present on the volcano in significant numbers, I feel like that should be mentioned.
    The problem is that there is no source definitively discussing fauna in the context of Huaynaputina. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The external link is dead and should be removed or archived. If it doesn't add anything significant, just remove it.
    Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't see where the 500,000 age of rock figure from the infobox appears in the body; I may have missed it.
    It's not based on anything, just typical infobox OR. I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Not all of the non-English sources state which language they are in; this should be added for all non-English sources.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm Talk 21:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Hog Farm:Replied to queries. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Supporting on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, with the understanding that the article will be updated in the future if studies on fauna on the volcano are performed. Did not check other criteria. Hog Farm Talk 17:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

London and North Western Railway War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Another war memorial! I think there's something fascinating about pieces of stone that have stood on the same spot for 100 years. This one has seen some changes over that century, some of which are illustrated by the photos in the article. Once part of an impressive classical arrangement, it's now one of only two traces remaining of the "old" Euston; the rest was swept away in the 1960s in the name of progress. Meanwhile, the company whose employees it commemorates has been amalgamated, nationalised, and then privatised.

I'm grateful to Carcharoth for his input in the article's development, Thryduulf for his detailed photos of the statues, and the reviewers at the MilHist A-class review who provided some very useful feedback. Hopefully you agree it's up to standard, but all feedback is welcome! :) Due to real life, it might take me a couple of days to respond to comments but I'm not ignoring you, I promise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Image review

  • Images are missing alt texts
  • File:Drawing_of_London_and_North_Western_Railway_War_Memorial_in_The_Builder.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    Reginald Wynn Owen died on 15 May 1950. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    Alt text added (not sure how good or useful it is, though; happy to take advice on improvements). RWO's dates added to the description page on Commons out of an abundance of caution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support I supported this article at the A-class review, and I support it now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Thryduulf

Looking through the photos on Commons, there are identical inscriptions on the east and west elevations "Remember the men and women on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway 1939-1945" yet there is no mention of WWII at all. (I meant to comment about this in the A class review but never got round to it). I'll have a more detailed read of the text later. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The article did mention these, but I've added in the dedication.
  • The lead feels rather long. How much of "The memorial was unusual in featuring an airman so prominently." and the final two paragraphs is needed this early?
    • Fair point. Trimmed a bit.
  • Consider using {{ inflation}} to give present-day values for the last paragraph of the background section
    • I'm sceptical of the value of these templates. I feel they're comparing apples ang oranges.
  • Is there anything that can be said about the history before the unveiling, e.g. about the commissioning?
    • Not that isn't already mentioned. You can see from the size of the bibliography that this is covered in a lot of places, but none of the sources (even the LNWR's official history of the war) gives any details on the commissioning process. That's not really surprising for a private company building a monument on its own land using its in-house architect—there wouldn't be a lengthy paper trail. This is similar to, for example, the Midland Railway War Memorial; we only know so much about the North Eastern Railway War Memorial because of the controversy over its location, and even then we have barely a footnote from the minutes of a board meeting.
  • Don't need to say both "leaving the war memorial and two station lodges the only surviving parts of the old Euston complex." and "the lodges, along with the war memorial, were the only survivors of the 1960s redevelopment" in successive paragraphs, especially when it's already in the lead. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Trimmed. Thanks for your comments, Chris, and thank you for taking the photos used in the gallery. Just goes to show that you never know what will be useful one day! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Fulfills my source review. I haven't don't any spot checks, but I don't see a strong reason to at this stage -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks. For what it's worth, Hawkeye did a spot check at the ACR; he appears to have copies of some of the books. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Support by Comments from Nick-D

I'm fascinated by World War I memorials erected by companies for some reason - maybe as they illustrate the trauma the war caused across society - and am interested in visiting this memorial when the world returns to normal and I'm next able to travel to the UK. I'd like to offer the following minor comments:

  • The first para should note the number of LNWR employees who were killed, given this is the subject of the memorial
  • The order of sentences in the first two paras of the 'Background' section feels a bit random. I'd suggest starting with what the LNWR was, then the size of the company, then the numbers of its staff who fought, etc. The sentence about companies building memorials might best work in the last para of this section.
  • Can anything be said about how donations from the company's staff were solicited? (for instance, was this effort led by management, or was it led by the workers and/or their unions?) Nick-D ( talk) 07:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nick, thanks for the comments! I agree there's something fascinating about company war memorials. I think they show that the war affected all areas of life. Though somehow I don't think modern companies would feel moved to build monuments if something similar were to happen today. Let me know when you're planning a trip to the UK and I'll try to get up to London so we can visit it together. I believe I've addressed your first two comments. As to your third, there's nothing in the sources about this; it seems to be implied that there was some sort of agreement that the company would cover a large percentage of the cost, possibly as a unifying gesture following the 1919 strike. This is in contrast to the NER, interestingly, who built a large memorial entirely at the company's expense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I'm happy to support the nomination now. With a sufficient amount of luck (and an acceleration in Australia's vaccine program) I'm hoping to visit Europe late next year. I wouldn't be shocked if it isn't doable though! Nick-D ( talk) 04:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • Remember that the lede is a summary of the whole article. Don't give exact figures for manpower or money there; save them for the main body.
  • Same with its height, the detailed description of the memorial, the name of the prominent attendees and the date of unveiling, etc.
  • Put the citations above the bibliography-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by 👨x🐱

Hi, HJ Mitchell. I've seen you around at other FA discussions, so thought I'd stop by to review this. As an American who's a dummy in history, I'll be the perfect user to comment on this XD.

  • Infobox image has no alt description.
  • Any reason why some image alts start with a lower-case letter?
  • There's some history and sculpture WP:JARGON in the lead I didn't get on a first read (hey, that rhymes), so it should be linked or explained. "Obelisk" "pedestal" "bronze wreath" "over-life-size" "artilleryman," "infantryman," "sailor," "airman"
  • More of the same in the body that introductory readers may not get the first time: "private-sector", "artillery shells", "munitions", "conscripted", "granite tablet", "Buttresses", "the Western Front". Check for others
  • Lead: "much of the company's infrastructure was turned over to the war effort." Body: "During the First World War (1914–1918), it turned much of Crewe Works, its main engineering facility, over to the war effort." The lead implies most of the infrastructure of all of the company's facilities went to World War I, but this contradicts the body.
  • "skilled employees" WP:VAGUE. Why are we calling the employees "skilled"? Isn't skill required to do any work in the first place, or did these employees have elite skills most others didn't have?
  • "introduction of conscription," Why not just conscription?
  • "to commemorate their employees who were killed in the war." I find this to be Fluff. I think it's obvious what war memorials are to introductory readers.
  • "Owen also designed a war memorial" Read MOS:LINKCLARITY to see the problem here.
  • Why is "R. L. Boulton & Sons." not credited in the lead for building the statue?
  • Why do the first two paragraphs of "Design" have all of the cites bundled at the end of paragraph? Why not certain citations for certain sentences? I don't imagine all of those citations having every single detail in that paragraph.
  • "The tablets are inscribed "Remember the men and women of the London Midland and Scottish Railway 1939–1945"." Does this mean all the later tablets had that text on them?
  • Lead: "a cross in relief". Body: "stone cross protruding from the body itself". I found relief a simpler description with the link to the article about relief.
  • "Obelisks are not inherently associated with Christianity, though Wynn Owen" --> "Although obelisks are not inherently associated with Christianity, Wynn Owen"
  • " he intended the addition of the crosses" Hold on, those crosses were "added"? I thought they were initially built with the rest of the sculpture, that doesn't speak "added" to me. Addition would imply crosses were after well after the sculpture was made.
  • Per MOS:FAMILYNAME, you must present the full name of a person on his first mention in the article, than reference him by his last name. Any reason why "Wynn Owen" is repeated instead of just Owen? 👨x🐱 ( talk) 19:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, gave a dedication." Vague. What kind of dedication?
  • Since you use an initialism of "Victoria Cross" late in the article and introduce the full phrase in the background section, "Victoria Cross" --> "Victoria Cross (VC)"
  • "largest for a railway company war memorial." Of all-time? Until another war memorial had happened later in history?
  • Was is "the official narrative of the war"? What are "special trains"?
  • Since more than half of the "History" section is about the memorial, I would split it into two sections. One would be about the memorial, the other about the statue's presence in later years.
  • "The company also produced a Roll of Honour, a copy of which was presented to the nearest living relative of each of the dead." Was the "Roll of Honour"? I'm guessing it's a paper or book or some sort. Only description word used is "volume", which I don't know what that is.

Well-done article overall. The prose is engaging and professional, but needs some clarification or linking in places. I imagine memorials don't get much coverage besides those in history and awards books, although I did find these. I don't have the book sources with me or can access them, so I would ask another review to spotcheck the sources.. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 19:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

1987 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC) and BennyOnTheLoose

This article is about the 1987 World Snooker Championship. After losing in the final of both of the previous two tournaments, Steve Davis finally won his fourth title. This event was bookened by Joe Johnson who won the previous year having barely won a match all season, but still making the final. It also marked the final appearance of six-time champion Ray Reardon.

Benny and I have done quite a bit of work on this, and have promoted all of the previous three events (plus some newer ones). Please let us know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Len_Ganley.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale for this article. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


I see this hasn't gotten much attention, so I'll give it a read-through. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "Featuring 32 participants; the highest ranked 16 players were awarded a place in the first round draw, whilst a pre-tournament qualification event was held for 104 professionals between 26 March to 4 April at the Preston Guild Hall for the remaining places" - Are you sure that should be a semicolon?
  • I've tweaked the lead slightly, hopefully for the better. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 00:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • " Stephen Hendry, aged 18 became the youngest player to win a match in the tournament's history," - I believe there should be a comma after 18, as "aged 18" is an appositive
  • "The championship was held from 18 April and 4 May 1987" - Maybe this is an engvar issue, but giving a date span with "and" just does not seem right to me.
  • So maybe I'm missing something really obvious, but I did my math in Excel, and I'm still not getting things to add up right. So the winner gets $80,000, second place gets $48,000; two people get $24,000; four people get $12,000; eight get $6,000; and 16 get $3375; in addition, $8,000 for highest break and $80,000 if you pull off a maximum break. It's adding up to 414,000 for me. (Yes, I know it's pounds, but my keyboard doesn't have a key for the pounds sign).
  • It looks like the total from sources included the amount for third and fourth qualifying round losers, but excluded the £80,000 that would have been awarded for a maximum break. I've added a source that includes the qualifying amounts. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Could be worth a footnote, IMO, to clarify this. Hog Farm Talk 17:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Move the link to deciding frame from the second mention to the first.
  • "Stephen Hendry was the youngest player to date to win a match at the event." this caption and the lead both suggest that Hendry's win was the youngest ever in tournament history (back to 1927), while the body text for this suggests that Hendry's was only the youngest since the move to the Crucible Theater as the arena
  • I've amended the lead as I didn't find a reference for him being the youngest winner in tournament history. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 16:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a link for foul shots? It's not obvious to someone unfamiliar with snooker what a foul shot would be in this sport, as presumeably these aren't like free throws.
  • Downer needs a publisher.
  • It's a self-published source, but I think it's fair to say that he is regarded as an expert. The book is sold via Snooker Scene. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I did some digging around, and do agree with you that this is probably an acceptable source. It seems to be widely cited.
  • I normally check source reliability in my reviews, but I'm not familiar with these snooker sources at all, so I'll have to leave that for someone else. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for the constructive review Hog Farm. I've tried to address all of the points that you raised - let me know if there is anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 17:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, source formatting, and 4; did not check others or was not familiar enough with subject matter. Hog Farm Talk 17:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

Please consider this a non-expert review.

  • "Johnson, however, reached the final, in a rematch of the previous year's final, he played Steve Davis in the final." Very awkward sentence, with "final" used three times and too many commas.
  • "Stephen Hendry, aged 18 became the" comma after 18
  • Prize fund: as a non-snooker player, I understand who gets the money in most of the categories. However, I don't understand what Highest break and maximum break refers to. Perhaps a note or an explanation under the prize fund section is in order.
    • Sure, we do link to these though in the table. (I.E Highest break and maximum break. Perhaps we should have something on the maximum break that clarifies that it's a bonus if someone did make a maximum, rather than a prize for something that is guaranteed to happen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 07:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      • In other FACs, it's been mentioned that uncommon terms and jargon should not require a reader to click a wikilink. Since people can win money for fulfilling these conditions, I suggest a note be used for these terms so that readers can get the info at the bottom of the page. This is how other articles with specialist terms have fulfilled this suggestion lately. Z1720 ( talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Gino Rigitano conceded the 11th frame of his match against Steve Newbury when there were still enough balls on the table for him to win," Why did he concede? Seems like a significant event if it's getting its own sentence.
  • The source says "...Newbury having victory handed to him .... The Canadian conceded the 11th frame when he was 61 points behind with six reds on the table. He quit altogether when the score was 9-4, deciding not to come out for the last frame." I think this was commented on because it's unusual for a professional snooker player to concede a frame and match from these positions, but the source doesn't say that. I'll see if any other sources have more. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a shame, as players usually get a fine for this! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I didn't find anything else in sources about this, so I suppose the options are either to leave it pretty much as it is, or remove it as not significant given that only one source found mentions it. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 08:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with leaving it in if the source can't verify additional info. Z1720 ( talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • " Bill Werbeniuk and Eddie Charlton both also failed" Remove both
  • "He received £2,000 for this break, the highest during qualifying." Is this separate from the £8000 in the prize fund section?
  • "with the match being going to a deciding frame" delete "being"
  • "then won the next after needing his opponent to make foul shots to win 10–7." Did his opponent succeed in the foul shots? What are foul shots? This sentence confused me.
    • I've reworded this (as per a suggestion to comment on "snookers required"), hopefully this is a bit better Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 07:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

More comments will come later. Z1720 ( talk) 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  • In the references, sometimes news articles show the date in the brackets after the author and other times they list it further into the reference. Please standardise.
  • I think this is a feature of the reference template. Help:Citation Style 1 says "When an author is cited, the date of the cited work is displayed after the author's name ... If no author is cited, the date appears after the title". Let me know if there are any exceptions. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Crucible Almanac's refs seem like they are missing something. Should a publisher be listed?
  • It's a self-published source sold via the magazine Snooker Scene. I think it's fair to say that the work is well-regarded. It's mentioned here as "a key resource for commentators and journalists alike." BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

That's it for my first round. Z1720 ( talk) 13:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Round two, just one comment:

  • "The 11-time pool world champion Jim Rempe,[29] made a break of 104" Either remove the comma or put one after champion

Some bullet points above are also missing responses. Z1720 ( talk) 23:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I added two comments above, and one below:

  • For the first paragraph in "Format", why is reference [14] used three times in a row? Is it WP:OVERCITE or perhaps we can separate the page numbers and identify on which specific page number each sentence is verified by. Since articles are first-and-foremost for readers, imo excessive footnotes when they are not needed (and are repeating the same footnote after each sentence) should be avoided.
  • I've changed the references here as the 1987-88 Rothmans Yearbook has a clearer statement than the 1991-92 edition that this was the last ranking event of the season, and I've amended another one to Downer's 2019 Crucible Almanac. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 06:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for tolerating my nit-picking. Z1720 ( talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Well past the three week mark and little sign of a consensus to promote developing. If this hits the four week mark without garnering considerable further interest I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Pawnkingthree

  • I think this is a well-written and comprehensive article, well up to the standards of Lee's previous snooker FAs. My only concern is with the awkward and long-winded sentence, "After this, Davis required White to make foul shots in order to gain the necessary penalty points from them for Davis to win the frame." Why not just "After this, Davis required snookers?" I realize it's jargon, but that's what wikilinks are for.-- P-K3 ( talk) 17:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't disagree... But I've had prior with links not being suitable for jargon terms at FAC. It's one of those things that is worse because snooker has a few different meanings, so specifically saying foul points does explain what is on, and the link can also explain more. Thanks for the support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 20:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

