stringtranslate.com

Wikipedia:Candidatos a artículo destacado

¿La página es demasiado larga y difícil de manejar? Prueba a añadir un visualizador de nominaciones a tu página de guiones .


  • Página de inicio:FACGO


Nominaciones

Libelos de Littlehampton

Nominadores: SchroCat ( discusión ) 17:52, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Los libelos de Littlehampton son una de esas notas a pie de página de notas a pie de página de la historia. Se enviaron algunas cartas levemente insultantes por una pequeña ciudad, y dieron lugar a cuatro juicios y dos apelaciones, e involucraron al Director de la Fiscalía, al Asesor Jurídico del Tesoro, a un detective de alto rango de Scotland Yard y al Presidente del Tribunal Supremo. La culpable, Edith Swan, engañó a tres jurados y dos jueces, hizo que otra mujer fuera enviada a prisión dos veces y fue declarada inocente antes de ser finalmente condenada. Y luego Olivia Coleman la interpretó en una película. Este es un artículo nuevo y espero cualquier comentario constructivo. Saludos – SchroCat ( discusión ) 17:52, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Universidad de California

Guardando un espacio por ahora. UndercoverClassicist T · C 19:18, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Soporte de Crisco 1492

Revisión de imágenes

Apoyo de Tim Riley

Revisé el borrador hace un rato (en la página de discusión del artículo) y mis pocas objeciones fueron resueltas satisfactoriamente. Al volver a leerlo, encuentro que el texto es claro y muy legible, el tono neutral y equilibrado, y las fuentes son amplias y aparentemente sólidas: hay, es cierto, cincuenta citas de la fuente principal, pero se equilibran con múltiples citas de otras cuatro fuentes importantes. También lo has hecho sorprendentemente bien con las ilustraciones. En mi opinión, cumple con todos los criterios de la FA y me complace agregar mi apoyo . – Tim riley talk 14:41, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Gracias Tim . Tu ayuda en el proceso fue muy apreciada, como siempre. Saludos - SchroCat ( discusión ) 14:45 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Huracán Dennis

Nominador(es): ♫ Hurricanehink ( discusión ) 21:28 15 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Este artículo trata sobre el huracán Dennis , el primer huracán importante que azotó los Estados Unidos durante la agitada temporada de huracanes del Atlántico de 2005 (sería uno de los cuatro). Dennis solía ser un artículo destacado entre 2006 y 2010. A lo largo de los años, Juliancolton  ( discusión  · contribuciones ) creó una serie de subartículos para Dennis relacionados con los Estados Unidos, y el artículo estuvo cerca de convertirse en un tema destacado, solo que el artículo principal era extremadamente corto (para un artículo sobre tormentas retirado). Entonces, después de la fusión de los subartículos, más el contenido adicional y la edición, ahora siento que el artículo es uno de los relatos más completos del huracán. Espero poder abordar cualquiera de sus inquietudes, si surgen. ♫ Hurricanehink ( discusión ) 21:28, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Revisión de imágenes

Gracias por la revisión de la imagen, Nikkimaria  ( discusión  · contribuciones ). Zzzs  ( discusión  · contribuciones ) ayudó a corregir los dos primeros puntos. En cuanto al tercero, no estoy seguro de haber entendido bien. La página de la trayectoria de Dennis 205 tiene la información estándar que aparece en todos los mapas de trayectorias de ciclones tropicales, como el hecho de que es de dominio público, lo que significan los símbolos y cuándo se hizo. Compárelo con los mapas de trayectorias de otros artículos destacados sobre huracanes aquí y aquí. ♫ Hurricanehink ( discusión ) 15:48 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
También arreglé ese, para que lo sepas. El código estaba dañado por el formato de información de archivo estándar. Eso es todo lo que voy a hacer por esta nominación. Z Z Z 'S 16:20, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oh, gracias por arreglar eso también. ♫ Hurricanehink ( discusión ) 16:40 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

John Wick (película)