  • "had a series of poor results since his 1986 victory" I guess you mean in the run-up to this tournament but it's not 100% clear.
  • Amended in the lead and body, but may need a bit more work. The sources used are really commenting about the season as a whole rather than than match results, so I'm not sure that "poor results" was really the right phrase. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "66–1 outsider" perhaps to avoid having to explain what 66–1 means in the lead, drop that and just mention it in the main part of the article, perhaps with a link to fixed-odds betting?
  • Pending... I think it's worth keeping something in the lead that mentions he was seen as an outsider, but that doesn't feel like the right term without the connection to bookmakers' odds. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • What about: "and had high odds against winning the tournament." or similar. The article goes into the details, and this would be a summary - but also make it clear it was the bookmakers who were against Johnson. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "was a 127 made" can't decide if "a" is needed here or not.
  • I've removed it as there was only the one 127 break, but would be happy to reinstate it. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Infobox says it was organised by WPBSA but that's not really mentioned explicitly.
  • "at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England, the" you literally said this the last sentence of the previous para.
  • "four-round knockout qualifying competition" isn't there a suitable link for this?
  • "as seeded players" seed was mentioned before this linked variant.
  • "4 April, and produced" -> "4 April which produced"
  • "as best-of-19-frames" not like me, I know, but perhaps you could add "meaning ten frames were required to win the match" only because you then go on to talk about how many frames were required in subsequent rounds.
  • "bookmakers' outsider, priced at 66–1 " I've been asked to link bookmaker and also you could link "priced" to the odds article I noted above.
  • "On 6 April" maybe more contextual to say "Twelve days before the start of the tournament..."?
  • "most serious being" -> "most serious of which was" to avoid ing ing.
  • "104 entrants to qualifying, although four" gah, MOSNUM, comparable values, all numerals or all words...
  • "but Frank Jonik, Eddie McLaughlin, Sakchai Sim Ngam and Omprakesh Agrawal all withdrew" you've said four withdrew already, need to merge these.
  • Amended, by deleting the earlier reference to this. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "11-time pool world champion" was he a specific variant of pool champ?
  • The source used here didn't mention this so I looked around. His BCA Hall of Fame entry mentions that he won 11 world titles but doesn't give a full list - looks like the World One-Pocket Championship, the World 9-Ball Championship, and the World Straight Pool Championship were among the titles, as well as the impressive "All-Around Champion of the World." BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • If using the surname is not ambiguous, just use that and not repeat the first name, your approach at the moment is inconsistent.
  • "The first round was" maybe "of the main tournament"
  • "Stephen Hendry was the youngest player..." add a "pictured in" because that photo was taken 22 years later...
  • "player Willie Thorne. Hendry led 5–4" -> "player Willie Thorne and led 5–4"
  • Amended - I didn't include the "and" because there's one soon after, so this could probably be improved. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "player to win a match" repetitive use of "win", perhaps "to secure a victory"?
  • "wasn't" avoid contractions.
  • "The 1985 Champion" no need for capital C.
  • "best-of-25 held" +frames.
  • "frame on a re-spotted black.[18] " overlinked.
  • "Hendry wrapped up a" bit colloquial.
  • "O'Kane, ranked 39th in the world rankings," probably should have mentioned that in the first round when he beat the second seed?
  • "frames in a row and were tied at 8–8. " reads odd, maybe "frames in a row and the match was tied at 8–8."?
  • "frames in-a-row to" not sure that needs hyphenating. At least, be consistent.
  • "failed in an attempt to pot a red" why not "missed a red"?
  • Crop the Foulds image to get rid of the clown...!
    • You not a Murphy fan? I have no image manipulation skills whatsoever. Is there a suitable place to request this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "in frame 7; allowing" no need for the semi-colon.
  • "frame 7" vs " frame eight"...
  • Link maximum break.
  • You normally link fluke to the cuegloss.
  • (I'm not going to ask you explain the notion of a free ball here, but can you imagine trying to do that...?)
  • Put "pictured in" for Davis image too, once again it's 20 or so years after this event.
  • "The last time that two players had met in consecutive finals at the World Championship " just to be clear, say where these were played as the "at the Crucible" is vital to the previous sentence.
  • "This was the" +also.
  • "Davis' lead" Davis's.... :(
  • "last red ball when" you link red ball here?
  • "but failed on an attempt to pot a red" again, "missed a red"?
  • Even top players sometimes miss the object ball with the cue there is a difference, although perhaps "missed a red" is still better as a commonly-understood term? BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's a pitfall I've falled into a few times. I've reworded that line entirely, as it's not very clear. "Failed to pot" is indeed much better than "Missed a red", which I would indeed suggest gets into foul and a miss teritory.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 07:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You link yellow ball but not green or pink...
  • "won on the colours" probably needs a bit more.
  • "winners.[17][16][78]" order.
  • "first frameof the" space.
  • "lowest world championship high break" beating which record low?
  • 1977's highest break was 135 by John Spencer. This was the "lowest high break" at the Crucible until 1986, where Steve Davis' 134 was the highest. Should something be added about this? BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 16:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I've had a go, but I'm not delighted with my wording. Maybe make this a footnote rather than body text? BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 06:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 71, en-dash.
  • Ref 40, get rid of extraneous title material.
  • Ref 11 links the work, seems to be the only one?
  • Ref 30 is BBC Sport.
  • As is ref 40.
  • Consistent ISBN formats.

That's my thoughts for a first pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Dupplin Moor

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In 1332 a claimant to the Scottish throne, Edward Balliol, landed on the north shore of the Firth of Forth with 1,500 mostly English adventurers. Astonishingly, within a week they had defeated the Scottish army - at least ten times stronger, and possibly more than 25 times - with great slaughter. Balliol was crowned king of Scotland and the Second War of Scottish Independence began. This is an account of that battle. There are, I believe, sufficient contemporary accounts of the battle, and modern scholars commenting on them, to support the weight of a FA and I have plundered them to the utmost. Any and all constructive criticism is most welcome. Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • What is the meaning of the red square vs blue circle on the map? A legend would be useful
They have been removed.
  • File:Charge_of_the_Scots_at_Halidon_Hill.jpg: author link goes to a dab page - which one is intended?
Fixed. ( James Grant (1822–1887))

Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, your suggestions all actioned. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Source review—pass

Do we need a blockquote in "Location" section? ( t · c) buidhe 20:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Well in my opinion yes, despite my frequent citing of WP:QUOTE to cut down on the use of quotes I believe that in this case it communicates the information well and succinctly and that little or no purpose would be served by paraphrasing it. Gog the Mild ( talk) 20:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Buidhe, response above. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Buidhe, would I be correct in assuming that there was more to come by way of a source review? Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Will get to it later today. ( t · c) buidhe 20:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Nicholson 1961
    • "whom Edward I had deposed in 1296" exact words copied from the source. Should be rephrased.
Rephrased. And cite changed to Sumption 1990.
    • "Almost immediately" This doesn't seem to be supported by the source, which appears to say it happened 2 months later
Less than two months is almost immediately in Medieval terms. (On 17 October 1346 David II was captured by Edward III. His ransom negotiations overran and he was released in October 1357.) Changed to "Within two months Balliol granted ..."
    • Nicholson 1961, p. 126. — there's no page 126 in the source.
Apologies. Well spotted. Thank you. Wrong Nicholson work. They should have cited the 1974 one. Fixed.
  • Webster 2004
    • "The Second War of Scottish Independence which had started with Balliol's invasion finally ended in 1357" I cannot verify this in the source which never mentions any "war of Scottish independence".
Grr! I used this to show when the war ended, having already established its name in an earlier sentence - which I deleted along with the cite in the copy edit! Now nailed down at each corner. ( Can I cite to the title of a book?)

( t · c) buidhe 21:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that Buidhe, your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok ( t · c) buidhe 21:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

I inserted an obvious missing verb, other comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks.
  • between more than 15,000 and 40,000 men—I don't like between more than, just "between" I would have thought?
That is not quite what the source says. I have rewritten to be a little longer but avoid the unwelcome phraseology. My fault, as I was inconsistent and not quite true to the source in the main text - now tidied.
  • Link Fife, Berwick, Dunfermline
  • Balliol was crowned king of Scotland.—cap King?
Not according to MOS:JOBTITLES. Lots of people have been king of Scotland; Balliol was only one of them.
It's not a job title; it's a title of nobility-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • from Yorkshire ports on 31 July 1332.—which ports?
The sources sayeth not. Sumption has "three Yorkshire ports"; Nicholson "the Humber"; others either "Yorkshire ports" or have Balliol's force gathering in Yorkshire and sailing to Scotland without explicitly stating that they left via Yorkshire ports. (I could make a good guess based on this, but that would be OR. I assume some chronicle lists the ports - there may or may not be a good reason why the sources don't name them.)
  • Yes, not many realistic options, but if it doesn't say...
Those Scots who had not been killed or captured fled—perhaps Those Scots who were not killed...
Why? What about those who were captured? (Some of whom would have been captured without fleeing? In these sorts of presses it was common for many prisoners to be those dragged semi- or unconscious from the heaps of bodies. This is not explicitly stated by any source, but it is for similar battles which are covered in greater detail, eg Crecy or Agincourt.)
  • I think my ellipsis above has muddied the waters, I wasn't querying the content of the sentence, just the verb tense, i.e were not instead of had not been. Anyway, I'll leave that one with you, otherwise happy to Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
D'oh! Fixed.
Thanks Jimfbleak, appreciated. Your comments to date addressed above. Further eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild ( talk) 20:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


Will take a look soon, might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Patterson 1996 seems to be unused
Odd, but fixed.
  • It looks like the exact date of 21 March for adding to the historic listing needs an exact citation
Oops. Now covered in main text.
  • In the Omrod reference, it might be wise to add the US state for New Haven.
  • Same comment about the author link for the battle image as Nikkimaria.
  • Do we really need the accessdate for the Weir book?

Anticipate supporting. I can barely even find things to nitpick here. Very excellent work; some of your best work, Gog. Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That is very flattering Hog Farm, especially from someone who themselves knows what it means to generate an account of the nuts and bolts of a large scale of a battle which is a generally comprehensible, coherent account which also covers everything of note in the sources while being true to them and yet manages to of a professional standard. I shall endeavour to maitain the standard. Your points above addressed. Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4. Did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 21:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • pike equipped, infantry hyphenate pike equipped, delete the last comma
That's not quite what the source says, so I have changed it to "pike-equipped ordinary infantry".
  • Remove the adjectival command from the template for 600 feet
  • were more able to use their weapons Suggest "had more room to use/swing..."
What do you think about "had room to use their weapons more effectively"?
  • Put Ormrod in alphabetical order
  • Nicely done.
Every one seems to like this. Perhaps I should skip ACR more often. ;-)

-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sturmvogel, that is good of you. Your comments above all addressed. Gog the Mild ( talk) 20:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, but you probably missed my comment in Jim's section about capitalizing King of England?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66, I did. I disagree, but changed anyway. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@ Ian Rose and Ealdgyth:, @ WP:FAC coordinators: , as this has completed image and source reviews, has three supports, including one by a non-MilHist regular, and has been up for three weeks, can I have permission to nominate another? Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Love for Sale (Bilal album)

Nominator(s): isento ( talk) 13:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Re-nominating after a controversial source review derailed the previous nomination, which had garnered a good amount of supports otherwise. I replaced a few of the contested citations after that nom ended, but mostly I'm just interested in seeing how this pans out with someone else reviewing the sourcing this time... isento ( talk) 13:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Support, per my past support. DMT biscuit ( talk) 19:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Ouch, I was going to contribute a review of some sort but after seeing why the article failed last time, I have no inclination to do so. ( t · c) buidhe 21:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱

  • A fascinating record that I'd love to see promoted to FA. I read the previous nomination discussion, and I understand it got pretty contentious over certain things about sources (and at another point a topic that wasn't even related to the album), so I'm not intending to step on anyone's feet. However, two major issues are already present to my eyes.
    • The first paragraph of the background section is an overly-long paragraph of the artist's early life that establishes nothing relevant in relation to the rest of the content about the album. This is also a CONTENTFORK issue as all of this stuff is not only in the bio article of the artist, but also in the background section of the article about his previous album (which I think works better there). I feel starting the background at the time he was signed to Interscope and released his first album would do it.
    • I feel the "Music and lyrics" subsection isn't the best written. I think it's pretty good but it can feel like an indiscriminate list of critical opinions with no connection to each other at points.

More comments soon. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 17:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, all right. I can see how the background section could use some trimming. I'll work on that. And I might see how parts of the other section feel that way, but you gotta name some examples so we're on the same page about it. Looking forward to your comments! isento ( talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I've trimmed the background section, but I've kept the notes on the Soulquarians, Glasper, jazz-voice training, etc. There are connections to these topics later on in the article. isento ( talk) 18:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Got anything more to add, buddy? @ HumanxAnthro: isento ( talk) 03:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
More comments coming, but there's one thing. Add a page number(s) to Reyes source and replace url with link that actually directs to the page the article start. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 12:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Alright, thanks man. I've added the link and page numbers. isento ( talk) 01:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @ HumanxAnthro:, just checking in with you, because of that note below. isento ( talk) 06:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Well past the three week mark and little sign of a consensus to promote developing. If this hits the four week mark without garnering considerable further interest I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

No need to be afraid. I'll just renominate. isento ( talk) 09:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Namcokid 47 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Indrian ( talk) 20:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

They may not possess the same level of recognition in the Western world as Nintendo or Sega, but Namco is undeniably one of the video game industry's most important, valuable, and beloved developers. The makers of many genre-defining classics, from Pac-Man to Xevious to Ridge Racer, Namco set itself apart from other companies through its unique corporate philosophy, forward-thinking, and ability to adapt in a constantly changing market. This article covers the entirety of Namco's 50 year history, from its origins as an operator of rocking horse rides in the 1950s to its 2005 merger with toymaker Bandai.

This article has been the focus of my editing for the past two years now. A GAN, two peer reviews, and hundreds of edits later, I believe it is finally able to be bestowed the honor of being one of Wikipedia's best articles (Sega's probably getting lonely in there). At over 131,795 bytes, it is certainly the biggest article I've ever worked on. Trying to summarize a company with a 50 year history was certainly a challenge, and underwent at least three rewrites. Due to the lack of "big" anniversaries for the foreseeable future, I am not interested in having this be featured on the main page on a specific date.

The article in its current state wouldn't have been possible without the help of Red Phoenix and Indrian, who have both been incredibly helpful with the writing and sourcing. I greatly thank them for helping get this page into the state it is in now. I also dedicate this to the hundreds of editors that have maintained it for so many years now. Thank you for reading this, and I look forward to your comments. Namcokid 47 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Namco/archive2 SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I already had my say during the extensive GA review process, so this is not just a drive-by support. I feel this is the finest article on a video game company on Wikipedia, and that even articles on companies not involved in that industry could take some pointers on how it not just describes what happened but also why those things happening was important. It's truly well done! Indrian ( talk) 20:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Striking per my assumption of the nomination. Indrian ( talk) 20:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - The amount of work invested into this article should not go unnoticed. This is probably one of the best video game company articles i've seen on Wikipedia and it has my highest support vote! Roberth Martinez ( talk) 20:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. From the merger sections:
The business takeover, where Bandai acquired Namco for $1.7 billion, was finalized on September 29... Namco Bandai's impatience to move forward with the merger and clashing corporate cultures between both parties resulted in a ¥30 billion deficit.

Can this be clarified? I looked at both pages of the referenced source, [13] , but Google Translate is hot garbage at Japanese sometimes. Deficit compared to what? If the two companies were each running a 15 billion yen deficit before, nothing really changed, as an example. An explanation would be nice but "impatience" is not really a sufficient reason for such a deficit to occur. Like, was Bandai impatient in that they overpayed for buying out Namco's stock and paid a higher premium than they really needed to? And when did this deficit show up, anyway? Normally it takes a bit of time for clashing corporate cultures to even "matter", unless the first thing Bandai did after the purchase complete was massive employee buyouts or the like. Has a native Japanese speaker reviewed that source? It have any more details? This sentence raises more questions than answers as written currently. SnowFire ( talk) 20:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

SnowFire: That was a mistranslation, which I've since corrected. Bandai Namco experienced a financial loss of ¥30 billion, not a deficit. Google Translate thought it was specifically a deficit for whatever reason, and I never bothered to look into what a deficit actually is, so I put it into the page. Sorry about that, I've fixed it now. Namcokid 47 22:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Done
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Removed, looks like I already did that a while ago but left a few behind.
  • Images are missing alt text
    • Added
  • Some of the captions warrant citing - for example, that Pac-Man was their mascot from 1980
    • Sourced
  • File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_rocking_horses,_1955.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    • It's hard to pinpoint when specifically this image came from, all we know is that it's an official Namco image and was taken in 1955, meaning it meets Japan's copyright law regarding public domain images. It should still be usable, but I can try finding an earlier instance of this image.
      • Can you clarify why it is believed to be PD in Japan? The given tag states photos taken before 1947 or published before 1955 - this would need to have been published, not simply taken, at that time. Plus then we need to look at US status. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_logo.svg is complex enough to pass the threshold of originality
  • File:Pac-Man_artwork_(2010).svg is incorrectly tagged - it's a character rather than a work of art. Also the FUR needs expansion.
    • Added tag and tried expanding
      • Needs more, or else why not simply use File:Original_PacMan2.png? Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I really don't know what else I'm supposed to add. The FUR is taken from File:Sonic 1991.png from Sega since it's being used for the same exact purpose, so I don't know how else I can expand it. Chose not to use the Pac-Man image above as I don't think it does a good job at actually representing the character in the context of the page.
          • The Sonic design hasn't changed significantly over time, and has always been of a level of originality sufficient to warrant copyright protection. Neither is the case here. If you believe the non-free version is better in this context than the free one, then explain why in the FUR. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Taiko_no_tatsujin_arcade_machine.jpg: what's the copyright status of the graphics?
    • Looking at it again, I'm not sure. Part of me is starting to think this is a derivative work as it's just a picture of the machine. I'll check with some folks on Commons.

Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Red Phoenix talk

Don’t expect me to move fast; I’ve been deficient at editing in the last couple of months, I know. That being said, I wouldn’t miss this party for the world. Expect me to, at the very least, contribute a source review, since I know that’s usually the part others don’t want to do, and expect it to be thorough and detailed to satisfy the FAC criteria. Red Phoenix talk 17:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

As a note for FAC coordinators, I have previously provided feedback for this article at my talk page, and Archive 5 of that page has my previous comments. That, however, is the extent of my past involvement in the article. Namcokid47 has done quite a good job with this article.

Now, onto a cursory look at the sources:

  • Taking an overview over the references, there’s a lot of work to be done to meet WP:WIAFA criterion 2c - consistent citations. Don’t worry, that’s to be expected and part of what we’ll nip at through this process. We’ll detail through them as I get time, but I would definitely start now with looking at consistency. You will save yourself quite a bit of effort if you start now.
    • For instance, all internet sources should have the article title, website name, article author if available (“Staff” is not necessary), the date it was published if available, and naturally the URL. For fields such as access date and publisher, these need to be all or nothing - either every source gets them, or none of them do. Be extremely consistent in your source formatting across the whole article.
    • In the same vein, all books should be formatted the same, and all magazines the same. Reference structure naturally varies between reference types, but all references of the same type should be the same.
    • Linking to articles for websites, books, or authors should also be consistent. Personally, I would link all of them whenever possible for the ease of the reader.
    • All books need to have page numbers; this includes the Kent and Horowitz books, as well as They Create Worlds. If all the references are in just a few pages for one source, you can use a small range of pages. If it’s spread out, you’ll want to break that up - I’d personally recommend the method used on Sega, where repeated footnotes of the same book but different page numbers use an abbreviated format that links to the original reference above.
    • Although I know the kind of research you have done, and I commend your efforts greatly, I wouldn’t be doing my due diligence if I didn’t evaluate SandyGeorgia’s comments at the peer review. While I don’t always agree with her, I will review when I go in detail and perhaps suggest some sources if I have concerns. I will let you know if I share her concerns or not when I have had time to review appropriately.