Nominador(es): Darkwarriorblake ( discusión ) 12:17 15 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Este artículo trata sobre la película de acción de 2014 John Wick , o John Vick como algunos de los gánsteres rusos pueden decirlo. Esta ha tenido dos nominaciones anteriores: la primera tuvo algunas buenas respuestas y mejoras agregadas/sugeridas por TheJoebro64 , Piotrus , Pamzeis , TompaDompa, zmbro y The Corvette ZR1 , aunque la segunda lamentablemente fracasó debido a una falta general de respuestas. Desde la primera nominación en 2023, se han publicado nuevos libros que me han permitido reforzar significativamente la sección de Análisis temático, que fue una crítica común ya que había luchado por identificar fuentes que discutieran específicamente la primera vez, ya que estaban más enfocadas en evoluciones en sus secuelas, particularmente la tradición en torno a la Mesa Alta y el inframundo que solo se toca brevemente en John Wick . También es el décimo aniversario de la película este año, por lo que sería bueno llevarla al estado de FA antes de fin de año si es posible. Sus comentarios son muy apreciados, gracias. Darkwarriorblake ( discusión ) 12:17 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Apoyo Al leer esto, el artículo es sólido. Los únicos puntos (menores) que mejoraría serían invertir las subsecciones de escritura y desarrollo, ya que las encuentro un poco confusas. Las "Evaluaciones retrospectivas", si bien son breves, están bien, pero dejaré que otros ofrezcan sus opiniones. Como te costó encontrar buenas fuentes, busqué y encontré un par con información (menor) relacionada con esta película. Puedes agregarlas o no.
  • “En breve”. Film Comment, vol. 51, núm. 4, 2015, págs. 79–79. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43577930. Consultado el 15 de octubre de 2024.
  • SWEENEY, R. EMMET. “Muscle Memory”. Film Comment, vol. 54, núm. 1, 2018, págs. 16-17. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44991186. Consultado el 15 de octubre de 2024.
Paleface Jack ( discusión ) 18:41 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias por eso, Paleface Jack. Revisé las referencias que proporcionaste, pero parecen estar más relacionadas con la compañía de especialistas y una de sus especialistas, respectivamente. Darkwarriorblake ( discusión ) 21:15 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso pensé. Valía la pena echarle un vistazo. Paleface Jack ( discusión ) 00:44 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo siento, olvidé responder a tu comentario sobre las subsecciones de Desarrollo y Escritura. Normalmente, en las películas esto sería al revés, pero en este caso la sección de desarrollo no puede suceder sin la sección de escritura, ya que toda la escritura se realizó primero como un guion independiente en lugar de como parte de un proyecto planificado. Darkwarriorblake ( discusión ) 20:41 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soporte . Parece que ha mejorado con respecto al año pasado, y en aquel entonces era bastante bueno. Bien hecho. -- Piotr Konieczny, también conocido como Prokonsul Piotrus | responder aquí 00:48, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo Nunca tuve ningún problema con el artículo para empezar: DWB escribe algunos de los mejores artículos sobre WP. Pero estoy de acuerdo en que la sección de análisis en particular se ve mejor esta vez. Mi única crítica sería que la imagen de Ian McShane en recepción (a partir de esta revisión), no parece relevante para la sección en sí (en comparación con la imagen de Lance Reddick en el análisis). Recomendaría hacer que el título de McShane sea más relevante para la sección o eliminarlo. Aparte de eso, estoy de acuerdo. – zmbro ( discusión ) ( cont ) 15:12, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias Zmbro, arreglé el título, la imagen estaba allí porque algunos críticos lo habían señalado, pero yo también sentí que el título la hacía parecer una adición débil. Darkwarriorblake ( discusión ) 20:41 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Batalla del puente Big Black River

Nominador(es): Hog Farm Talk 19:03, 13 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Después de Raymond, Grand Gulf y Lake Providence, llega el siguiente artículo de mi serie sobre Vicksburg. La división de Loring del ejército confederado de Pemberton había quedado aislada tras la desastrosa batalla de Champion Hill. Pemberton, que no sabía que Loring no había podido reunirse con él, defendió el cruce del río Big Black con la división de élite pero diezmada de John Bowen y la brigada de reclutas inexpertos de dudosa lealtad de John Vaughn. Los hombres de Michael Lawler utilizaron un canal seco del río para acercarse a las líneas confederadas y, cuando los hombres de Lawler cargan, atacan la parte de la línea que defendían los reclutas de Vaughn. Los hombres de Vaughn no ofrecen mucha resistencia, las tropas de Bowen en los flancos se ven obligadas a retirarse para evitar quedar aisladas del cruce del río y la línea confederada entera tarda unos tres minutos en derrumbarse. Más de 1.700 confederados son capturados y los confederados pierden su artillería porque los equipos de caballos necesarios para mover los cañones se quedaron en el lado equivocado del río. Pemberton se retira a la campaña de Vicksburg y se rinde aproximadamente un mes y medio después. Hog Farm Talk 19:03, 13 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Revisión de imágenes

Matarísvan

Hola Hog Farm , mis comentarios:

Eso es todo por mi parte. Saludos Matarisvan ( discusión ) 07:56 14 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@ Matarisvan : - ¡Gracias por la reseña! Tengo una pregunta arriba. Hog Farm Talk 18:56, 14 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Universidad de California

Una pequeña protesta por el uso de hombres como equivalente de tropas , soldados , fuerzas , etc. Sabemos que al menos una pequeña, pero muy real, porción de las fuerzas combatientes no estaban cubiertas por esa etiqueta, antes incluso de empezar a pensar en las que no hemos podido detectar. Según MOS:GNL , se debe utilizar un lenguaje neutro en cuanto al género cuando hacerlo no sacrifique la precisión, y creo que aquí hay suficientes buenos sinónimos como para que se aplique la directriz. UndercoverClassicist T · C 09:48, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Algunos más:

Próximamente habrá más novedades. UndercoverClassicist T · C 19:36, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eso es todo por ahora: en su mayoría, críticas quisquillosas, como siempre, pero espero que algunas sean útiles. UndercoverClassicist T · C 08:41, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ferrari FF

Nominador(es): 750 h+ 02:19, 12 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Este artículo trata sobre una impresionante camioneta familiar construida por el destacado fabricante de automóviles italiano Ferrari . Recientemente, este artículo fue objeto de una buena revisión por parte de Arconning, por lo que estoy muy agradecido. Con 1300 palabras, es el segundo artículo más corto que he publicado aquí, después del Lagonda Taraf . Gracias por todas las revisiones recibidas, y serán respondidas de manera oportuna. Saludos, 750 h+ 02:19, 12 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Revisión de imagen - aprobado

Hola 750h+ , me complace hacer la revisión de imágenes. El artículo contiene las siguientes imágenes:

Las tres primeras son obras propias publicadas bajo CC BY-SA 3.0, la última es de Flickr publicada bajo CC BY 2.0. Todas las imágenes son relevantes para el artículo y están ubicadas en los lugares apropiados. Todas tienen textos alternativos y las imágenes en el cuerpo del artículo tienen subtítulos. Creo que el subtítulo "2013_Ferrari_FF,_Blu_TdF,_rear_left.jpg" debería nombrar el modelo para evitar confusiones, ya que también tenemos imágenes de otros modelos. Por lo demás, no he detectado ningún problema. Phlsph7 ( discusión ) 09:04 12 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Listo, gracias por la reseña Phlsph! 750 h+ 09:14, 12 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Se ve bien. Phlsph7 ( discusión ) 11:43 12 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Luna (canción de Feid y ATL Jacob)

Nominador(es): Santi ( discusión ) 01:52, 12 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

"Luna" es la canción más exitosa del cantautor colombiano emergente Feid hasta el momento. La canción se volvió viral en América Latina a través de TikTok (sí, es una de las muchas canciones afectadas por las redes sociales) pocas semanas después del lanzamiento de su álbum, Ferxxocalipsis . También se interpretó en la ceremonia de apertura de la Copa América 2024 , pero hubo demasiados problemas técnicos en la señal. Se iba a grabar un remix con el Rey del Reggaetón, Don Omar , pero Feid no se dio cuenta de que en la fecha de la invitación Omar estaba atravesando una enfermedad cancerosa, por lo que no fue posible hacerlo. Finalmente, es una de las canciones latinas actuales presentes en el chart de AFP en Portugal; alcanzó el puesto 35; esto también muestra su impacto en algunas partes del mundo a través de ser elevado por los latinos. Después de la reestructuración y más información obtenida, creo que esto podría ser un FAC ahora. Santi ( discusión ) 01:52 12 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Zorro corazón

Las referencias se beneficiarían de parámetros trans-title. Heartfox ( discusión ) 02:55 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

@Heartfox : Listo . Muchas gracias. Santi ( discusión ) 03:57 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

María Stromberger

Nominador(es): El extraterrestre grande y feo ( discusión ) 01:17 12 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Maria Stromberger fue a Auschwitz por decisión propia. Era enfermera y había oído hablar de los horrores que se producían en el campo. Recibió un trabajo como enfermera jefe para poder verlo con sus propios ojos. Era mucho peor de lo que temía. Stromberger hizo lo que pudo para ayudar a los que estaban allí, arriesgando su vida para robarles comida y medicinas.