I hope to return soon with a more detailed look. Red Phoenix talk 17:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I knew you'd show up eventually. I'm in no rush, so please take as much time as you need. In the meantime, I'll get cracking on those points regarding citations. Namcokid 47 01:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I will start commenting on each of these as I complete them. Still getting up to speed on the article, so please be patient. Indrian ( talk) 20:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's give this a start at a more detailed look. Expect this to take a while, as well as several passes as changes are made. To ensure that when I refer to a reference by its number it's the same for you as it is for me, I'll note this first pass is for revision id 1017821592:

  • With 1 and 2, just be mindful of consistency with access dates and publishing locations, respectively. They're okay if every source of the same type has them, but not if we have a location for this book but not that one, and so on.
    • I have added retrieval dates to five web sources. I think they all have retrieval dates now, but there are a lot of them, so if I missed one, let me know. Likewise all books should now have a publication location with the exception of two for which this data does not exist: The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers and Galaxian Genesis -Kazunori Sawano Den-, which are both self-published works. I own both of them and can confirm no publisher location is given in either. There is also no publisher location information for either one on Worldcat.
      • I'll confirm that I'm good with this aspect, that if a location is not provided in the actual book that it can be missing and doesn't require all of them to be struck. That is still consistency as far as the criterion is concerned. Red Phoenix talk 02:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Are all eight citations to 2 on the same page?
    • I only have a partial copy of this book, so this may take me a little bit to track down. I can tell you that several of the citations do all come from that page, but not all of them do.
  • I'll just point out that 3 is a perfect use of publisher when a website is an official site of a company or something. In this case, you don't need the website name if you use the publisher and it's the company's official website. Thumbs up!
  • 4: I'm not sure I'd go with cite news for this one if Game Machine is a magazine and is the name of said magazine, which it appears to be. Game Machine wouldn't be the agency, it would be the publication's name, and thus should be italicized. I'd personally go with the cite magazine template, but you could also do cite journal if you prefer. Just make sure all magazines use one or the other, as they do format citations slightly different.
    • This was a problem with several magazines, not just Game Machine. I believe I have switched all of them over to the cite magazine format.
  • 5: Same as 4, though I would ask what kind of publication this is, as it's a bit unclear to me.
    • Likewise changed. Its a trade publication, which basically makes it a magazine for our purposes here.
  • 6: Page numbers are the biggest deal here; see my note above. I don't think a link to Google Books is necessary as the citation is the book itself. I highly doubt the OCLC is necessary unless you're going to provide OCLCs for every book source, and another decision will need to be made on whether or not to hyphenate ISBNs, as 6 is hyphenated but 7 is not.
    • Addendum: When I specified a link to Google Books is not necessary, it's because the link only provides more info about the book. It's not to a preview of the text copy. Red Phoenix talk 16:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 7: See 6 above.
  • 8 and 9: Again if these are actually books, page numbers will be needed. 9 would also need an ISBN.

That's all I have time for at the moment, but we'll continue later. Red Phoenix talk 00:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep going, shall we? Numbers as of revision 1019357606:

  • Indrian, for the moment I won't comment on inclusion/exclusion of publishers since you're taking over the review, and for all I know you may come to a different conclusion than Namcokid47 on whether or not to include publishers in which kind of sources. The important thing is to be consistent on when we do include and when we do not, to meet criterion 2c. 10, for instance, struck me as odd having a person listed as the publisher, given it's the chairperson of The New York Times Company.
  • 13, in line with the necessity for page numbers mentioned above, needs page numbers and in this case the two citations are quite a distance apart in the book. I would split these, as suggested. Since I have this book, I can give you these numbers: the note about Torpedo Launcher/Periscope is on pages 7 and 8; the Namco offer to buy Sega is on pages 253 and 254.
  • 14: Link Play Meter since we have an article. It's going to be Volume 3, issue 1, and the actual title of the article is "Projection Racing: Conversation with Masaya Nakamura, Inventor of F-1", and it's on page 12.
    • Play Meter linked, proper title and page number added, and volume and issue number added to the citation. Note that while the article starts on Page 12, the information in question appears on page 13.
  • 17: Though the source is good and can be kept, the link to Shmuplations will have to be removed. It's an amazing site, I agree, but there's no evidence permission was granted to translate and re-publish the material, so we have to err on the side that linking to the text is linking to a copyright violation. On the plus side: Here's the original source, at least as on the Wayback Machine. It looks like this starts on page 32 in the book.
  • 19: RePlay is the name of the magazine, so should be italicized, with the capital P in the middle. Page numbers (28-30) should also be added.
    • Name capitalization corrected, volume, issue, and page numbers added. Note that the proper pagination is Atari 28-Atari 30, as this was a special section of the magazine numbered as such. There were also plain old pages 28-30 in the issue.
  • 21 and 23: Need consistency on "Cash Box" or "Cashbox" - they're used differently between the two. Personally I usually go with Cashbox, but it's your call.
    • These should now be consistent. You are correct that there is inconsistency on whether its "Cash Box" or "Cashbox," which I think is because the spacing between the words is very small on the cover. The space is present, however, and a space can be more clearly seen between the words in the text of the publication. It also seems to appear with a space in most library catalogs, including the LoC, so I went with that.
  • Similarly to publishers, ISSNs also need to be all or nothing for consistency in magazine sources - either identifiers are included, or they are not. It's probably easier not to include any, but you're welcome to try and hunt them all down. I just don't see them as necessary in this case.
    • I concur that ISSNs are not worth the trouble. They should all be gone now.
  • 22 and 24: Likewise, books need to either have publishing locations, or not at all. Book publishers are important, but the locations are not as important as consistently having them or not.
    • As above, all book publishers should now have location information except for the two books for which this info does not exist.
  • 26: Not sure if a citation template is being used here or not, but JoyStik is the name of the magazine and should be italicized. If there's not a cite template being used here, I certainly recommend one to make life easier.
    • For some reason, this was done with the cite book template with JoyStik as the publisher. Changed to cite magazine and added the volume and issue number as well as the actual publisher.
  • 30: Link Gamasutra as the website.
    • Done
  • 33: Call me crazy, but I don't see the direct correlation between a repair manual for a Pac-Man arcade cabinet published in December 1980 establishing that Pac-Man was a North American release of the Japanese "Puck Man" game in December 1980. Surely there's a better source for this?
  • 34: I'd like to see such an impactful statement sourced better. This is a press release, so it implies a bit of bias for claims such as "a fixture in popular culture", and to a lesser extent, "multi-million selling media franchise". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not factual, only that such a claim would be better sourced to a true third party source.
  • 35 and 36: IGN is a website, and as such, should be italicized.
  • 37: I see this is the cite journal template formatting. As mentioned above, all magazines could be either cite magazine or cite journal, but they need to be consistent and use one or the other.
    • Fixed along with (hopefully) all the others.
  • 38: IGN is a website, but during this time was owned by IGN Entertainment, IGN's company. If you choose to keep publishers, which I recommend against, make sure it's "IGN Entertainment" to avoid confusion with the website.
  • 41: Note that this book is in Japanese. I'd also not use all caps for the title. Furthermore, I'm not familiar with the publisher (recognizing this is a Japanese publisher), and would be curious to verify this claim.
    • Added language field, the original title in Japanese, and a more accurate English translation title. Note the original title is in a mix of Japanese and English and the capitalization is found in the original. The capitalization is also present in Worldcat. In this case, I think that's the official way the title is rendered.
      • As long as the community is okay with this, I am. I've not found anything in the MOS that says otherwise on all-capitalization for this particular instance, only in other uses in the encyclopedia, so I'm good unless someone else objects.

I'm liking the progress so far. I'll try to continue on this weekend - I know my schedule is not the greatest anymore, and for good IRL reason, but that's why I'm glad we're starting this now. I will do my best to be timely. Red Phoenix talk 02:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep going. As of revision 1020893203:

  • Still more instances of websites with and without publishers inconsistently as we go. Again, I won't note them all, just nudge that a decision still needs to be made there.
  • 21: Cash Box, as a publication, should be italicized. I'm presuming it's in a "publisher" field and not "magazine", which is why the error?
  • 47: Same as 17 above, I'm concerned about linking to Shmuplations, which likely does not have permission to reprint a translation. Furthermore, it's not the true source of this information. It appears the original source for this particular quote is a 2003 interview from the "GSLA", if you have any idea what that is. Perhaps it could be converted to a cite interview to make this work?
  • 50: The author for this particular section is Stuart Campbell.
  • 54: (No action needed yet. I am unclear on formatting of YouTube references, but believe this is incorrect. I need to research to verify this and what is the correct format, and will come back to this one later).
  • 57: (No action needed here at all. I want to note, for any reviewers who may come to challenge this one on the basis this is a self-published book, that this was written and published by established video game journalist John Szczepaniak, who I know has previously written for Retro Gamer, and therefore I have no doubts about its suitability as a reliable source).
  • 60: Forgive me for asking, but what makes Kill Screen a reliable source? I did see the author claims to be an established video game historian, but it's not someone I'm familiar with.
  • 61: If we are keeping magazine publishing locations, just "United Kingdom" seems a little vague. Is that what the magazine says?
  • 62: Granted I don't know a lick of Japanese, but I'm struggling to find the author name in the source.
  • 63: In contrast to the magazines, is this actually a journal? It uses cite journal, but I'm not sure what kind of source this is. Likewise, if 63 is a journal, surely it would have a doi and other identifiers as well like 64 does?
  • Still need to decide how to consistently hyphenate ISBNs.
  • Should also make sure we're using the language parameter consistently with all foreign language sources.

Took a break here. Continuing:

  • 79: Who is this interview with? It's not clear from the citation. Perhaps consider adding the name/s of the interviewee/s to the title of the citation, or use the cite interview template.
  • 91: Just some future thinking here as we tackle the page number issue that 57 and 91 are the same source, and as such how we choose to handle 6, 7, 8, and 9 should be handled consistently here as well. As it stands, we have spelled out the full citation in 91 with the separate page numbers.
  • 93, 94, 96, 106, 108, etc.: As noted above, consistency with the language parameter. Game Machine cites should note they are in Japanese. I've stopped listing them after 108, just check them all.
  • 97 and 98: So far, we have utilized publishers with magazine cites. These two don't have them, however.
  • 111, 142, 152, 156, etc.: IGN should be a website, not a publisher. Numerous occasions as you go, so I won't list them all.
  • 112: Link Digital Spy as the website.
  • 113, 148: Link Siliconera as the website. Also in 148, Siliconera should be italicized.
  • 121, 124: Link Edge (magazine)
  • 141: Why is Famitsu the website and IGN the publisher? These two don't add up.
  • 144, 151, 161: Remove as the website. Namco as the publisher alone suffices here.
  • 153: Wait a second, so SoftBank News isn't published by SoftBank Group? There are other occurrences above as well where there is no publisher noted for this website, but again, however you choose to deal with this is up to you as long as it's done consistently.
  • 166: No website listed.
  • 186: Same as 38 above
  • 192: Again, drop the website if it's just a URL. Publisher alone would suffice.
  • 205 and 206: GamesRadar or, as Wikipedia's article calls it, GamesRadar+?
  • 209 and 210: A bit odd here - Next Generation is the magazine, and should be in front of Imagine Media and italicized. Presuming this might be another bad use of the cite news template? Same with 210 and The Wall Street Journal.

That concludes a first pass of the sources. There is a lot to be done here, I know, but no one ever said consistent citations were the fun part. I can try and jump in to give you a hand if time allows, but it's been tough lately for me to find available time. After you have made some decisions and set to fixing, I'll do a "final pass" to catch stragglers and any loose ends. I'll also check for any additional sourcing inconsistencies and conduct a few spot-checks, as this would have been Namcokid47's first FAC and those are usually mandatory for an editor's first. Red Phoenix talk 03:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the thorough review! I will keep chipping away at these this week. I have done my share of academic publishing, so I am no stranger to the importance of proper source formatting. I appreciate everyone's patience as I continue to plunge deeper into this FAC that is not of my own making. I remain confident I can carry it over the finish line! Indrian ( talk) 03:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Nominator discussion

I've subheaded this discussion aside so that it does not get convoluted with my comments. I hope that's all right. Red Phoenix talk 15:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@ WP:FAC coordinators: : I'm really concerned about irl stuff right now, so I've chosen to retire likely for good. I'd like to have this FAC closed since I won't be here to address any comments or questions. I hope you can understand. Namcokid 47 05:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
That's a shame but RL must take precedence and I just hope all goes well for you, Namcokid. This hasn't been open too long but seems to be travelling pretty well; there is precedence for other editors stepping up to take over the nom in such circumstances, I might leave this open a bit longer and see if there are any takers. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I can take a stab at it if that works. Obviously, I would withdraw my support. I was the GA reviewer, but I assume that is not a conflict of interest. I am incredibly knowledgeable about the topic (above and beyond just doing said review) and I would hate to see all this hard work go to waste. Indrian ( talk) 07:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Just throwing out my 2 cents that I support Indrian's offer. I can vouch for his knowledgeability based on past work with him, and I don't see a conflict of interest in him being willing to take over the work. Red Phoenix talk 11:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@ WP:FAC coordinators: So can we move forward on this basis? I don’t know what needs to happen procedurally. Indrian ( talk) 16:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Indrian, you can indeed. Prior to becoming a coordinator I once did this myself - including "responding" to my own review, which was a little strange. Shout if you encounter problems. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Cool, I will start responding to comments, including the first round of source review, tomorrow. Just did not want to step on any toes. Indrian ( talk) 22:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes that would be great, I would just add yourself as a co-nom at the top (co-nom so Namcokid still gets credit for their work starting it off) and, as you say, strike your support because you're now taking over the nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Support from Panini!

Thank you, Idrian, for picking this one up. Namcokid put a lot of work into this and I would have been dissapointed to see it go to waste. Wanted to pop in and say Support on prose, however. It's a good read! I might come in with further comments in the future, but this is where I stand. Panini! 🥪 14:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Drive-by comment, not super-important I'm a little concerned about The name Namco, an abbreviation of Nakamura Manufacturing Company (and the related matter of the English name of "Nakamura Manufacturing Company"), which looks suspicious on its face (why would they take the first two letters of the first and third words but not the second, and in Japanese ナ ム コ looks more like an abbreviation of なか むら コンパニー) and a quick Googling brought up this tweet from Bandai-Namco's official Japanese Twitter account that directly contradicts it and would seem to make more sense to begin with. The claim appeared in the article before the accompanying Kotaku source was produced, [14] [15] which makes me suspicious of WP:CITOGENESIS (I have in the past seen Kotaku articles both obviously get their information from Wikipedia and present historical and Japanological research that is some below the standards of Wikipedia). I don't doubt that the former 中村製作所 referred to itself variously as "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" and "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company", given that even now many Japanese companies seem to have no idea what their official English name is supposed to be, but if we are going to prioritize one over the other I kinda feel like it should be the one that the company itself says is the origin of the name our article uses as its title. Granted, sources, especially English-language ones, are difficult to find to support the existence of an English translation of an old name for a defunct company, especially because of the aforementioned CITOGENESIS, but it seems very likely that offline sources about this company from the pre-wiki days can be found if the above tweet is insufficient. (Unfortunately, when I tried doing an image search to see if old Pac-Man machines had English copyright information printed somewhere, the closest I got was to find out that apparently the company's US patent for its game machine was granted to "Kabushiki Kaisha Nakamura Seisakusho".) Hijiri 88 ( やや) 14:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Francis Healy

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 13:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Francis Healy led a remarkable and fascinating life. He achieved many firsts for black Americans, yet never considered himself one. The historiography of this fact is most interesting and discussed in this article. He also transformed Georgetown University into a modern institution along the way. Ergo Sum 13:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro

So far, I am leaning Weak Oppose for the following concerns of incompleteness and problems with prose:

  • I've haven't researched the topic extensively, but I'm skeptical about this article's comprehensiveness. While other sources do get cited a few time each, most of this article is cited to Curran 1993 when there is much more literature to represent on this topic, including academic analysis. I find that this article is mostly just a bio of his life without opinions or analysis from outside sources about the impact of his work and why he is significant.
    • I have done a fair bit of research on Healy and have to disagree regarding comprehensiveness. The Curran book is cited only in the Georgetown presidency section, which makes sense because the Curran book is a detailed history of the history of Georgetown and therefore discusses Healy's presidency in detail. I have not come across any significant details of Healy's life that are absent from the article. I agree this article is just a biography of Healy; I don't claim otherwise. I'm not sure I know what other analysis of Healy you are referring to. All the meaningful analysis of his life that I've come across (primarily historiography of his race) is mentioned in this article. They all state approximately historiography, so citing to one reliable one is generally, I think, as good as citing to them all. Ergo Sum 22:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • OK, I understand. I'll admit my judgement was based on the amount of citations and what citations were cited. as well as the amount of results in the Google scholar search. If I was a bit ignorant in my response, my apologies. I would still recommended reading the literature in the search I linked to see if there's anything else to include.
        • Absolutely, I'll do that and seee if I come across anything. Ergo Sum 02:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For Ref 1, it is not harv citation style to use the title of the article in the ref when there isn't an author. You have to use the work or publisher.
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 22:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Watch out for non- neutral-point-of-view language. For example, "who was an important president of Georgetown University," and "Of them all, Patrick Healy most readily passed as White.[8] Indeed, his passport described his complexion as "light," suggesting he passed as a light-skinned White man, rather than a light-skinned Black man". " Healy experienced poor health, likely suffering from untreated epilepsy." likely to which researchers?
    • Respectfully, each of these is NPOV. These are all factual statements. None of them strike me as particularly controversial statements and they are all supported by reliable sources. Ergo Sum 22:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I'll clarify. Words and phrases like "important," "suggesting he passed" and "likely suffering" seem subjective. Whether person's race "passes" to another person seems to depend on someone's point of view. "Likely" indicates it's not definitely known, so personal interpretation is used to figure out probable solutions. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I understand where you're coming from. These are all things that can be debated because they are essentially one source's interpretation of the world. For example, how important a president he was can be debated. Yet, such claims can't automatically excluded. In articles, I think it's worth qualifying a claim as only "according to X" if there is actually scholarly debate on the subject, i.e. if experts disagree. Here, however, there are reliable sources that make the claims, the claims seem prima facie reasonable to me, and I have not seen any experts reject the claims or arrive at contrary conclusions. E.g. as far as I can make out, there's pretty unanimous consensus among historians that Healy passed as White; i.e. consensus that the world at that time viewed him as White, not that historians agree that he was as a matter of fact White. Ergo Sum 02:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Why are many terms in the body linked on their first mention but not Jesuit?
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 22:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Para 2 of "Presidency" feels WP:EDITORIAL and non-encyclopedic in tone in places, and is also fluffy
    • I've rephrased some of the sentences that might be a bit editorialized. I'm trying to strike a balance between describing the grandiose plan that Healy/the bishops set out without endorsing this vision in Wikipedia's voice. What do you think of the new phrasing? Ergo Sum 22:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • " until both of their deaths in 1850" --> "until both died in 1850"
    • Done. Ergo Sum 22:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • " Michael Healy was prevented by Georgia law" which law?
    • None of the sources give an actual code citation. They just say that it was the law in Georgia. Ergo Sum 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • OK, I understand. Don't you love reliable sources that leave things vague, but you can't or clarify to reviewers because the source doesn't? I've experience that a lot.
        • It is certainly frustrating. Ergo Sum 02:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Awkward sentences: "Despite his appearance and self-identity, speculation as to his race remained with him."
    • It doesn't strike me as awkward. (Then again, I wrote it, so naturally I wouldn't). What about it strikes you as awkward? Ergo Sum 23:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • What does it mean for a speculation to "remain" with him? Does it mean his race was still speculated in his later life and after his death? 👨x🐱 ( talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I've rephrased the latter half to clarify. Ergo Sum 02:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 1867, he professed his final vows" This sentence is too vague and is abrupt in the paragraph that it's in.
    • You'll have to help me out with the vagueness. I've linked "final vows," if that helps. Ergo Sum 22:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • OK, that helps. Plus previous sections establish he did first vows for a religious institution, so that helps too.
  • If Healy was considered the "second founder" of Georgetown, who was the first?
    • Ah yes, it would make sense to mention that. I've added it as a footnote. Ergo Sum 23:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I noticed instances where full-sentence clauses are incorrectly separated by commas. For example: "As interracial marriage was prohibited by Georgia's anti-miscegenation law, Michael formed a common-law marriage with the 16-year-old Eliza in 1829" and "this proved less of a concern than the fact that because Healy's parents were never legally married in the eyes of the church, he was born out of wedlock"
    • These two sentences are grammatically correct. The commas offset dependent conditional clauses. I suppose they could be broken up into more than one sentence, but I'm generally in favor of keeping a sentence together if it is all concerned with one idea. Ergo Sum 23:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Whoops, there were small words I didn't notice at first that made me misread the sentences. Good catch, 👨x🐱 ( talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The subsection about Curricular reform does not introduce the reader properly to it. It starts with "Healy continued the reform of the curriculum he began as prefect." When did he begin reforming? Why does it start abruptly in the middle of curriculum reformation?
    • That section is titled Curricular reform, so I thought it would make sense to start with a discussion of curricular reform. The reform as prefect I was referring back to was his reorganization of classes. Ergo Sum 23:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Healy determined that Georgetown's most pressing need was to expand its physical facilities." Another not-so-good introduction to a paragraph. When and for what reasons did he determine this?
    • I've added a bit of detail I could glean from the source. Ergo Sum 23:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 ( talk) 18:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, HumanxAnthro. I believed I responded to each. Ergo Sum 23:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Great work on the work, and thanks for responding to the comments. I'll admit I misread some things, and some of my comments were from a skimthrough, so I'll re-read it again. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@ HumanxAnthro: Have you had a chance to take another look at the article? Ergo Sum 17:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
My apologies. My work on editing and reviewing other articles got in the way. I'm reading it now. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 17:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
HumanxAnthro I don't mean to pester. Just want to see if you've gotten a chance to give this a second look. Ergo Sum 00:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Patrick_Francis_Healy_solitaire.jpeg: the source provided is a "used by permission" note. Is this actually used by permission, or PD as claimed by the tags? If the latter, what was the first publication?
    • I've updated the tags and description. I'm not able to find it being published before 2003. I've left the bit about permission from Sweet because I have no way of confirming that and his account has not been active in 15 years. It may very well be true and possibly permission was given before OTRS was a thing (not sure when that was set up). Ergo Sum 01:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      • This appears to have been published in This Week in Black History in 1998. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Thank you for finding that. I have removed the infobox image and replaced it from one lower in the article. Sadly, this result is necessitated by convoluted and retrograde US copyright laws. Ergo Sum 17:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Patrick_Francis_Healy_portrait.jpg: what steps have been taken to investigate publication history? Ditto File:Patrick_Francis_Healy.jpg
    • I have searched Google, the Library of Congress, and the Georgetown University Archives. Ergo Sum 01:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      • The latter appears to have been published here.
        • Since that publication contains no copyright notice and I find no copyright registration, I believe it is PD and have updated the tag accordingly. Ergo Sum 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Healy_Hall_early_rendering.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Corrected the tag. Work made for hire >120 years ago and not published before 2003. Ergo Sum 02:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

SupportComments from Coffeeandcrumbs

  • "came to own" → "owned"
    • Tweaked. Ergo Sum 17:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "who Michael Healy had purchased" -- why is this here? Is it self-evident if she was his "slave" that he "purchased" her. I also do not see it in the source cited, it is in O'Connor 1955, p. 175
    • It was possible to inherit slaves, to be gifted them, etc. It's not an incredibly important point, but it just makes clear that Healy had purchased her. Fixed the ref. Ergo Sum 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "common-law marriage" -- not in the source cited, it is in O'Connor 1955, p. 175
    • Thank you for catching this. Fixed. Ergo Sum 17:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Doctor of Philosophy in philosophy" -- strange, can we use the word "doctorate"
    • It does strike my ear as a bit odd, but I think it's a fairly important point. There are non-PhD doctorates and even non-PhD doctorates in philosophy, such as ScD, DLitt, applied doctorates, and who knows how many new non-PhD degrees that are called doctorates. Plus, there is a lot of variance of names for doctorates around the world and by time period. The source refers only to the PhD, so while most likely that he also received the first doctorate at all, it is not certain and cannot be extrapolated. Ergo Sum 18:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I would have written this like so: "On July 26, 1865, he received a Ph.D. in philosophy, making him the first Black American to earn a Ph.D.". Not a big deal but the repetition of philosophy sounded strange in my ear. The Ph.D. would be repeated but there is some distance. ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I think that makes sense. Tweaked. Ergo Sum 04:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

[To be continued] ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "at the time in that neither" -- "At the time" may work better as the very beginning of the sentence.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 03:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "ever married anyone else, and after marriage" -- the comma here belongs after "and" ... actually the phrase "after marriage" is unnecessary since we already said three times in that paragraph that they were married. The phrase "the rest of their lives" is enough to convey the meaning.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 03:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "after graduating, Healy entered ..." -- Probably better to start a new sentence with this phrase and combine with the next sentence about the novitiate.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 04:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "because Healy's parents..." -- would need a comma before this phrase. another option is to put a en/emdash before it and another en/emdash instead of the comma after "law of the church".
    • I've rephrased the whole sentence because on re-reading it, it sounded clunky and confusing. I thinks it's much clearer now. Ergo Sum 04:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "While under canon law, this required that Healy obtain a dispensation to join the order, none was ever sought and he was admitted without issue."
-- Without a coordinating conjunction, this is a run-on sentence. This should be two sentences or add "but" or "however" etc. before "none was ever sought...".
    • Resolved per above. Ergo Sum 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 1858, Healy went to Georgetown ..." -- This should be part of the next paragraph, or merge the two paragraphs
    • Done. Ergo Sum 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Library of Congress (LOC) says "study philosophy and theology". You say "taught". Why?
    • I've checked LOC and it says study, so I think that was a typo on my part. I've fixed it. Ergo Sum 04:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Why do we believe LOC that he went to Rome and not believe UCLA that he went to "Saint-Sulpice Seminary in Paris, France"?
    • I overlooked the mention of the Sulpician seminary. It was customary for American Jesuits at this time to send a promising student to one of the Roman universities, so it must be that he went to Rome first and then to Paris. I've clarified this in the text. Ergo Sum 04:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "philosophy, and decided" -- this comma seems unnecessary
    • Removed. Ergo Sum 04:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

[Apologies for the sporadic pace. I have little free time these days.] ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "properties it owned in Washington" -- when appearing next to Virginia and Pennsylvanian, saying Washington could be interpreted as the state. Curran must have meant DC, right? or did Georgetown own land in Washington (state)? ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Clarified. Ergo Sum 15:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Patrickneil

  • Support with some comments:
    • In the middle paragraph of the lead, I think we loose who "he" is in "Healy's father sent him north... and he continued...", maybe that is a spot for the passive voice, i.e. "Healy was sent north by his father and later continued..." in order to keep Healy as the sentence subject, rather than Healy's father. Either that or something like "Healy's father sent Patrick north" would help.
      • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The next sentence starts "He then returned to Georgetown..." but we haven't established that Healy had been to Georgetown previously. Did we loose a sentence about him teaching there? Maybe "returned to America" or "to Washington, D.C."? Or "He taught at schools in Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia, including Georgetown, where was was named chair of philosophy in 1866."?
      • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • "Healy became the president" could afford a better verb, like "Healy was elected" or "selected". Maybe "promoted" would reference his trajectory through chair, prefect, and vice rector?
      • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • There's a couple times were the article uses the term "the North" where it could be more specific, like "New York and New England".
      • I'm only seeing three instances of it, and each one does refer broadly to the north such that narrowing it would be less accurate. Ergo Sum 03:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I understand the meaning, I just think there's most specific options, "northern states without slavery", for example. It's just imprecise, like Maryland and Delaware were "northern" but still had slavery then. I guess I also find it a bit strange there is zero mention of the Civil War on the article. Perhaps at the start of the Georgetown University section we could say "In 1866... at Georgetown University, whose student body had been devastated by the effects of the American Civil War" or mention it was happening while Healy was at Louvain, like "On July 26, 1865, a month after the Civil War ended in America, Healy received..."?-- Patrick, oѺ 13:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
          • Yes, that does seem to be a glaring omission. I've added a mention of the Civil War at the start of the Georgetown section. The trouble with saying something like the "slavery-free North" is that though less common than in the South, there was slavery in the North too. Ergo Sum 14:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
            • Right, that's what I'm saying. Healy wasn't just sent to "the North" but to specific "northern states where slavery had been abolished or never allowed." I know this is obvious to you and me, but I think we want to keep it clear to the reader that the absence of slavery is what differentiates the states, either by naming them or by describing them as such.-- Patrick, oѺ 18:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
              • Perhaps you could suggest the precise wording? My logic is that it starts out with the North and then proceeds to specify exactly where in the north: New York and then Massachusetts. That just reads naturally to me. Ergo Sum 19:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • "in the eyes of the church" might be a common colloquial, but there could be a more encyclopedic phrase, "under church rules" or just "never married in a church".
      • Rephrased. What do you think of the new wording? Ergo Sum 03:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • You probably know this better than me, but when referring to the school in 1850 or 1858, is "Georgetown College" or "Georgetown University" better? Seeing as it's him who worked to make it a university, and "University" doesn't get added to the official name till a good bit later, is using "University" a convenience for readers, or would he have actually called it "Georgetown University"? I hate to add more to the "Notes" section at the bottom, but maybe it could be clarified that way.
      • This is a sticky issue. The point at which it switched from Georgetown College to Georgetown University is somewhat up for debate. I've seen some sources that put it as early as 1815 (the year the college was chartered). Legally speaking, there was no such institution known as "Georgetown University" until 1966, and indeed some documents, especially legal ones, routinely refer to it as Georgetown College up until then. However, many sources start using university much earlier. The mid to late 19th century is when it first enters common circulation. So, for purposes of clarity, I've just made all references to "Georgetown University." Ergo Sum 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Then maybe we can add a modifier in the second paragraph of the Presidency section where the article describes Healy's goal of transforming Georgetown into a "university". Perhaps "into a modern university", or a "cohesive university", or a "liberal arts university"? Like Healy can't be transforming it into a university if we've already called it that.-- Patrick, oѺ 13:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
          • Touche. I've added a clarifier. Ergo Sum 14:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • "in the 1960s and 1970s" might be better specified as "by 1973".
      • I'm not sure when in the 60s thee university began identifying Healy as black, and the gap between (potentially) 1960 and 1973 is pretty big. I think a reader might be better off knowing that sometime in the 60s is when it first started. Ergo Sum 03:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I think some of the facts in the first paragraph of "Georgetown University" might be out of chronology, unless it's intentionally summarizing the subsections or something. "On May 23, 1873, he also became the vice rector of the university" for example seems to be duplicated as the first sentence of the Presidency section. I assume "vice rector" and "acting rector" mean the same thing, but maybe the article should pick one.
      • Thanks for catching this. I've chronologized and removed the duplicate sentence. Ergo Sum 03:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The article first mentions that he "established an alumni society" before he was president, while Early's health "began to fail" (maybe date that to 1872?), but then eleven paragraphs later says "in 1880, Healy re-established Georgetown's alumni association". Same with creating the Merrick Debate Medal and then six paragraphs later saying the Merrick Debate was established in 1875.
      • I went back and took a look at the sources. I had gotten confused on the timeline because one source said he did these things as prefect while another said he did them as president. I then realized that there was a period of time where he was both prefect and president, so I've rearranged the text accordingly. Ergo Sum 04:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Similarly, the O'Connor source says ending the reading in the refectory occurred "before the Christmas holidays in the first year of his rectorship", i.e. December 1873, so shouldn't that go after Early dies in May 1873?
      • He didn't become rector until 1874. But, regardless, I've moved that text per above to the curricular reform section. Ergo Sum 04:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The paragraph about Healy's poor heath, right now at the bottom of the "Presidency" section, might better start the "Later years" section to keep chronology. Or perhaps the first sentence, "Throughout his presidency Healy experienced poor health", could be tacked into the bit about him sailing to San Francisco, where his health is also mentioned.
      • Moved it to the Later years section. Ergo Sum 04:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep up the great work!-- Patrick, oѺ 13:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Jason Sendwe

Nominator(s): Indy beetle ( talk) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Jason Sendwe, a politician of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's early years. For a time he was the preeminent leader of the Luba people of Katanga Province and was the central government's "in-man" inside the territory, fraught with secessionist bitterness. He rose to national political prominence and fell in a series of disputes before being murdered under dubious circumstances; in the words of British journalist Ian Goodhope Colvin, "Jason had battled so long for his Baluba idea...had seen victory, worn the leopard skin, been carried on the shoulders of his people...become a minister, touched power and money, lost his aura and perished." This article passed GAN back in March 2018, and though it failed FAn that November, I've since expanded it. - Indy beetle ( talk) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks appropriate ( t · c) buidhe 19:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro

Can't say I've read the article in depth, but from a skim-through I'm already noticing insanely-long paragraphs, especially the first paragraph of "Rise to prominence." These could easily be split. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 21:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've split two of them, including that one specifically. - Indy beetle ( talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I am hoping this article gets far more attention than the last time. I'm not a history buff but I'm hoping I find some stuff to comment on here. Let's also make sure commenters don't get into spats about nonsensical things like what happened with Tony and the nominator last time, and keep it focused on article content instead of behavior and beliefs of editors. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 21:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review

The images should have alt text per WP:CAPTION/ MOS:ACCIM. Heartfox ( talk) 19:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Ceoil

Reading through; first impression is that the lead is very strong from a prose POV, while the text in the body covers very complex political and sociologic dynamics, but is largely clear and precise. The references, from 10 minutes of looking, seem from the first quality of sources, but more later. Quibbles to follow, beware. Ceoil ( talk) 22:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  • It might be worthwhile, as you have the sources fresh in mind, creating an article for Association Générale des Baluba du Katanga.
  • These sources are not employed in the inlne citations: Clarke, Stephen John Gordon (1968), East Africa and Rhodesia. 39. London: Africana 1977 - consider employing or moving to further reading
    • Removed.
  • I agree with the point above re overlong and thus dense paragraphs, and have split a few. Note, generally much prefer longer rather than stubby paras, but some here had been mindbending.
  • Sendwe was slated to lead part of the army into northern Katanga - "slated" should be "chosen"
    • Done.
  • On 19 October, three days after Tshombe concluded a deal with Colonel Joseph-Désiré Mobutu to "neutralise" Lumumba, Sendwe was incarcerated by central government officials. The United Nations (UN) quickly secured his release on the basis of parliamentary immunity. As we are so specific re three days, can we better define "quickly". Also the scare quotes around "neutralise" seem coy.
    • The three days points to the time span between the Lumumba deal and Sendwe's detention, not the time between his detention and his release. "Neutralise" is not meant as scare quotes, it's meant to convey the ambiguity of the word in this context-death or some form of political incapacitation.
      Presumably so, as it was UN sanctioned, we know the day of release, so you can state. The scare quotes seem to avoid the issue; the article test does not indicate this "this context-death" you are here implying. Ceoil ( talk) 02:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I've removed the "quickly"; Gerard and Kucklick do not provide a date for Sendwe's release. And to clarify, "neutralize" is the term used by the source, quoting Mobutu. The full quote is "neutralize Lumumba completely, if possible physically". Thus, the word is meant to be open ended. I didn't see the point in explaining all of this in the text of this article since that fact mostly pertains to Lumumba. Gerard and Kucklick seem to frame Sendwe as Mobutu's bargaining chip with Tshombe, so I'd rather focus on what happened to him then all of the intrigue behind Lumumba's downfall.
        • Ok. And I take your point re "neutralize". Ceoil ( talk) 08:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • the only figure with enough clout in Katanga to challenge Tshombe - "clout" is vague, state if either or both "political or popular clout...."
    • Qualified as "political".
  • This article needs a content review by an expert or at least a very well informed editor; there are passages that indicate romanticasation. Best I can offer here is spot check on compliance with utilised sources, which will move onto in a week or so. Delegates pls keep open until then. Ceoil ( talk) 22:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Who is Erik Kennes and who made him boss, and of what. Similarly, we are given no indication of Kabuya Lumuna Sando's authority.
    • Political scientists, qualified.
  • Kabuya, noting the newer clothing worn by the soldiers...He reasoned that - "newer clothing" obviously is flimsy legal basis - "claimed" rather than "reasoned"
    • Qualified clothing claim as "allegedly" and changed reasoned to "argued".
  • through his success with national and international figures - how. Friendship, negotiation, strong arming, what?
    • Negotiation. Added.
  • In 2011 a congress of the "Luba People" declared that Sendwe was among "our valiant martyrs",[90] but there is little study of him in Congolese historiography.[91] - Noticed this too, and almost nothing in English. Why is this I wonder, if the article is give (probably) speculate on reasons from later sources?
    • Loffman mostly attributed this to the fact that Congo Crisis historiography is swallowed up by focus on Lumumba, Mobutu, and Tshombe, and that Sendwe was a "mid-level figure" in Congolese politics, and such people rarely get that much study in African historiography. My own experience in this field gives me reason to agree with him. He didn't argue that this was necessarily unusual or out of the ordinary, so I saw no need to further elaborate on it.
  • (On 28 November) a new état d’exception (state of emergency) was.... - a new one? Article doesn't seem to mention the old one. Ceoil ( talk) 23:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Based of the source material it had been essentially redeclared. I think an original state of emergency had been declared by Lumumba's Government back in 1960, but no extraordinary commissioner had been appointed. The Adoula Government redeclaring it makes sense (since the Lumumba government was long gone and they wanted to probably stress their own attitude towards what was going on). But this is all back story that I don't think is worth getting into. I'm excising the "new" to avoid confusion. - Indy beetle ( talk) 22:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Good enough Ceoil ( talk) 20:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • To note, the below are nitpicks and am leaning support on prose. Source review to follow.
  • Over time the central government hardened its attitude against Katanga while Belgium gradually withdrew its support for it - This implies cause and effect. Bridge with "and" rather than "while" if the meaning is not "Belgium gradually withdrew its support because the central government hardened its attitude against Katanga.
    • Changed.
  • His attempts to do so as well as his hopes... - no big deal, but a bit gushy, maybe aims rather than hopes
    • Revised.
  • were stymied by the Belgian government, which disliked his closeness to Lumumba - "disliked" is a bit coy, can you spell out the political/strategic reason. Also who says "stymied" anymore..."blocked" or "frustrated"
    • Kennes writes (translated from French): "Jason Sendwe, State High Commissioner, wants to fully play his role as mediator, by trying to integrate Balubakat and Conakat representations at the provincial level and national, and keeping Katanga in the national fold. His initiatives are thwarted by the deputy chief of staff of the Belgian Prime Minister Gaston Eyskens, Harold d'Aspremont Lynden, on the pretext that Sendwe is subservient to the Lumumba government with which 'any attempt at fruitful collaboration was henceforth doomed to certain failure'. It is not certain, however, that local and provincial officials followed Sendwe in this way." As such, I've revised that part of the sentence to say were frustrated by the Belgian government, which perceived Sendwe as an instrument of the Lumumba Government, with whom they had tense relations. More info on Belgium's bad relations with the Lumumba Government at Lumumba Government. I'm not quite sure what the "strategic" reasoning was, other than that they simply didn't trust Sendwe.
  • Sendwe was chosen to lead part of the army into northern Katanga - Were the millitary that disorganised; send a bunch of guys...should it be lead the "northern offensive" or something
    • More on that offensive plan (the part that was actually executed) here: Invasion of South Kasai. The ANC was very much disorganized, my impression is that a lot of the affair was simply gathering what troops were loyal enough and ordering them to attack. If I had info on troop numbers or units I would have included it.
  • The dismissal caused a substantial amount of turmoil
    • Changed to political turmoil.
  • to serve on a reconciliation commission to achieve an understanding between achieve ...tasked with
    • Revised.
  • Overall the writing is excellent. Ceoil ( talk) 00:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Support substantive issues dealt with. Ceoil ( talk) 22:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