Cuando el movimiento de resistencia clandestino se puso en contacto con ella, se volvió aún más audaz. Stromberger introdujo de contrabando información y suministros en el campo, entregó algunas de las primeras pruebas del Holocausto en el mundo exterior e incluso adquirió armas para utilizarlas en un posible levantamiento. Cuando terminó la guerra y Stromberger regresó a casa, fue arrestada junto con otros empleados de Auschwitz. Esto provocó indignación en Polonia, lo que llevó a su liberación. Regresó para testificar contra Rudolf Höss en 1947, pero por lo demás vivió el resto de sus años tranquilamente en Austria.

Un agradecimiento especial a Per exemplum por una útil revisión de GA, a BorgQueen por su ayuda para encontrar fuentes y a Toadspike por ayudarnos con algunas de las fuentes en alemán. El gran alienígena feo ( discusión ) 01:17 12 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Llewee

Primeros años de vida

Carrera de enfermería

Me detendré aquí por ahora, haré el resto del artículo mañana. Llewee ( discusión ) 22:30 12 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Lo dejaré aquí por ahora. Llewee ( discusión ) 20:20 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Llewee , ya he respondido a todo hasta ahora. El extraterrestre feo y grande ( discusión ) 02:24 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola Thebiguglyalien , preferiría que se aborden las inquietudes sobre el abastecimiento antes de continuar con esto. Quizás envíe un mensaje cuando se hayan abordado las inquietudes de Buldhe. -- Llewee ( discusión ) 13:01 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Oposición de Buidhe

Sencillamente no puedo apoyar un artículo sobre un tema como este que se basa casi exclusivamente en una sola fuente de un historiador no destacado. Aunque no he investigado en profundidad al autor o al editor, la cantidad de exageraciones, conceptos erróneos y engaños descarados relacionados con el Holocausto requiere un estándar más alto de fuentes, a menos que, como mínimo, haya evidencia de que otros historiadores han examinado el libro y respaldado su precisión (en revistas académicas, no en artículos de periódicos, que carecen de experiencia en el tema). ( t · c ) buidhe 05:12, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¡Hola Buidhe ! Pensé un poco en la fuente y lo mencioné brevemente en la página de discusión de FAC . Luego hice pequeñas modificaciones para que algunas secciones dependieran menos de ella antes de nominar.
Estoy seguro de que Harald Walser es un experto en la materia. En 1982, escribió su tesis doctoral, "Die Hintermänner. Vorarlberger Industrielle und die NSDAP 1933-1934", sobre las primeras actividades nazis. Lo amplió hasta convertirlo en un libro, "Die ilegale NSDAP in Tirol und Vorarlberg 1933-1938", al año siguiente en Europa Verlag. En 1985, contribuyó a Von Herren und Menschen: Verfolgung und Widerstand in Vorarlberg 1933-1945 , publicado por Fink's Verlag (ahora parte de Brill Publishers ), con los artículos "Anpassung und Widerstand: Vorarlbergs Kirche im NS-Staat" y "Die Zeugen Jehová". Publicó su primer artículo sobre Maria Stromberger, "'Der Engel von Auschwitz' – Zum Wirken der Krankenschwester Maria Stromberger" en Montfort en 1988. También escribió o coescribió varios libros y artículos a través de la Sociedad de Autores de Vorarlberger en los años 80 y En los años 90, con la Sociedad Histórica de Vorarlberg, que cofundó. Su producción disminuyó en los años 2000, cuando se convirtió en director de escuela y miembro de la legislatura nacional, pero ha vuelto a escribir desde que se retiró de la política. En algún momento, podría escribir su Artículo enwiki junto con algunos otros enlaces rojos en este artículo.
¿Qué partes del artículo te preocupan en cuanto a exageraciones, conceptos erróneos y engaños? La mayor parte del contenido relacionado con el Holocausto trata sobre sus propias interacciones y pensamientos personales, así que tengo curiosidad por saber en qué punto cruza ese umbral. Cuando existan esos casos, estoy dispuesto a desviarme de una de mis reglas personales sobre las fuentes para hacer una doble referencia de algunos de ellos con fuentes académicas no relacionadas con Stromberger, si eso es lo que crees que es necesario. The big feal alien ( discusión ) 18:44 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
En la medida en que el artículo trata sobre sus propias interacciones y pensamientos personales, basados ​​en una única fuente escrita a partir de documentos personales, me inclino a pensar que es INEXACTO. En la medida en que se trata de hechos que podrían verificarse de forma independiente (aparte de una cantidad limitada de información básica que es genuinamente indiscutible), esperaría que otra fuente lo respalde. ( t · c ) buidhe 19:51, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es una biografía. Si una biografía completa sobre una persona no es apropiada como fuente más destacada para su artículo, entonces honestamente no sé qué lo es. El gran alienígena feo ( discusión ) 20:11 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
La mayoría de las biografías de Wikipedia tratan sobre los logros de la persona, no sobre sus pensamientos o sentimientos. No creo que sea ilógico esperar una confirmación independiente cuando las afirmaciones realizadas son sustancialmente controvertidas y, a veces, rayan en wp:redflag. ( t · c ) buidhe 21:09, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Está bien, no tengo ningún problema con eso. ¿Qué tipo de cambios estás recomendando? ¿Qué WP:REDFLAGs detectaste cuando leíste el artículo? The big flawed alien ( discusión ) 23:33 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Claro, cualquier afirmación sobre la participación en actividades de resistencia. Esto parece especialmente propenso a la exageración. Si Wikipedia hubiera existido en 1980, odiaría que hubiéramos ascendido a Raoul Wallenberg a FA mientras afirmaba que rescató a 100.000 personas, lo que resultó ser incorrecto. Hay algunos errores en el artículo: incluida la limpieza étnica del pueblo judío (¿es limpieza étnica la palabra utilizada en la fuente? El Holocausto no se considera generalmente un ejemplo de limpieza étnica, además de que es bastante eufemístico en este caso). Algunas de las personas con las que su artículo dice que trabajó publicaron sus propios libros (por ejemplo, Langbein), así que si las afirmaciones son ciertas, debería poder encontrar apoyo para ellas en otros lugares. ( t · c ) buidhe 00:58, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Estás diciendo que debería buscar y utilizar más fuentes primarias escritas por los propios miembros de la resistencia? Tengo las de Langbein en el artículo, por supuesto, pero definitivamente puedo consultar los escritos de los demás (con suerte, Internet Archive volverá a estar en línea en los próximos días como dijeron que lo haría, pero imagino que puedo encontrar una buena cantidad de ellos en otros lugares). El gran alienígena feo ( discusión ) 02:07 17 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que el libro de Langbein está bien para respaldar otras fuentes, pero esperaría que hubiera fuentes secundarias sobre el movimiento de resistencia en general que deberían mencionar a Stromberger si ella fue importante para él. ( t · c ) buidhe 03:14, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Anactoria