More than three weeks in and this has attracted little attention and no supports. Unless it receives considerably more attention over the next day or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild ( talk) 20:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to Ceoil's deleted comment - which was fine. But Indy beetle, if you can call in any favours to get further commentary here, I suggest that you do so soon. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Ergo Sum

I am by no means a subject matter expert on Congolese politics, so I have to defer to those more knowledgable on questions of comprehensiveness. Ergo Sum 00:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Is there no link for Mwanya?
    • No, it was/is apparently a very small place.
  • Can link nationalism in the lead.
  • Can also link "the country's independence" to Congo Crisis
  • Can combine the two lead sentences about June 1964
    • Done.
  • Can link nursing
    • Done.
  • Optional, but could consider wrapping "École officielle pour Infirmiers à Élisabethville" and other French phrases with {{ Lang}}
  • "by the lack of educational opportunity under colonial rule" - this can use some explanation. What exactly was lacking? Were there simply no medical schools, were they restricted only to certain people, etc.
    • No proper medical schools, revised.
  • Is there any more specific information available about his marriage, such was when it was or to whom?
    • No, not that I've uncovered.
    • Sadly, this information is not known for him and a lot of other mid-level Congolese politicians of this era.
  • "the stated aim to encourage" - the construction I see much more frequently is "aim of encouraging". Just something to consider
  • "leadership style" - what was his style?
    • Changed to "dynamism", word used by the source.
  • I don't love the vertical list of 3 political positions, but I don't believe it contradicts any MOS rules
  • Can link xenophobia
    • Done.
  • "elected with 20,282 votes" - this clause strikes me as a bit abrupt. Perhaps rephrase to "Sendwe was elected to the Chamber of Deputies with 20,282 votes..."
    • Done.
  • "abstain from sitting, thus when the assembly" - I believe this is a comma splice. The comma should be replaced with a semicolon or period.
    • Done.
  • Should link Belgian Parliament
    • Done.
  • Why is "outlawed" put in quotations marks
    • The source also puts it in quotes.
      • I think this will need some explanation, if any can be found with further research. Otherwise, it leaves a reader wondering what this means. Was it that he was not welcome but not actually outlawed, or that he was outlawed but that rule was not enforced? Ergo Sum 18:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
        • I do think it was more akin to calling him a persona non grata than legal outlawing him (declaring him outside the protection of the law and liable to be shot on site, as traditionally understood in most jurisdictions), but the source does not go into detail on this. I'm sure if Tshombe's government had the chance they would have arrested Sendwe. This was not a matter of lack of desire to enforce; the parts of Katanga Sendwe visited during this time (far as I can tell) were outside the control of Tshombe's government, so they had no way of getting a hold of him. Plus, seriously attempting to arrest him and harm him would have incensed the Congolese central government and the UN and probably looked bad in the foreign press.
          • That makes sense. It would be good if you could clarify this meaning in the text, or at least add a footnote. At the moment, it just is not clear what it is meant to communicate. Ergo Sum 23:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "attitude against Katanga and Belgium gradually withdrew" - should probably be a comma after Katanga
    • Done.
  • Not sure government should be capitalized in Adoula Government
    • Sources are very much mixed on this style, but per MOS:INSTITUTIONS I think this is how it should be done.
  • vis a vis is usually hyphenated and accented
    • Done.
  • "at 22:00 on 23 December" - need a comma at the end
    • Done.
  • "probably so he could use them" - using probabilistic language in the voice of Wikipedia usually encounters some pushback. It would be best to specify who is saying "probably"
    • The UN, revised for clarification.
  • "executive position at a company" - is there any information on which company or in what industry?
    • Nope, the importance of this just seems to be he would get a cushy salary in a place where he could do little political damage so he would shut up.
  • " in a vote, 28–3" - can replace the comma with "of"
    • Done.
  • "On 27 May," - article has thus far eschewed commas after introductory prepositional phrases, but best not to start now
    • Removed.
  • I generally support linking words and phrases that can have technical meanings, including political concepts. When there is doubt, I tend to link. Not required, but might be considered.
  • {{ Use dmy dates}} would be useful, plus a spelling convention template, e.g. {{ Use British English}}, if applicable.

That's all I have for now. Ergo Sum 01:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Support on the substance. I only quibble about the one remaining point above (re "outlaw") but think the article is ready for FA. Ergo Sum 03:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

Consider me a non-expert.

  • "with a brief interruption." when was the interruption?
  • "and his reputation thereafter drifted into obscurity." Delete thereafter as it is unnecessary.
  • "to a Baluba family." Baluba is an uncommon term. I would add a small descriptor of who they are at the end of this sentence to explain who this group is without clicking into their Wikipedia article.
  • In the lede, it says he couldn't be a doctor due to "to restrictions on advancement for Africans in the colony" but in the body it says he was restricted by " the lack of medical schools in the Congo." These need to match.
  • "He was able amass much of their support through his dynamism and frequent interactions with the population." This sentence sounds like WP:PUFFERY and not encyclopedic. I think you should describe what he did specifically to get their support (Did he travel around to give speeches to villages? Did he organise any campaigns?)
  • I think the list of his three tenents would be better as prose.
  • "In May he traveled to the United States at the invitation of the American government." What was the purpose of this trip? Why is it worth mentioning in this article?
  • "In the national elections before the Republic of the Congo's independence on 30 June 1960 Sendwe was elected" comma after 1960
  • "Invested with the responsibilities of his office," Sounds puffery and POV. Perhaps, "After assuming the role of State Commissioner of Katanga, he attempted to restore central control over the province." Also, what does central control mean? I would change this wording.
  • "Sendwe was chosen to lead part of the army" Who chose him? What were the circumstances of him being chosen?
    • See Invasion of South Kasai, it's disputed as to who planned the offensive, and thus we don't know who ultimately decided to include Sendwe. As for why they would have chosen him, he held the job of State Commissioner, which made him the designated representative of the central government in the province. So the job he had made it a logical choice for him to lead the army on a campaign to restore central government authority. He also, as a BALUBAKAT leader, would have had popularity among the Luba population in northern Katanga. But this is all just my reading of the situation.
  • "brokering an understanding between Kasa-Vubu and Lumumba" What's an understanding? A peace deal, a ceasefire, a political alliance?
  • "to neutralise Lumumba," What does this mean? What happens when Lumumba is neutralised?
    • See Ceoil's comments above, where this is discussed at length.
  • "On the whole his tour improved security in the region," Delete on the whole
  • "and BALUBAKAT began to organise its own administration" -> "and BALUBAKAT organised"
  • "the UN feared this was so he could use them to boost his support." Does the "them" refer to the UN, or to the refugees?
  • "which was reversed by the intervention of the Deputy Prime Minister." So did the Deputy PM reverse the ban, or did he convince Sendwe to reverse the ban?
  • "On 27 May 1964 a coup in Albertville by Simba rebels led by Kabila overthrew Sendwe's government." put a comma after rebels and Kabila
  • "including having him shot," -> including executing him
  • "reestablish his authority" His authority as what?
  • "Political scientist Erik Kennes examined various testimonies." testimonies about what? I assume Sendwe's death, but this sentence's wording is awkward.
    • Clarified.
  • "wanted Sendwe dead so as to make rapprochement with Tshombe easier." -> wanted Sendwe dead to make rapprochement
  • "Kennes discounted the theory, reasoning that it was unlikely" -> Kennes reasoned that this was unlikely
    • Done.

Those are my comments in the first readthrough. Z1720 ( talk) 23:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Plants vs. Zombies (video game)

Nominator(s): Lazman321 ( talk) 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Plants vs. Zombies is a video game developed and published by PopCap Games. When it was first released, it became the fastest-selling game developed by PopCap Games. I have worked on this article since November 2020. It passed a GA nomination on February 18, 2021. Now a peer review and a copyedit has been done on the Plants vs. Zombies article and now it is ready for Featured Article Candidacy. Lazman321 ( talk) 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Plants vs. Zombies (video game)/archive1. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I'm very familiar with the game. My comments:

  • "If a zombie makes it to the house on any lane, the level is over." Would it be more accurate to say the game is over, or that the player has failed the level?
  • Done
  • Zombie is linked on a second or later use in the lead.
  • Done
  • "The player can only pick a limited number of plants through seed packets at the beginning of each level,[7]" Perhaps you mean "... limited number of types of plants ..."?
  • Done
  • It might be better to describe the stages as the Zombies advancing across the front yard by day, then night, the pooled backyard by day, then night, then the roof. The Lawnmowers are not used on the pool lanes, nor on the roof, though there are analogues, by the way.
  • Comment: It is already made clear that stages 2 and 4 are night levels, stages 3 and 4 are pool levels, and stage 5 is a roof level. Also, the gameplay section did originally did mention the different types of lawnmowers. I removed them following a peer review in order to make the gameplay section more consise.
  • Something more could be said about the role of Crazy Dave, that in addition to running the shop he offers (somewhat eccentric) help and advice, and "chooses" the preselected seed packets when playing Adventure Mode after beating Zomboss.
  • Comment: Like above, they were originally mentions of this but were removed for more conciseness following a peer review.
  • It might be mentioned that as one advances in Adventure Mode, there is access to more types of seed packets.
  • Done
  • You are not consistent on whether the "M" in "Adventure Mode" is capped.
  • Comment: There is only one instance of the "mode" in Adventure mode is capitalized and that is the heading in the gameplay section.
That's what I mean. Does it need to be capped?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I guess it doesn't. Done
  • There is a clarification needed tag that should be resolved.
  • Done
  • Perhaps something could be said about that the zombies' intent is to eat the brains of the house occupants, and if they get past the defenses, they do so.
  • Done
More soon.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Wehwalt: I have addressed all your current problems. Lazman321 ( talk) 23:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "On May 20, 2009, Plants vs. Zombies was reportedly the fastest-selling video game created by PopCap Games.[103][104]" This seems awkwardly phrased. Perhaps the game "was declared the fastest-selling" or similar.
  • Done
  • Some of the strings of citations are not in numerical order, which is OK if what you are doing is always putting the most important citation (the one the cited material most relies on) first. Is that what is going on?
  • Done
  • Can anything be said about marketing of objects based on the game, toys etc?
  • Not Done Information about that is only possible if reliable sources report on it, which they haven't.
That's it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Wehwalt: Done with your requests. Lazman321 ( talk) 15:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Support.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAntro

I'm ready to look at this again after the peer review. I will say that I disagree with the use of present perfect tense in the third paragraph, as all of the citations are reviews from 2009, upon the game's release. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 21:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Some comments:

  • A possible comprehensiveness issue. I see no representation from scholarly and academic literature; this is especially concerning given that this game has been analyzed for its contribution to the tower defense genre, and the fact that, according to the Edge source in Ref 17, "during the making of this game tower defence kind of exploded in popularity" only adds to this problem. The only thing the Legacy section discusses is its DLCs, sequels and cultural references, but nothing about its impact on the design of games in the industry.
  • Comment: I am looking through the sources and none of them seems to help say how this video game impacted design on video games or the genre of the tower defense genre. While its design was definitely unique, especially in terms of its tutorial, it wasn't ever stated to be influential or having an impact. A lot of the sources just say that Plants vs. Zombies was a popular tower defense game. They often just use the game as examples of something with occasional but trivial analysis. Saying in the article that Plants vs. Zombies has been the subject of many scholarly sources is original research unless a reliable source directly says so, which none have. Maybe if you can find some sources that directly state significant information about Plants vs. Zombies's legacy, maybe that will help.
  • Working: You know what. I've found some sources that I could probably integrate into the legacy section and Plants vs. Zombies impact on tower defense and overall the industry. Lazman321 ( talk) 04:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Some cites have work names linked in every instance, while others not all the time and at random moments. This is inconsistent and not in line with the manual of style. You either have to link all source names the first time they're cited, or link them in every citation.
  • Done though I can't do anything about Metacritic at the moment.
  • Whoever programmed cite MC needs to understand Metacritic is not a work. Until he realizes that and changes the template accordingly, you're going to have to manually cite the Metacritic sources with a cite web template, and the name of Metacritic in the publisher= field. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 20:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: That was not was I talking about. Metacritic is a website, which by definition is a work, not a publisher as per WP:CS1. I was talking about its link being on every single citation. I can edit the template to remove that. Lazman321 ( talk) 22:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 ( talk) 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I have addressed your current requests. Lazman321 ( talk) 03:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
More comments
  • " tower defense and strategy video game" Redundant. Tower defense is a subgenre of strategy.
  • Done
  • 1b issues. The article does state Weedlings was a working title, but never gives the reason for why its change, which was to differentiate itself in the saturated market of gardening games, which is in the Edge interview. In the same instance where he discusses this, he also gives a reason for why he ultimately went zombies as the antagonist, which I also see nowhere in the the Development section: "In fact, the game was called Weedlings, but many gardening games were coming out at that time and that just didn’t sit well with me. I tend to try to make games that are a little bit original. That’s when I came up with zombies, which are perfect because they move slowly so you have a lot of time to react to them."
  • Done
  • "Showing her how to customize their card decks inspired him to design Plants vs. Zombies with seed packet"
    • (1) I don't see how the experience of teaching her how to play Magic plays into this conception. I think the customability of the Magic is what influence the seed packets, not the girlfriend's learning of Magic. Presenting it like this without specifying Magic is a custom game is both misleading and too vague.
    • (2) Who is "their"? Were there multiple people whose cards were owned by while the couple played Magic?
  • Done
  • "finding common tower defense gameplay elements to be awkward, such as mazing and juggling," I know "mazing and juggling" is linked, but I still think how this sentence interprets the Edge interview is too vague. I find Fan's words in the Edge interview to be far clearer, that the "awkward" thing was that enemies would never go after towers obviously attacking them: "Originally the game was laid out the same way, but I realised there was something unintuitive about it. I always wondered why these guys never think to attack these towers that are shooting at them, so I was looking for a way to have the towers be directly threatened by the antagonist."
  • Done
  • "The Jackson-inspired zombie" Not in citation given. It is only from the subjective viewpoint of the sources currently in the article that it looks like Jackson in Thriller. "Jackson-inspired" implies the creator intentionally was influenced by Thriller to make the dance, which is not covered in the MTV Multiplayer source that cites this phrase. Sure, Jackson's actual estate perceived it as a rip-off, but that's not evidence the game's creator intended it that way.
  • Done
  • I don't see any reason to have the first two sentences of the Legacy section in that section and not in a section about the game's sales. The events discussed in those sentences happened close to the game's release, not a decade later, and the citations used for these sentences were published upon release as well.
  • Done

👨x🐱 ( talk) 19:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Done with more of your commments. Lazman321 ( talk) 22:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Even more comments
  • "The team discovered" Wait, this game was done as a team? I initially thought Fan made the game by himself with his girlfriend. [Looks at infobox] Oh, there definitely was a team to this. Any info on how this team came together? Did PopCap sign the man to make another game with staff? A team is randomly introduced here, and this sudden first mention of it may confuse readers.
  • Done
  • Link "real-time strategy" in "Design" section.
  • Done
  • I would really give Ref 27 another read, because I'm finding major details about the making of this game in it that I don't see in the wikipedia article. For example, Fan designed all of the concepts based on the knowledge of casual players: "Fan knew he wanted to use stationary "towers," and players immediately understand why rooted plants are unable to move. Zombies, on the other hand, are known for moving slowly, making them a perfect fit for the game's single-screen fields." Another example, specifically about how the characters were designed: "In Plants vs. Zombies, Fan made sure that each character visually represented its function. The standard "Peashooter" plant, for instance, has a giant mouth for spitting projectiles, and its name further suggests what it's capable of."
  • Done

👨x🐱 ( talk) 02:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC) @ HumanxAnthro: Addressed your current requests. Lazman321 ( talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I echo yet again for the nominator to give Ref 27 more reads, because only those two examples have been added. Trust me when I say there is more than 2 cites worth of material in that source. Given missing info I have found in other citations in this article, I'd recommend the nominator read the other references to look for any other missing details himself. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Please excuse the lack of comments over ten days. I have been juggling other reviews and articles on Wikipedia and sometimes delays like this happen. My apologies.. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 00:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

4/22/21 Now that this has a re-write and expansion, here's some more comments. I'll have more to make after this.
  • The lead is well-written but feels short a little on summary of development.
  • Done
  • "who want to eat the player's brains" (1) This might get nitpicky, but the cited source only describes the game as the player defending themselves from zombies, without specifying the zombies want to eat brains. (2) The eating-brains is probably fluff. It is common knowledge that zombies try to eat humans' brains, and in the slim chance a reader doesn't know that, they have the zombie article currently linked to read that.
  • Done
  • "five or six horizontal rows and nine columns," This is cited both to PopCap and GamesRaders+ cites (or Refs 7 and 8). PopCap source does give numbers for the amount of rows, but not for the amount of columns. I also saw no specification of the number of columns in the GamesRadar+ source. Did I miss it, or is it covered in another source?
  • Done
  • "The player places different types of plants and fungi on individual squares of the grid" The only citation for this sentence is the GamesRadar review. The source talks about there being a variety of plants and seeds as the game progresses, but never specifically discusses a grid or the player specifically placing a planet on the square of a grid. It also doesn't talk about fungi also being usable to defend against Zombies.
  • Done
  • Per MOS:CITEPUNCT, you must place references after punctuation marks. There are references in the middle of the sentences, something I noticed in the Gameplay section. Check for others.
  • Not Done: That is not what the guideline says. It says that if the reference is located next to a punctuation mark, it should be after the punctuation mark. Citations are allowed to be put mid-sentence as long as it is next to the cited material. Lazman321 ( talk) 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Multiple reference numbers are not in increasing numerical order. "[7][5][11]" "[7][6][9]" "[7][6]" This is what I noticed just reading the gameplay section. Check for others.
  • Done
  • The Critical response section is navigable and well-written, but a couple of spots use full quotes that could be paraphrased or be partial quotes in some sports, and an issue, which I brought up in the peer review, of not using past tense for 2009-published reviews in the third paragraph remains.
  • Done

👨x🐱 ( talk) 18:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Lazman321: Done with your requests. Lazman321 ( talk) 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
More comments (4/23/21)
  • "generally stylized as a lawn" Why not just say it's a lawn? Why say it's stylized as one? The GamesRadar source citing this statement certainly doesn't put it that way. It just says it's a lawn
  • Done
  • "Each plant has a different style of defense, such as shooting" Why only one attack method listed? I get we're trying to make this a little of a WP:GAMEGUIDE, but if there are multiple types of attacks, why only bring up one? Can't you bring up any other examples that reliable reviews provide, cause I've spotchecked a few of the currently-used review sources and I know they talk about them?
  • Done
  • "by using certain plants that generate sun, like Sunflowers." Again, why only one example listed? The VideoGamer brings up the sun-shrooms, which "produce sun during the night."
  • Done
  • "Different types of zombies have their own special behaviors and their own weaknesses to different plants." Same issue. I know we're not a WP:GAMEGUIDE, but I think we're leaving readers in the dust by not giving them examples, especially when they the types of Zombies, especially the dancing and football ones, are enthusiastically covered in reviews. Again, only use the ones brought up in reliable sources so it's not GAMEGUIDE-ish.
  • Done

👨x🐱 ( talk) 23:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@ HumanxAnthro: Done with this set of requests. Lazman321 ( talk) 16:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review from Nikkimaria

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Done
  • Missing alt text
  • Done
  • Done for one, not the other. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Plants_vs_Zombies_Gameplay.png needs a more detailed FUR. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's been expanded, but not appropriately. It looks like it's been largely copied from the lead image? They serve different purposes within the article so should have different rationales. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: The templates being used are different. I'm mostly using the default text on the rationales. Is that wrong? Lazman321 ( talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. It reads as if the default text is for a lead image; that's not the use of the image here. What are you trying to convey with this image? What benefit does it provide to readers to have it here? Why is it needed in addition to the lead image, which is also non-free? These are the sorts of questions that the rationale should answer. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It is used for readers to have a better understanding of the gameplay itself and can also be used to tell people that they made it to the right article if it was what they were looking for. This is what is mentioned in the rationale and I believe it is sufficient. Plus, I can't even change the descriptions. Lazman321 ( talk) 18:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The explanation currently in the FUR is insufficient, because it doesn't tell us what benefit this image provides in addition to the lead image, which is also non-free. If there is no added benefit we won't be able to use it. You do have the ability to edit the FUR here. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, I replaced the rationale with a non-free media rationale in order to actually edit the descriptions. I have clarified the purpose of use in the rationale. Lazman321 ( talk) 17:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Nikkimaria: Done with your requests. Lazman321 ( talk) 22:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle

I am not sure I have time for a full review but I have a few comments:

  • Per WP:VGBOX the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, art without any platform-related logotypes should be used where possible either from an official source or by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture. The current cover art has various PC logos, etc, found a platform neutral one free from of them here [16].
  • Done
  • In the lead and body "Plants vs. Zombies received critical acclaim" 8 versions on Metacritic 2 (iOS) recieved "universal acclaim", DSiware " mixed or average" and rest "generally favorable", not sure how that results in overall critical acclaim.
  • Comment: Is generally positive a better summary? Lazman321 ( talk) 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe so yes, should be reflected in the lead as well
  • Surely Stephen Notley should be mentioned at least once in development section since Notley was the writer, or the fact he only wrote the almanac section.
  • Done
  • Are there any free images avaliable of development staff or any other relevant images (appears to be this at commons [17] though not sure how copyright works in regards to that).
  • Working: I have asked Dean Takahashi through Twitter to license a picture of George Fan he took during a 2018 interview about Octogeddon under Commons. Lazman321 ( talk) 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Done: @ Spy-cicle: Takahashi agreed to send OTRS an email saying that he will license the image under Commons license. He chose CC-BY-SA 4.0 International and now the image is in the article. By the way, in regards to the cosplay images, the problem is not copyright. The problem is this article does not have a cultural impact section as there is little-to-no information about its cultural impact. The closest would be the cultural references section, but adding a picture of cos players would add nothing to the section or this article. Lazman321 ( talk) 05:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah I see nice one on getting that free image. I understand what you mean about the relevance of cosplayers if there is no cultural impact section.
  • The Fan image should have an alt text, and should be on the right side per MOS:IMAGELOCATION.
  • Possible to mention the link to the series article in some way (i.e. it spawned a series including third-person shooters, etc or something)
  • Done
  • The way it was placed seems a little MOS:EGGy, may need to reword a little bit.
  • The release section only mentions a PlayStation Network (should also be linked) port as if it is digital only on ps3 there appears to be a disc version also.
  • Not Done: There needs to be reliable sources that mention the physical copies of the PS3 version, not store directories. If you can find some, I will definitely add them. Done for linking.
  • There seems to be some strange inconsistent linking in the reference sometimes websites like IGN other times they are not.
  • Comment: Can you please specify. Lazman321 ( talk) 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For example in ref #37 IGN is linked, whilst in refs #40, #44, #45, etc it is not. The website parameters (IGN is just one example) should either be consistently linked or consistently not linked in references (iirc MOS does not mandate which one but may be worth double checking).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've always been told that you only link the first instance of a work in a citation. But, I guess it is allowed to link every instance of a website in a citation. Done. Lazman321 ( talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • First reference to readme appears to be dead (url-status should be changed)
  • Done
  • Done
  • The usage of USD $ need MOS:NBSP and the M needs to spelt out on first usage per MOS:CURRENCY or spelt out both times since they are in different sections.
  • Done
  • The nbsps do not appear to be placed correctly (example $11{{nbsp}}billion, see MOS:NBSP).
Hope this helps.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Spy-cicle: I have addressed your requests.
@ Spy-cicle: I have addressed your second set of requests. Lazman321 ( talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll circle back to this once I have some more time on my hands, but it is certainly looking better.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Cas Liber

Nice work - made some tweaks. Seems alright on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Support and comments by Qwertyxp2000

Independent thinking here, but I would like to say that the content coverage of the article as a whole feels complete. It covers a well-balanced amount of both the in-universe and out-of-universe content in both quality and quantity, including the ratio between them. The word variety and sentence structuring appears to be clear and concise; neither too excessive nor too vague. Sources appear to be reliable and primarily secondary upon first glance, and source formatting feels well-structured upon a brief look at the reference list. Balance in Critical Reviews section appears to be done exceptionally well for tower defense games. The entire article provides a good example of how a tower defense game game should be formatted. The legacy section is also structured very clearly, and I can easily understand the content of those sections just by reading the entire sections within several minutes of deep reading. The leading section is a bit long for my liking, but the leading section sure sums up the entirety of the article sufficiently, keeping the most important points written there including the basic information about the game itself, the design and development, and the critical reviews and legacies.

If I have some criticism, I would probably work a bit more on the Legacy section and its subsections by introducing a bit more about each stage of the legacies, like perhaps add a leading section in Legacy about the general legacy of the Plants vs Zombie original game, obviously backed up with reliable secondary sources that is. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 05:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 23:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise, I would like to say this is a good candidate for Featured Article. Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 05:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 23:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Will get to soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 17:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Non source-related comment - You use both Stephen Notly and Stephen Notely. Which is correct?
  • No action needed - while the Reddit thing looks a little dodgy, the verification checks out, so I'd say it's about equivalent to using the subject's social media and is cited very minimally, so its probably fine
  • Who is James Gwertzman? That Slide Share source linked to him looks WP:SPS.
  • In the body, it's the Suburban Almanac. The two times you cite it, it's Suburben Almanac. Which spelling is correct?
  • Padgadget appears to be a blog, what makes it high-quality RS?
  • One source links to Major Nelson, but that's a dab page.
  • WP:VGRS says that Kotaku is reliable post-2010. There is a single 2010 cite to Kotaku that might ought to be replaced to be on the safe side.

I think that's it for formatting/reliability. Will conduct spot checks for text-source integrity and copyright soon. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered

Nominator(s): Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 2016 remaster of the 2007 video game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, titled Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered. I have been the largest contributor since the article's inception in 2017, and assisted in getting it to GA a few months later. Since then, I have continued to improve and expand upon it in that time. This is my first FAC nomination, and in preparation, the article has undergone a peer review earlier in the year: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_Remastered/archive1.

Being a remaster of an existing product, my only major concern with the article is that (as I've experienced already by editors) coordinators may struggle to reach a consensus on whether the article's Gameplay section should simply list the notable changes between it and the original game, whilst linking to the original game's article for a full rundown of gameplay features (as it currently does). The other alternative is to give the remaster article a full breakdown of gameplay information, mirroring the original game's article, and allowing the remaster article to stand on its own and not rely on the other for clarity. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by AviationFreak

This will be mostly a prose review, but if I happen to see anything else that needs fixing I'll point it out. I tend to be pretty nitpicky and generally go by what sounds best to me, so feel free to ask me about these changes and/or not make some of them.

  • The second sentence in the lede has a few issues - 2007's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare sounds like the game was published/developed by "2007", it's unclear whether initially released as past of... applies to the base game or the remaster, and I believe the comma after November 2016 is extraneous.
  • I've re-worded to "the 2007 game". To avoid repetition and length, and the fact it's a remaster (self-explanatory), I didn't bother to give the genre again, and the alternative "the 2007 first-person shooter" didn't seem suitable. My only concern now is that the sentence length is almost at that point where someone might ask for it to be split (again). Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Online petitions aren't really "released", perhaps "gained traction" or something similar would work better here?
  • Changed to "circulation", in line with how it's described in Development. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Raven Software assisted in the development of previous games.
  • remastered original sound effects - There's nothing inherently wrong with this and it gets the point across well, but perhaps an adjective besides "remastered" would work better given the game title?
  • While the preceding sentence makes the changes sound sweeping, they are then described as "small improvements".
  • The "small improvements" are referring to the gameplay changes, hence why it's mentioned straight after gameplay in that sentence. I've added "to it" at the end for clarity though. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe ...multiplayer content, and additional single-player achievements... should be multiplayer content, as well as additional single-player achievements
  • It was actually that initially, but was changed during one of the copy-edits. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • enhanced graphics, sound, and range of improvements. - This is awkward, perhaps it should be enhanced graphics, improved sound, and a range of other improvements.? The word "enhanced" should apply to only the first item or all of the items, not the first two.
  • Changed to "revised sound" (and used the same prose for its mention in Reception), but I feel it sounds better without the "and". Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oops, meant to say I don't agree with the "a", considering both use "and". Changed your edit. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What exactly does "grounded" mean in the context of single-player campaigns? I've never played the CoD series, but this adjective seems weird in this context. The same applies to "freshness" in the next sentence.
  • I did think recently this might prove confusing for some. I basically meant in the sense that it was down-to-earth in contrast to later installments that have futuristic elements (e.g. jetpacks). Replaced with "realistic". Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The lede sentence on criticism seems like it's trying to fit too much information into one thought, resulting in a lot of commas - Maybe split it into one for singleplayer and one for multiplayer?
  • Probably best it is changed as the criticism and controversy sentences do flow very similarly from both giving three examples on the topic in question. I've re-worded but I can't really decide what sounds better; it's a toss-up between "Criticism focused on the multiplayer mode for balancing issues and the single-player mode for its pacing and artificial intelligence." or "Criticism focused on balancing issues in the multiplayer mode and the pacing and artificial intelligence in the single-player mode." Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 19:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • in the eyes of players - I assume this would be more correct as in the eyes of most players.
  • True, but I think this is potentially WP:OR. None of the sources explicitly describe it as "many" either. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Gotcha - Hadn't looked at the sources. If that's what they say, I agree with the current wording. AviationFreak 💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ...overcharge for the downloadable content and standalone version of the game. - Can't quite place it, but this just sounds a little off to me. It may very well be grammatically correct and not require an edit.
  • Left as is, but I know what you mean. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The second sentence in "Gameplay" is a bit confusing to me. "Encompassing" doesn't seem like the best verb here, but more importantly I can't understand what "remained nearly identical to their original counterparts". Was it the controls? The timing of existing animations?
  • Both aspects remained nearly identical. Propose the following: "However, it includes a few modifications comprising of improved controls and timing of existing animations, while remaining nearly identical to their original counterparts." Let me know what you think. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm still a little confused - If both aspects remained nearly identical, why are we mentioning the modifications? I would think those modifications would be insignificant if the aspects they modified remained nearly identical to the original. AviationFreak 💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean, but I still think it's still worth mentioning as almost all of the interviews highlight it. I've just read through it again and it's kinda tricky how I should word it because of this, but seeing the player character's arms while prone doesn't fall under what's sourced as the improved controls or animation timing; as such, the sentence erroneously starts off with "For example", so this bit should probably be removed. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure if replacing the NPCs' heads with watermelons warrants mentioning, even if it is funny. This sentence could also use a change, maybe something like ...keeps the same collectibles and cheats while adding several new cheats.... As-is, it seems clunky to me.
  • I believe "as" would work better than "from" when talking about the differences between MW and MW:R's multiplayer modes.
  • new modes like "Prop Hunt", in which players hide as inanimate objects from the opposing team is a fragment, because it doesn't fit into the "modes present in other installments" category. Maybe append , are included as well to the end of the sentence.
  • Done, and split into two sentences as it was getting too long. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "through microtransactions" could be appended to completing challenges, crafting, or buying in-game currency to give an inline definition of the term.
  • Extraneous comma after the SAS team escapes with its manifest.
  • Should "Ultranationalist party" be capitalized?
  • It's the name of the political party in-game so yes. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There should be something like "in another" after a secret level titled "Mile High Club" since we have during one level in the previous statement.
  • Done, and removed the title of the level as it's unnecessary. The prose on the Plot and Characters has been taken from MW's article and simplified. However, I'm just thinking, and no one has ever brought this up before, but is it an issue that the Characters section in MWR is not sourced at all? The Plot section of MW is wikilinked from MWR but this is only referencing the plot, not the characters. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like the relevant guideline here is MOS:PLOTSOURCE, which says that plot citations are nice but not necessary. If secondary source summaries of the game exist it would probably be worth citing them in the Plot section. AviationFreak 💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The first image in "Development" features a weapon being held by the player, while the second doesn't. Unless this difference is part of the remaster, it should probably be consistent in the comparison.
  • Source 18 uses "source code", not "source codes" as the article does - I believe the source is correct since we are only talking about one program, even if it may contain multiple scripts.
  • "Full" 1080p? Also, does the game use a more widely-known engine (e.g. Unreal, Source)? If so, it should be mentioned and wikilinked.
  • Changed to "a native 1080p", per wording in the source. The problem with details on the engine is that they don't explicitly give the name of it, only that it's an upgraded version of the one for MW, which is the IW game engine (and its unique for MWR owing to some tinkering), so I'm not sure this warrants wikilinking to the IW engine page as proof. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like the IW Engine is used exclusively for the series, so I think it would be worth piping "the series' game engine" to the IW article. This does mean we'd have to remove the link to game engine though, so I'm open to other suggestions. AviationFreak 💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about wikilinking the IW article, primarily because it doesn't mention Remastered and games that use heavily-modified or almost brand-new versions of the engine aren't listed in its table, but maybe it's acceptable. We also have a note for the engine section on MWR's article, saying "Do not add any engines without a reliable source", but now I don't know if this should remain if we link to the IW engine. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Gotcha - It's not crucial that the engine is linked, but from my perspective it would be useful to identify the engine somehow somewhere in the article. This could even be in the infobox, with something like " IW Engine (heavily modified)" for the Engine field. AviationFreak 💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Extraneous comma after nostalgic experience for fans of Modern Warfare.
  • Extraneous comma after and the desire to meet expectations.
  • Unless Pellas was encouraged by the leading principle, there should be a "they" before were encouraged by their leading principle...
  • Source #1 supports almost the entire 2nd paragraph in "Development" - If possible, there should be corroborating sources added.
  • I don't think the article describes "paint-over" very well - Is it just adding assets to existing environments?
  • It's basically a draft in preparation for when they're properly created. Propose the following: "Enhancements to the environments were designed (or perhaps "drafted"?) using a procedure called "paint-over", establishing a color scheme and taking screenshots of levels from Modern Warfare before overlaying them with concept art." What do you think? Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Much better, prefer "designed" to "drafted". AviationFreak 💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • While the last sentence in "Development"'s third paragraph describes its idea well, the "vice versa" doesn't really work - Does the environment now respond more realistically to the NPCs' artificial intelligences?
  • Propose the following: "The artificial intelligence of NPCs was improved to respond more realistically to the environment; conversely, grass was animated to react to the player character's presence." Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Better, but I don't know that the average reader will recognize the connection between the two statements. Maybe instead of just "grass" we could say "environmental features" or "aspects of the environment, including grass,"? The source uses the term "foliage", which would work better as well IMO. AviationFreak 💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm going to look into changing the prose on character AI because reading the source again, reacting to the environment was just one improvement made to them; their movement system was also another. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe spell out "Experience" in "Call of Duty: XP 2016"? My brain intuitively reads "XP" as an emoticon, but if this is how the event is marketed/commonly referred to it should stay how it is.
  • Left as is. Seen several articles that refer to it as such. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • the weapon audio was revised to more closely resemble those found in the original game. - I believe this should read that the audio was revised to better resemble that found in the original game, since we're talking about "audio" and not "audios".
  • In addition to the remastering process, the game had an array of new features. - For a paragraph lede, "had" is a bit lackluster. Consider "contained", "offered", or something similar.
  • Cheats are mentioned three times in the article, from the lede to "Gameplay" to "Development". "Gameplay" and "Development" basically the same thing about them, so they should probably be scrapped from one of those sections.
  • I believe the comma after ...released as a free update several weeks later is extraneous. Ditto for the one after Raven published various playlists and seasonal events.
  • Target is not an exclusively online store - If the reservation was explicitly for Target's online store, the sentence should be reworded. If not, just say "Target". Also, I may just be out of the loop, but what exactly is a "reservation card"? If an article exists it should probably be wikilinked.
  • Changed to just "Target" as the sources don't give further details. One of them calls the reservation card a "pre-order card", so have just wikilinked to the pre-order page. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • CoD:XP is duplinked, and see my above comment about the use of "XP".
  • I think ...other improvements to Remastered should be ...other improvements to Modern Warfare, since it's the product that was improved upon.
  • The Push Square opinion at the start of the third paragraph in "Reception" needs an inline citation, either at the comma or along with Electric Gaming Monthly's citation.
  • Extraneous comma after writing it was welcoming to more casual players.
  • more enjoyable from allowing different gameplay styles - The "from" doesn't make grammatical sense here. I can't think of anything particularly concise as a replacement, so maybe something like "more enjoyable because it better accommodated different gameplay styles" would be better.
  • I don't see an issue with the grammar here, and I feel this alternative is too long. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but to me the "from" still sounds wrong in this usage. Looking at it again, "more enjoyable because it allowed for different gameplay styles" would also work IMO. AviationFreak 💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • and attributed this to a desire to preserve... can be shortened to "attributing this to a desire to preserve..."
  • The first sentence in the last paragraph before "Infinite Warfare bundling" is clunky.
  • See below comment re. Pellas.
  • The Pellas sentence looks great, but I'm talking here about the first sentence in that paragraph. AviationFreak 💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • My bad! The wording was changed during a copy-edit from the similar "The multiplayer mode in the Windows version of Remastered was criticized by players for the available settings and from suffering from a number of technical issues." If it still sounds clunky then I don't know if the copy-editor was intending to avoid this or not. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, those both sound "off" to me - I think the issue is using the structure "Players criticized <x> and (for/from) <y>". Removing the "for" or "from" would create a smoother structure, so you could say something like "Players criticized Remastered's limited number of multiplayer settings and its large number of technical issues", or something similar. AviationFreak 💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Extraneous comma after "On Steam".
  • It should probably be mentioned that David Pellas was closely involved with development in this paragraph, even though it is stated earlier in the article.
  • Propose the following: "As part of his close involvement in the game's development, David Pellas playtested the PC version, stating before release that it "play[ed] amazingly" and had a "fantastic" frame rate; he acknowledged, however, that the game had been played on a high-end gaming PC." Let me know what you think. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 12:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe Hardcore Gamer noted many fans had... should be Hardcore Gamer noted that many fans had...
  • In the sentence on Rock, Paper, Shotgun in the "Infinite Warfare bundling" section, I don't think we need to use "fans like themselves" - just "fans" would work.
  • ...some perceived as a future inclusion of virtual goods should probably be ...some perceived as an indication of future inclusion of virtual goods or something similar.
  • Changed to "an indication of future virtual goods". Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Follow MOS:INOROUT when adding quotes. For instance, this is done incorrectly at the end of the "reeks of money grubbing" quote.
  • Done. I'd checked all of these previously, so must have missed this one. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe there should be a "that" between "PCGamesN lamented" and "Activision".
  • I have to assume that not all of the guns were "locked behind [a] paywall", but the article doesn't make that clear.
  • Need a "that" between "Complaints highlighted" and "the publisher". This sentence is also quite long and overuses commas, consider splitting it.
  • Combined the end of the sentence with the following one, so both sentences are of similar length. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Whoo, that should give you a bit to work on! Don't worry too much if this seems overwhelming, most of the changes are small and should only take a minute or two, tops. As this appears to be your first FAC, I want to say congratulations and good luck! Looking over the talk page, the only thing that appears as an outstanding issue to me is the question raised in the "Use of quotations" section. If possible, I would recommend slimming down or eliminating some of the direct quotes. Overall this article looks nice and doesn't contain too many MOS issues (it could use a few more images, but I understand that as a copyrighted work this is not easy). Again, good luck and stick with it! I completed my first FA a few weeks ago and it's a great feeling once you get all the source and prose drudgery out of the way. Let me know if you have any questions! AviationFreak 💬 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