Nominador(es): UndercoverClassicist T · C 18:38, 10 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Este artículo trata de una figura mencionada en la poesía de Safo , aunque no está claro exactamente con qué frecuencia, quién era e incluso si existió. Anactoria surge de las páginas fragmentarias de Safo sin casi ningún detalle biográfico, lo que por supuesto no ha impedido que los estudiosos, desde la antigüedad hasta el presente, se dediquen a conjeturas audaces y especulaciones escandalosas sobre quién podría haber sido. Luego tiene un Nachleben interesante (sincero) en poesía romana y en inglés, donde proporcionó un trampolín para la "francamente pornográfica" "Anactoria" de Swinburne , y para que Robert Lowell llenara muchos de los vacíos que dejó el relato de Safo sobre ella. El artículo se sometió a una buena revisión de artículo de Simongraham en abril, y recientemente recibió comentarios previos a la FAC extremadamente útiles de Caeciliusinhorto . Los inevitables errores e infortunios siguen siendo míos. UndercoverClassicist T · C 18:38 10 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Revisión de imágenes

El autor murió en 1918 (según Wikipedia y algunos otros) o en 1903 (según Sotheby's y algunos otros); exhibido por primera vez en la Exposición de Verano de la Royal Academy (que es gratuita y pública) en 1896, según Sotheby's UndercoverClassicist T · C 06:37, 11 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

apoyo de caeciliusinhorto

Es agradable ver otro artículo relacionado con Safo en FAC (¡algún día terminaré con Safo , lo juro!). Me quedan algunos comentarios textuales, aunque ya has aclarado mis críticas sobre Safo...

Caeciliusinhorto-public ( discusión ) 11:29 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

No tengo mucho más que decir excepto ofrecer mi apoyo. He comprobado un par de fuentes que tenía a mano y todo parecía estar bien; la parte de literatura antigua de este artículo es ciertamente bastante completa y, aunque no estoy tan seguro de proclamar con certeza las recepciones posclásicas, no falta nada de lo que esperaba ver. Caeciliusinhorto ( discusión ) 11:15 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Gracias por esto y por tu consejo de antemano. ¡Espero ver a Sappho (seguramente una futura FA si alguna vez hubo alguna) aquí a su debido tiempo! UndercoverClassicist T · C 13:37, 13 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Apoyo de Tim Riley

No tengo mucho que decir. Mis pocos comentarios se refieren más a la prosa que al contenido (los adolescentes de los años 60 no conocían los versos de Safo en sus clases de griego).