AviationFreak Hi, and thanks for the response! I'll go through those presently. I had extensively trimmed down the length of quotes (and all but removed them for the Development section) as part of the peer review, but I understand where you're coming from in that I think perhaps a few could be removed from Reception (I did struggle with how I might paraphrase these though). The use of an image for the Gameplay section I'd proposed previously, and I will look further into the possibility of using one; at the time, I think ImagineTigers' wording confused me and thought he meant only one image should be in the article, period! Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 12:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, almost all of the extraneous commas (which I sympathise with) and the omissions of "that" were made by two editors as part of full article copy-edits, so while I disagree with most of these choices I'm sure their editing prowess gave them good enough reason to believe these changes were preferable. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 18:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Gotcha - Again, I tend to go by how things sound to me. If other commenters here at FAC agree that some or all of those changes should be made though, I think they ought to be implemented. AviationFreak 💬 18:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
AviationFreak I've now made all the required changes, with the exception of a couple I wanted to know your thoughts on first before I published them. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 16:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
These look great! I believe I've replied to all of your questions, let me know if you have any others! AviationFreak 💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
AviationFreak Made the agreed changes. I've still queries about the gameplay modifications, linking the engine, line summarising criticism of the PC version, and the prose on the AI/environmental behaviour. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I think I've responded to all of these, contact me with any follow-ups! AviationFreak 💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Whoops, looks like I missed it in my Watchlist when you finished the changes - Support, and best of luck with the image and source reviews! AviationFreak 💬 15:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Panini!

Coming soon to theatres near you. Panini! 🥪 14:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll publish each section individually so you can work while I review it. If you're present, that is.

  • Noticed this right off the bat, so looking at miscellaneous first. The article switches between abbreviating Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered to Modern Warfare Remastered and Remastered. I believe sticking with one or the other would be a benefit. It appears most sources abbreviate to Modern Warfare Remastered, so I'd stick with that in my opinion.
  • Done. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I have noticed that using its full title makes the already-long subsection heading of "Pricing of DLC and standalone version of *title*", compared to the others, strikingly longer. Do you have any objections in replacing it with "game" instead? Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 22:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare § Gameplay" and "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare § Plot"; I normally see this formatted as "X of Y", so this could look like "Gameplay of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" and "Plot of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" if you prefer.
  • A glance at Plot, it might be confusing to some readers. You could cite the game for clarification if you believe some parts are confusing to explain in simplicity (you can check out Paper Mario: The Origami King#Plot for an example of this)
  • These are not citation types I'm familiar with (not that I'm familiar with most anyway), although I have seen one or two examples on articles for older games. Is it literally just a case of citing basic game data (game title, publisher, platform, release date, etc.) and writing a quote? What sort of information would you suggest needs citing for Remastered? The Origami King seems to focus on three statements that are slightly vague or not elaborated upon. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 11:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Good Job! I really like this lead.
  • However, I strongly dislike parenthesis, as to me they simply look unprofessional. They could be changed to hyphens, I guess.
  • This was done during a copy-edit but I wasn't keen on it either; we have another use of hyphens in the lead so makes sense to do the same here. Changed. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "In the multiplayer mode, if a weapon is equipped, players can taunt their opponents, by allowing the player to inspect the exterior of their gun for example." While this is not really important to understanding gameplay, it doesn't hurt to have anyways considering the length of this section. Your choice.
  • I'd say mentioning you can see your arms and gun while prone matters even less, but yes, without them the section would be notably short; will keep. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "... and cheats while adding several new cheats." "Cheats" is repeated twice here.
  • It's because there are only new cheats, not new collectibles, or are you saying it would sound better without the noun being used twice? Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's what I was implying. Maybe "... and cheats while adding several more of the latter."
  • "The multiplayer mode offers a greater ..." -> "The multiplayer mode offers a larger ..." because "greater" sounds more ad-like.
  • "A number of weapons not featured in Modern Warfare were added." This sounds rather clunky to me. They simply added more guns, correct? Maybe something along the lines of "Modern Warfare Remastered also added additional weapons" or something like that.
  • Used your suggestion but with "the game" instead as having the title mentioned near the end of the paragraph didn't seem appropriate. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I have nothing specific to point my finger at. I'm angry about that. I promise I'm nitpicky! I'm a Wikipedian!

Even the Reception section, which I always have something to say about, looks good! I'm gonna be bold and say right off the bat Support. A lot of the articles' problems were dealt with in the very extensive peer review. Panini! 🥪 14:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Panini!! Do you have any thoughts on the article needing another image, as this is one area that I don't know could end up being a factor in determining whether or not the article will reach FA. The other query I have, and I don't know if this is an area you particularly focus on, is whether there are any sources you think might not be considered FA standard; those couple that are good, but not amazing, are New Game Network, Windows Central, and, the latter two of which appear in the "Other reliable" section on WP:VG/S. I was told during the review that even ones like Push Square might not fly, which is concerning. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I wish I was good when it comes to that stuff, but I'm not skilled in authenticating sources. Someone will come around and give a full source review in due time. Panini! 🥪 14:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

2021 Masters (snooker)

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 00:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the latest Masters championship from January this year. 20 year old Yan Bingtao won the event on his debut appearance. The Masters invites the 16 best snooker players in the world for a single-elimination bracket. I've spent a bit of time on this article, and gone through GAN earlier this year. Let me know what you think of the article. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 00:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Kickstarting this FAC with an assessment of its images:

Might come back with more later. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 03:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'll put something on there (pictured) to show who is who. I don't feel that moving items to the left arbitrarily makes the article easier to read, personally. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 21:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
For the record, MOS:IMAGELOCATION says It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text. On another note, the caption for the Ronnie O'Sullivan picture still is ambiguous since two people are shown within it. You can use "(left)" and "(right)" to distinguish them from one another. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 23:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but that also says that they should mostly be on the right. As much as having all of the images look at the text, I don't think this is particularly warranted; although happy to discuss. I have fixed the O'Sullivan image Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 11:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

I may claim WikiCup points, if I consider my review to be substantial enough. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 09:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Lead: "Sixteen players were invited to the event, the highest from the snooker world rankings..." - how about something like "The top sixteen players from the snooker world rankings..."?
  • Lead: "The World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association organised the tournament broadcast by the BBC and Eurosport in Europe, but was played behind closed doors because of COVID-19 restrictions." needs a bit of rework.
  • Lead: Should be "Yan" throughtout, rather than "Bingtao" twice, I think.
  • Overview: "The World Snooker Tour, a subsidiary of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association, " - this statement has been accepted in numerous reviewed articles, but as the WPBSA is a 26% stakeholder in WST, is it really right to say that WST is a subsidiary? WST is "administered by" World Snooker Limited, which is 51% owned by Matchroom Sport Ltd. Source
    • I have zero idea. The current wording was suggested by someone else (I think Rodney Baggins.) This will be wording we use a lot, so probably worth coming up with a suitable wording for the relationships in these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Tournament summary:"Steve Davis referred to Yan as "naive" saying," - I think the comma should be a word earlier.
  • Optional: Tournament summary: paraphrase "flying start and get his tail up"?
  • Tournament summary: There is a duplicate link for "plant" but might be worth retaining this as it could be an unfamiliar term to many readers.
    • I'm happy to remove or keep. I have no worries either way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 11:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Tournament summary: The archived page for "Masters snooker 2021 – Yan Bingtao holds nerve to beat John Higgins 10–8 in gripping final" appears briefly for me but then blanks. I assume that "The odds were 50–1 against Yan winning the event" was the case before the tournament started - can the timing be added in?
  • Tournament summary: "Other players appreciated Yan's play." - if this is about the Davis and O'Sullivan comments following, it seems redundant. Davis, who is mentioned earlier, isn't an active professional tour player, and O'Sullivan is also mentioned earlier.
  • Tournament summary: Davis commented he was "impressed with his temperament" and his nerve" - stray quotation mark.
  • Tournament draw: "Numbers given show the players' seeding for the tournament."- add that it is the numbers to the left of the players' names, and the numbers in parentheses for the final.
  • Century breaks: source retrieval date has to be on or after 17 January to support the content, doesn't it?
  • Looks to me like the captions are all sentences rather than sentence fragments so should all have full stops, per WP:CAPFRAG. (Happy to be corrected on this.)
    • This is one of those "rules that are mostly not true" deals, at least for me. I almost never use fragments in captions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Caption: "making his debut at the event" - suggest slight reword as his actual debut match was against Robertson. Maybe something like "who made his debut Masters appearance at the event," ?
  • References: For Snooker Scene, "|magazine=Snooker Scene" rather than "|publisher=Snooker Scene"; location is Halesowen rather than Haloswen.
  • Hi Gog the Mild I'm happy that the article is a suitable length, with an appropriate range of sources, is well-structured, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and stable. I would like a view on the "subsidiary of" issue from others, and have a few more points, none fundamental. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 18:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Lead: slight tweaking needed for "organised the tournament and was broadcast by the"
  • Lead: "won the match 10–8 to win" - suggest changing either "won" or "win".
  • Overview: "Barry Hawkins, second reserve also" - I think either "second reserve Barry Hawkins also" or add a comma for "Barry Hawkins, second reserve, also"
  • Overview: (optional) "Initially, the Masters" to ""Initially, the 2021 Masters" as we were mentioning the 1975 event just a paragraph ago.
  • Overview: "organised the event sponsored for the first time by sports betting company" - maybe something like "organised the event which was sponsored for the first time by sports betting company" just to make it very clear that it was the tournament and not the WPBSA that was sponsored, which I believe is the statement being made.
  • First round - not sure about MOS - should it be "Gary Wilson" and "Kyren Wilson", or "Gary" and "Kyren"?
    • MOS:SAMESURNAME is the guideline, but I've read it a few times, and it seems to contradict itself. Anyone know for sure? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 18:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • First round: "David Gilbert had been drawn against the world number one, Judd Trump; however, he had been replaced by Joe Perry" - is "Trump had been replaced" better?
  • Final: "Higgins had not appeared in the final of the event since he last won the 2006 Masters." reads to me like he won the 2006 event more than once. Maybe something like "Higgins had not appeared in the final of the event since he last won the Masters in 2006."?
  • Final: "At age 20 years, 11 months" doesn't quite read right to me.
  • Century breaks: consider replacing one instance of "made" in "made during the tournament, the highest was a 145 made"
    • Hi BennyOnTheLoose, I have made the suggested changes, all seems like suitable wording changes. My only issue is the Gary/Kyren wording, which I read both ways, as in the MOS I linked says that you should use both "Gary" and "Gary Wilson". Happy to fix up if there is a suitable way to deal with this, but it's a bit more difficult as they aren't related. This would be great to know, as they also played at the World's article I'm working on now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 20:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your responses, Lee Vilenski. I'm happy to support. None of the other reviewers seem troubled by the "subsidiary" issue so I'm fine with that part being left as-is pending any new views. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 11:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Willbb234

As promised.

  • by sports betting company Betfred. " bookmaker" could be a more concise description.
    • Sure, but then it would read bookmaker Betfred, which I'd like to avoid. I think everyone would understand what a "betting company" is, but a bookmaker could be something like an accountant to those not in the know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The defending champion was Stuart Bingham, who defeated... to "The defending champion, Stuart Bingham, had defeated..." for flow.
    • I've made the change, although I'm not convinced it's an improvement. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You could mention that Barry Hawkins was the second reserve player as this is what I believe he was.
  • to host an audience since the 2020 World Snooker Championship. you could include a date or month for this event for perspective.
  • See first comment regarding the second mention of Betfred.
  • A breakdown is shown below: "is as follows" might be more appropriate wording.
  • The Masters began on 10 January 2021 we already know it's in 2021.
    • You'd be surprised - quite a few events take place in different years than their titles suggest! We do define this earlier, so I've removed from the summary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Gary Wilson, world ranking number 18, you previously say Hawkins was ranked 18th. Presumably the rankings changed in this time, or is this a mistake?
  • Remove the duplicate link to 'fluke'.
  • Steve Davis suggested Ding had "panicked", while the 1997 world champion, Ken Doherty here you give a mention about the achievements of Doherty, but not about Davis. Any reason for this?
  • on the 14 and 15 remove 'the'.
  • played between David Gilbert and Wilson why do you refer to Gilbert by his full name here?
  • Six-time champion Steve Davis see three comments above. This mention of his achievements should be moved upwards to his first mention. Also, why do you refer to him by his full name?
  • after a 47-minute ninth frame why is this length of time considered significant? You might want to clarify this.
    • I've added "lengthy". Almost an hour is quite a long frame. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Former world champion John Parrott described Higgins' performance as "spellbinding", whilst Stephen Hendry see five comments above for the same query.
  • Both semi-final matches were played on 16 January 2021 we already know it's in 2021.
  • contested between David Gilbert and John Higgins any reason why you refer to them by their full names?
  • I've noted a general trend where you refer to players by their full names if they weren't mentioned for a while. Just wondering whether this is something you deliberately do, which is absolutely fine, or whether this needs to be addressed?