Eso es todo lo que encuentro que objetar. Sería una exageración elogiar la prosa concisa y legible o la admirablemente amplia variedad de fuentes (ningún libro se cita más de tres veces). No esperamos menos de este editor. Tim riley talk 15:05, 12 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mmm. Lo miraré de nuevo mañana. No voy a oponerme ni negar mi apoyo a ninguno de los puntos anteriores, pero mientras tanto no descarto una pelea encarnizada antes de firmar en la línea de puntos. Tim riley talk 17:58, 12 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mis comentarios finales, arriba, no son de tanta gravedad como para impedirme apoyar la elevación de este artículo a FA. Las fuentes parecen admirables para mi ojo de profano, el texto es claro y un placer de leer, y estoy seguro de que no ha tenido otra alternativa que las espantosas pinturas victorianas, que son innegablemente relevantes. En mi opinión, cumple con todos los criterios de FA. Tim riley talk 09:55, 13 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias, Tim. Como siempre, eres sabio y te hace reflexionar. Seguiré pensando en los puntos que has planteado anteriormente: espero que se presenten mejores soluciones. UndercoverClassicist T · C 13:36, 13 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Jens

Gracias como siempre, Jens. Respuestas anteriores. UndercoverClassicist T · C 20:12, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Matarísvan

Hola UndercoverClassicist , mis comentarios:

También podría hacer la revisión de la fuente si fuera necesario. Eso es todo por mi parte, saludos Matarisvan ( discusión ) 11:07, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Temporada 2003-04 del Gillingham FC

Nominador(es): ChrisTheDude ( discusión ) 19:59 9 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

¡Hola! ¿Leíste y disfrutaste mi última nominación de la FAC, sobre cuando el Gillingham FC logró su mejor resultado en la historia del fútbol inglés ? Bueno, lee esta y ¡verás cómo las cosas empezaron a desmoronarse casi de inmediato! Esta lo tiene todo: multitudes que salen a las calles para protestar por el color de las camisetas de los jugadores, el equipo pasando por encima de los porteros como si fueran a pasar de moda, el entrenador expulsado por el árbitro y (casi seguro solo para demostrar algo) entrando inmediatamente al juego como jugador, un portero que sufre una lesión que pone fin a su carrera después de chocar con el portero del otro equipo, ¡y un corredor desnudo! Como siempre, los comentarios serán recibidos con mucho agradecimiento y se actuará con rapidez. -- ChrisTheDude ( discusión ) 19:59, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentarios de Eem dik doun in toene

@ Eem dik doun in toene : - ¡Gracias por tu reseña, todo resuelto! -- ChrisTheDude ( discusión ) 15:22 12 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Monumento conmemorativo de la guerra de Busbridge

Nominador(es): Harry Mitchell ( discusión ) 15:05 8 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Este es otro monumento conmemorativo de guerra de Lutyens. Probablemente el último de sus monumentos en Inglaterra que tiene suficiente cobertura para un FA, pero luego pensé lo mismo sobre el cenotafio y ¡me las arreglé para traer otros dos a través del FAC desde entonces! Este está en un pequeño pueblo en lo que (a principios del siglo XX) era una zona rural de Surrey, al suroeste de Londres, pero cuenta una historia interesante. Lutyens se convirtió en un arquitecto de renombre nacional, responsable de una serie de edificios famosos, pero su carrera comenzó en Busbridge cuando tenía unos 20 años y el pueblo contiene varias de sus obras. De hecho, fue aquí donde escuchó por primera vez el término "cenotafio", un término que vinculó indeleblemente con los monumentos conmemorativos de guerra, por lo que era apropiado que diseñara el monumento conmemorativo de guerra del pueblo.

Creé el artículo en 2016, pero siempre sentí que había más que decir. Un viaje reciente a Busbridge me inspiró a ver si podía "terminarlo". Estoy en deuda con @ Carcharoth , KJP1 y SchroCat por su ayuda y consejos , incluida la búsqueda de algunas fuentes difíciles de encontrar. No es un artículo largo, pero creo que cuenta la historia de manera integral. HJ Mitchell | ¿Un centavo por tus comentarios? 15:05, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Revisión de imágenes

@ Nikkimaria ¡gracias! Un descuido por mi parte. Ahora añadí las otras dos imágenes. HJ Mitchell | ¿Me das tu opinión? 11:50, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentarios de Steelkamp

Esos son todos los comentarios que tengo. Steelkamp ( discusión ) 10:14 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

alta frecuencia

Buen trabajo, espero que me apoyen. Hog Farm Talk 01:25, 11 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentarios de Tim Riley

Excelente artículo. Algunos pequeños detalles:

Eso es todo por mi parte. Espero que al menos algunos de estos comentarios sean de utilidad. Tim riley talk 13:44, 13 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentarios de Carcharoth

Sólo algunos comentarios:

Ese último punto fue un poco tangencial, pero lo menciono en caso de que haya algo útil en una fuente adecuada (me parece que los criterios de inclusión fueron bastante amplios aquí, pero dudo que alguien haya escrito sobre eso; no está del todo claro si era un monumento de guerra parroquial o un monumento de guerra "local" definido de manera más amplia para aquellos con conexiones con el área, o simplemente familiares en el área). Carcharoth ( discusión ) 05:28, 16 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Factor de necrosis tumoral

Nominador(es): AdeptLearner123 ( discusión ) 05:40 8 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Este artículo trata sobre un mensajero químico que media en el sistema inmunológico y es un factor clave en varias enfermedades autoinflamatorias. Este artículo pasó la prueba GAR hace unos días, por lo que ahora lo estoy nominando para que tenga el estatus FA.

AdeptLearner123 ( discusión ) 05:40 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Revisión de imágenes

Listo, me gustaría saber si las imágenes deberían ampliarse más y si las referencias son válidas. AdeptLearner123 ( discusión ) 19:26 12 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Ajpolino

Hola AdeptLearner123, bienvenido a FAC. Me alegra ver que estás interesado en seguir mejorando este artículo. Seguiré leyendo el artículo e intentaré resumir los comentarios a continuación. En este momento, creo que el artículo necesita bastante trabajo para cumplir con los criterios de FA , que son un estándar más alto que los criterios de GA. Desafortunadamente, no recibimos muchos FAC de biología molecular; de hecho, no recuerdo ninguno en los varios años que he tenido un ojo vago en FAC (aunque alguien limpió PfEMP1 para WikiJournal of Medicine en 2017, así que tal vez ese sea un modelo decente para considerar). Todavía estoy revisando el artículo y, por supuesto, eres más que bienvenido a ignorarme, pero mi sugerencia sería retirar la nominación y comenzar una revisión de pares de WP para intentar solicitar más comentarios sobre cómo mejorar el artículo para el estándar de FA. Al mismo tiempo, estar atento al proceso de FAC y participar en él te ayudará a avanzar en el proceso tú mismo. Muy bien, los comentarios que aparecen a continuación, separados por criterio de FA. Todos son sugerencias, más que exigencias.

1c. Bien investigado: fuentes confiables y de alta calidad.

1a. Bien escrito, "La prosa es atractiva..."

Continuando, ¡sólo tengo que alejarme de la computadora por un momento! Mantente atento. Ajpolino ( discusión ) 20:44, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) Voy a parar aquí por ahora y ceñirme a mi recomendación anterior. Si estás interesado en seguir mejorando este artículo para el estándar de FA (¡lo cual recomiendo! ¡Es gratificante!) y te gustaría recibir más comentarios, házmelo saber y estaré encantado de ayudarte. Todo lo mejor, Ajpolino ( discusión ) 19:47, 11 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¡Gracias por los comentarios tan completos! He reescrito la sección de historia utilizando fuentes secundarias, que omiten detalles experimentales. Noté que el artículo al que se hace referencia, Plasmodium_falciparum_erythrocyte_membrane_protein_1 , cita fuentes primarias e incluye detalles experimentales en su sección Discovery. Como tal, estoy confundido sobre cuál es el alcance adecuado de una sección de historia de proteínas. ¡Cualquier orientación al respecto será apreciada! AdeptLearner123 ( discusión ) 01:33, 13 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
He revisado las secciones de genes y proteínas. Avísenme cómo se ven ahora y si hay algo más que deba cambiarse. También me pregunto si la sección de funciones contiene demasiados detalles sobre la señalización celular que deberían trasladarse a las páginas de TNFR1/TNFR2. AdeptLearner123 ( discusión ) 07:35 13 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Plaza Austin J. Tobin