Looks good. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 20:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • No problem. Willbb234, thanks for the review. You aren't wrong, it's mostly people putting links into the prose and me not catching they have first names as well. I have answered all of the above. I think the only thing I didn't implement is the "bookmaker" suggestion, which if you have alternate wording I'm sure we could deal with. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    • If you're happy with how it is, then I don't have anymore suggestions. I'll hold back on a support or oppose for the moment as I'd like to see what others have to say, especially regarding a source review. Kind regards, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 10:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Aside from the source review (pending), is there anything below that might cause a lack of support Willbb234? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 10:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
        • All comments look fine. I'll support as I don't expect the source review to reveal anything controversial. Kind regards, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 22:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

Forthcoming, reserving a spot here. Epicgenius ( talk) 00:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi mate, I know it's only been three days, just wanted to check this one hadn't slipped your mind. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 14:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski: Sorry about that. It did indeed slip my mind, since I recently had a midterm, but since I'm done with that now, I can take a look in a bit. Epicgenius ( talk) 14:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


  • Two players, world number one Judd Trump and Jack Lisowski, withdrew from the event after testing positive for COVID-19. - I think COVID-19 could be linked, at least for the future when that isn't as widely known.
Sure, but there is a link just above this for the pandemic in the UK. Happy to add, but I'd rather we linked it the other way around -> COVID-19 -> Pandemic. If we linked COVID below, it's almost as if we had already defined it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't see that. Whoops. Epicgenius ( talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (also referred to as the 2021 Betfred Masters for sponsorship purposes) ... The event was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred. - I suggest moving these closer to each other.
The top bit is WP:LEADALT, we could omit the "due to sponsorship", if you wanted but we should list official names in the lede. Having the sponsor higher in the lede would give it too much WP:WEIGHT in my opinion Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
You're right. I guess the current wording works in that case.
  • Yan completed a 10–8 victory to win his first Triple Crown tournament. - For some reason, it seems redundant to say "completed a ... victory".
The alternative is Yan won 10-8 to win... Which isn't better. "Completed a victory" is better wording, but if you have anything better let me know. I always assumed it was a WP:LIMITED dealio. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 08:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Alright. I'm going to leave this alone for now. I would consider something such as "Yan won his first Triple Crown tournament with a 10-8 victory". Epicgenius ( talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


  • However, the event was moved to the Marshall Arena in Milton Keynes, and played without spectators, to comply with stricter regulations against COVID-19 - Out of interest, how long before the actual event was it relocated?
  • As defending champion Bingham was seeded first,[15] with the next seven players in the world rankings seeded and allocated fixed positions in the draw, where they met the remaining eight participants who were drawn randomly.[16] - I think you can just remove "as", because otherwise, the sentence reads like a run-on.
Hm, I was clarifying that because he was defending champion, he was seeded first (which is how it works). It used to be that the world champion would be seeded second, and then the world rankings, but that changed a few years back (O'Sullivan is second in the world, seeded third but is the world champion). I have split this into two sentences to avoid run-on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs)
That works for me. Epicgenius ( talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • which was sponsored for the first time by sports betting company Betfred, who replaced previous sponsors Dafabet - this is definitely a run-on clause, but you can change the semicolon immediately before this (after "organised the event") to a comma.
No problem. Done. I'm not a punctuation wizard I'm afraid. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 09:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

First round

  • Two former winners Shaun Murphy and Mark Williams met in the fourth first round match. - It may be a case of ENGVAR, but I would hyphenate "first-round" and put commas right after "former winners" and "Mark Williams", just to be clear.
    • "First round" is kind of like the name of the round, but I've added the commas. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • while the 1997 world champion, Ken Doherty - Similarly, I would put a comma after this phrase.
  • Higgins lead 5–3, but Allen won the next two frames. - Here, I believe "lead" would be either present tense or plural present tense, but "led" is past tense and may be more appropriate here. Epicgenius ( talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


  • Murphy won the first two frames before Bingham won the next two with a break of 133 recovering from 0–58 points behind - Not a content issue but that is pretty impressive.
    • I don't think it should be, because those were seperate frames! I've reworded. winning 133-58 would be close to the highest scoring frame of all time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Ah OK, I thought it was in the same frame. I should've read the tables below, but alas, I did not. Epicgenius ( talk) 14:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yan Bingtao playing in his first Masters event - Should this be mentioned in the First round section? Or is it more relevant in this section?
    • Well, he wasn't the only debutant, him being 20 is quite important which is why I did it that way around. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • O'Sullivan won the opening frame with a break of 97, but Higgins responded with a 110 and 145—the highest of the tournament – to lead 3–1 - There is an unspaced m-dash (—) in the beginning and a spaced n-dash ( – ) in the end. It should be consistent.
  • whilst O'Sullivan backed Higgins to win the tournament after this performance - To me, it seems like "whilst" being repeated in consecutive sentences is somewhat awkward. Maybe an alternative like "though" would work
    • As is what I've used, as they are both saying how well Higgins played. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


  • No issues here.


  • Higgins had not appeared in the final of the event since he last won the Masters in 2006.[60] Yan Bingtao was appearing in his first Triple Crown final. - Would this be better as one sentence, or is it more appropriate keeping it as two sentences?
  • since O'Sullivan, twenty-six years earlier, in 1995, - If you write this as "since O'Sullivan in 1995, twenty-six years earlier," you can eliminate the first comma.

@ Lee Vilenski: That's it for prose. It looks pretty good to me, and it seems at the level of quality for an FA. On a related note, I was pretty surprised to hear Yan won the Masters at his age, on his debut. Epicgenius ( talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a BIG deal! He's unlike the other Chinese players, who are very attacking players, he's much more of a tactician. It looks more and more likely he'll be the first Chinese world champion, but he lost to Murphy at the worlds this year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, now I'm actually interested to see where his career path takes him, since Yan is only a little bit younger than me. I'm happy to support this nomination. I will note that I am claiming the above review for WikiCup points. Epicgenius ( talk) 14:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll make sure to keep you up to date. ;). He also won the World Cup (snooker) aged 15! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 11:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

  • You use WPBSA in the infobox and refs but it's not explained.
  • "event alongside" comma after event.
  • "been the first event" you mean in the UK snooker calendar I assume?
    • I mean snooker in general. I have put "first snooker event". I think this also includes all cue sports, but w/e Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 12:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "best-of-11 frames until the final" in a single session?
    • I always thought that should be implied. I think it's like cricket - you'd say it was a 5-day test match, or a 20Twenty game. Not much need to explain that it is a single session, I would just comment if it wasn't played all in one go. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 12:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Why not relink Eurosport in the main body?
  • "In all other territories" I would remove "all" because are you sure all other territories had access?
    • I do, technical restrictions notwithstanding, the ref says that, and Matchroom pretty much have said that for all tournaments where World Snooker doesn't have a deal, you can access the streams through matchroom. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 12:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "match, Eurosport pundit" ah, you relink it here. Do it first time round.
  • ""The match was of high quality" Wikipedia probably shouldn't say this, did anyone else?
  • "making a plant,[64]" overlinked.
  • Perhaps link "odds" for "The odds were 50–1".
  • Here's a pain for you: suggested (reasonably) today that scorelines should {{ nowrap}}. Fancy that?
    • Ooh. Erm.... I feel like that's a big one. To be discussed shall we say. I can't say I mind either way, but it'd be a bit of work to get all of the articles up to date (potentially across all of wikipedia). If it's ok, mind if I defer to this? I'll get something posted up soon. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs)
  • "twenty-six years" -> 26
  • Why are the century/half-century breaks in italics in the table?
    • I have an inkling it's because they are equal, but I can't say I've ever seen it discussed that is a thing. (Same with italics for matches in progress). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 12:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 9 has no website/work/publisher.
  • Clive Everton can be linked as a ref author.
  • If you're linking all publishers/websites first time round, do so consistently, e.g. Radio Times, Sporting Life etc.
  • Ref 32 has Eurosport non-italicised.
  • Ref 66 suddenly Eurosport UK?

That's all I have. Whoever did the GA review did a remarkable job... The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@ WP:FAC coordinators: - I've got a series of supports, but awaiting a source review. Any issues with opening a fresh nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 12:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but not until it passes a source review. Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Ceoil ( talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Seminal late 1980s Acid House nightclub in London that almost single-handedly introduced Chicago house and Detroit techno music to the UK mainstream, creating an explosion of interest in electronic music and repetitive beats that culminated in the Second Summer of Love and still reverberates in contemporary European dance music culture. Ceoil ( talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    Alts now added. Ceoil ( talk) 17:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Support: I have issued, now resolved, comments on the talk page. I'm satisfied that this article is comprehensive, well-written and well-sourced—although a separate source review is still absolutely necessary. DMT biscuit ( talk) 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for support, talk page suggestions, and copy edits. Ceoil ( talk) 17:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Placeholder by The Ultimate Boss

I'll be leaving some comments in a few hours after I get some sleep -_-. ShootForTheStars ( talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Ultimate Boss has said on my talk that unfortunately they will be taking an extended break from wiki matters (never a bad idea, esp with exams and that), so in other words, not at this time. Ceoil ( talk) 21:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

  • Three weeks in and only one general support. Just a heads up that if there is not a fair bit of further activity over the next three or four days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    User:Gog the Mild, as an update, Sandy has expressed further concerns re grammar and prose, but before issues below by TRM were addressed, while another top to bottom rewrite is underway. Apologies that this is happening so late, but a much better article is developing. Ceoil ( talk) 21:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Ceoil. I confess that some of this has me wondering if the article was actually ready for FAC when it was nominated, but as you seem to have addressed TRM's concerns - although we have yet to see how they view your changes and responses - it seems that this may be getting close to consensus to promote. Can I enquire as to what progress has been made to date in addressing Sandy's concerns? Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that, in the cold light of day, hat it was nominated too my bad and learnings. However Sandy has put quite "a lot" of effort into detailing specific and general areas for improvement, which were mostly addressed, and now we are down to tense, capitalisation and things like that. TRM has been sterling here, and most of his points were of the clearly actionable (change this to that type), so I considered them resolved. He reviwed about half the article, but on the back of his points have audited the rest. I realise I'm pushing my luck here, but if its ok, can we let TRM finish up (in a few days), and then I would be happy for Sandy to sign off. All this brings us to next Thursday, as I have a beast of a week ahead from tomorrow. 15:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


Commenting at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Shoom/archive1#SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, will be giving you the go ahead to revisit probably early next week. Ceoil ( talk) 21:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild I will revisit today or tomorrow ...have been busy in the garden. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Shoom/archive1#Revisit SG, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


Support. Everything seems to be in order. I have no problem supporting this for a FA. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 07:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Appreciate this considering all you have done here on electronic music...the article was started after admiring your work on " Acid Trax" last year. Ceoil ( talk) 08:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)



  • "sucessive nightclubs" first it's a typo but secondly I don't get it, do you just mean different?
  • Was it a one night per week kind of event?
  • Yes said later, but will clarify also in lead. Ceoil ( talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "between September 1987 and 1990" this is an odd span, is it September 1990 too?
  • Unfortunatly, after much searching, have not been able to find out when in 1990 it closed. Ceoil ( talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Now reclarified as "early 1990", but thats all I have. Ceoil ( talk) 18:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • One ref in the lead always seems very odd to me. That material should be in the main part of the article and indeed expanded upon and referenced there.
  • Removed Ceoil ( talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Surprised that Raw isn't notable enough for an article.
  • It is, and have red linked for now. Shoom was only created Nov 2020, and intend to also create something for The Trip and Spectrum shortly. Ceoil ( talk) 18:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • What is "door policy"?
  • Clarified as "entrance policy" Ceoil ( talk) 19:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "media "black-out" approach - isn't blackout just a standard English word?
  • "also taking" personally.
  • "viewing the club" as this was held at three clubs, shouldn't this be "event"?
  • Why is "Rave" capitalised?


  • "The much larger Amnesia nightclub..." largre than what?
  • Larger than Shoom. But fixed. Ceoil ( talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "DJ's" no need for apostrophe, consistency within the article seems to favour "DJs".
  • "at Alfredo Fiorito's open-air" open-air what?
  • "on return" their return.
  • I'm always amazed by the number of times I see a single subsection used, e.g. we have 1 Formation and 1.1 Early nights but no 1.2.... Would early nights not just stand in its own level 2 heading?
  • Merged...formation and early nights coving similar period/ground. Ceoil ( talk) 19:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "The club opened..." Reinforce "Shoom" here as it's been a while since we mentioned it.
  • "5 am" should use a non-breaking space per MOS.
  • "he did not view it as successful" which he? Several individuals have been mentioned preceding this.
  • clarified as Danny Ceoil ( talk) 19:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "played. [1][15][16] By" no space before refs.
  • "and House music" why suddenly capitalise house?
  • "where is was cool to be seen" it was and this isn't encyclopedic in tone, is it a quote? Wikipedia doesn't tell people where it was cool to be seen.
  • Clarified Ceoil ( talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "UK acid House" that capital H again. I don't really favour one way or the other but you need to be consistent.
  • "the queue grew" the queue to enter the club.
  • "to Thursday nights " you said the previous location opening night was Saturday, were subsequent nights Saturdays?
  • It was Saturdays until the first venue change. Then went to Thursdays at would attract less punters. Ceoil ( talk) 18:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I think "scenesters" is (a) not a real word and (b) if it is, it's informal and not encyclopedic in tone.
  • "so tried to minimise attention from the music and general press. So as to avoid mainstream notice" these are kind of saying the same thing...
  • Cut half this. Ceoil ( talk) 19:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (There's a "Jenny" later on which I guess should be Jenni?)
  • "showed up" a shade informal.

That's a start, more to come. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks TRM for the look and observations. Working through. Ceoil ( talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe all done to here. Again, going to this level of detail is very much appreciated. Ceoil ( talk) 21:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Sound. No rush - I'll go over again based to the type of thing raised above, so hopefully your list for the 2nd half wont be so long. Prob wont edit between Sunday and Thursday pm, so no pressure. Ceoil ( talk) 21:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 ( talk) 05:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Link National Institute on Drug Abuse in ref 2
  • Ref 68 seems to be in a different template
  • The Guardian should be italicized in Snaped
  • Are we sure "Positive Energy of Madness" is the publisher for Sedazzari?
  • You have "" here but have it lowercased in Notes; either is fine, of course, just needs to be one or the other
  • Should be The New York Times I believe
  • A minor quibble, a bit confused on your linking of publishers/works. I was guessing you're linking non-book sources in their first mention, but i-D is linked twice, as is mixmag.
  • Looks good from what I can see
  • Page number for ref 79 (Hook 2009)?
  • Done Ceoil ( talk) 09:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • page number for ref 18 (BrewsterBroughton 2014)?
  • Removed Ceoil ( talk) 09:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks v much Aza. All sorted, except the NYT is often here minus the "the", and I bought both Hook and Brewster & Broughton as an e-book; hence no page number. Not sure how linking to a kindle "area" works, though the format makes it none the less valid. ps Sedazzar now removed. Anyways, thanks again. Ceoil ( talk) 08:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Ceoil on specifying a section where you have no page number, see dementia with Lewy bodies#References and use of | loc = SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Also this is a change in citation style that is not required (and has introduced harv ref errors). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
ok, this has been fixed again. Ceoil ( talk) 11:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey Ceoil, we're still missing a page number for Hook 2009 and BrewsterBroughton 2014 (now refs 17 and 78)—a chapter would do too, I would think Aza24 ( talk) 04:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorted Aza in case you missed the above. Adding chapter nrs/sections for e-books is a new one for me...thanks for tips; Co-vid and its many weird impacts on ordinary life eh. Ceoil ( talk) 21:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Oops yes I don't know how I missed you comment now—but yeah, tis odd how Covid manages to sneak its way into everything—looks good now, pass for source review. Aza24 ( talk) 05:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Looking now...tweaking as I go.....queries below.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  • At the end of the first para you have In the club's first months, Danny and Jenni Rampling would greet each patron as they arrived, and say goodnight to them as they left., which has been mentioned in the preceding section - should be merged and placed in one spot or the other. Actually I'd probably move para 2 of Formation onto para 1 of early nights TBH.
  • done Ceoil ( talk) 17:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Does Rampling or anyone else recall how many turned up on the first night?
  • Around 100. Added Ceoil ( talk) 17:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Within months of opening, the queue grew from a few hundred into over a thousand, leading to a move in March 1988 to Thursday nights at Raw - should this be "attendance"?
  • Thinking about this. The thing is that only around third of them would have gotten in. Ceoil ( talk) 20:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That is a valid point....I should have remembered that from queuing all those years ago... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The club's popularity began when it was praised... - I'd probably say, "The club's popularity grew after it was praised..." (more natural and chronological)
Done Ceoil ( talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Shoom's interior design tended towards minimalism architecture, mirrored walls and smiley face logos - "minimalist"?
Done Ceoil ( talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I guess...what happened to the Ramplings did it change their lives?
    Good point - will add. Ceoil ( talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks okay otherwise. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I know that he became a rather boring internationally renowned mainstream DJ, while she went into private industry and became very successful as a formidable character. Hang on; searching through the sources to find about her. Ceoil ( talk) 02:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Done. Ceoil ( talk) 21:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this and for the edits Ceoil ( talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I guess you've found everything that could be found. A nice read :) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Cas for all the direct and suggested improvements. Re queuing not knowing if you would get in...remember it all to well. The trick was to look them in the eye and show no fear, which worked around..."some" of the time :) Ceoil ( talk) 23:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Fort Concho

Nominator(s): ♠Vami _IV†♠ 01:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This article, Fort Concho, is a former US Army installation located almost literally in the middle of Texas. It is in fact the best-preserved 19th century US Army installation anywhere in the country, let alone Texas. For that reason, it has the distinction of being a National Historic Landmark. Just as with my previous FA, this is the labor of two years, which I hope to just need one FAC for this time. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 01:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Fort Concho/archive1 SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Was gonna comment this at the PR, but you closed. There's pretty heavy reliance on Matthews and the NPS. Have you drawn on sources like [18],