Nominador(es): Sir MemeGod  15:02, 7 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Este artículo trata sobre una plaza que estaba ubicada en el sitio del World Trade Center en el Bajo Manhattan, Ciudad de Nueva York, hasta su (desafortunada) destrucción el 11 de septiembre de 2001. Tenía varias esculturas famosas que estaban ubicadas en ella y se convirtió en una ruta de evacuación durante el ataque terrorista más letal en la historia del mundo moderno. Yo (con el co-nominador honorario Epicgenius, debo admitir que no habría sido aprobado sin su extraordinaria ayuda) logré que el artículo alcanzara el estado de GA hace unos días, y voy a intentar obtener el estado de FA. Esta es mi primera nominación, así que pido disculpas si me equivoco en algo. :) Señor MemeGod  15:02 7 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Revisión de imágenes

@ Nikkimaria : Se han abordado los problemas. :) Señor MemeGod  12:40 9 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

1 Wall Street

Nominador(es): Epicgenius ( discusión ) 14:23 7 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Este artículo trata sobre otro edificio de Wall Street en la ciudad de Nueva York. Esta vez, se trata de un rascacielos de oficinas que se construyó entre 1929 y 1931 como sede de un banco antes de convertirse en un edificio residencial. El edificio tiene algunas características arquitectónicas notables, como una fachada de piedra caliza en forma de cortina, una sala roja poligonal con relucientes mosaicos y (originalmente) un salón ejecutivo con un techo de triple altura. Incluso el sitio, al pie de Wall Street, alguna vez fue considerado uno de los sitios más valiosos del mundo. La estructura puede no ser el edificio más alto de la zona, o incluso de la calle, pero al menos en mi opinión, es una de las obras maestras del Art Decó menos conocidas de la ciudad de Nueva York.

Esta página se convirtió en un buen artículo hace cuatro años después de una revisión de GAN por parte de SurenGrig07 y Hog Farm, por la que estoy muy agradecido. Después de algunas correcciones de estilo más recientes, creo que la página está a la altura de la calidad de FA. Espero con interés todos los comentarios y opiniones. Epicgenius ( discusión ) 14:23 7 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Juego de cambio

Nominador(es): Iago Qnsi ( discusión ) 18:22, 6 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Este artículo trata sobre un partido de baloncesto histórico que se jugó en 1963 y marcó la primera vez que un equipo importante de Mississippi se enfrentó a un equipo con jugadores negros. El artículo actual no es muy diferente de la versión que se aprobó en 2020, pero después de hablar con algunas personas amables de WCNA , decidí buscar mi primer FA mientras estaba sentado aquí en el auditorio esperando la sesión informativa. Muchas gracias a todos los que se toman el tiempo de leer esto y brindar comentarios. Iago Qnsi ( discusión ) 18:22, 6 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentarios

Dirigible

Una pregunta rápida para empezar: ¿por qué una gran parte del artículo se basa en fuentes de periódicos contemporáneos y no en libros de aspecto útil consignados en la sección "Lecturas adicionales"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( discusión ) 13:09 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Suelo preferir citar una fuente que sea más accesible para los lectores, por lo que hago un uso intensivo de los recortes de Newspapers.com. El libro de Michael Lenehan , Ramblers , el artículo de Russell Henderson en Journal of Southern History y el artículo de Alexander Wolff "Ghosts of Mississippi" fueron las principales obras que utilicé para descifrar los trazos generales del artículo, pero a menudo quería un poco más de detalle del que proporcionaban y, por lo tanto, terminé citando periódicos de la época. – Iago Qnsi ( discusión ) 14:02, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lamentablemente, ese método suele ser problemático: si un autor elige activamente qué partes del artículo "merecen" más detalles, a menudo termina con preguntas sobre el equilibrio y la ponderación (también conocido como criterio 1d) ; sin mencionar que 1c) coloca la exhaustividad por encima de la accesibilidad) .
Por ejemplo, en las páginas 193-196 de Ramblers , Lenehan hace mucho hincapié en el papel personal que desempeñó Babe McCarthy para que el equipo de Mississippi llegara al torneo. No es de extrañar que esa acción tras bambalinas no apareciera en absoluto en los periódicos de la época, por lo que el artículo actual evita cualquier mención de su papel.
Solo he revisado un par de páginas de Ramblers , pero ya veo los problemas que suele causar el uso excesivo de fuentes primarias. Le recomendaría que retire esta candidatura y que intente trabajar con el mayor detalle posible a partir de las fuentes académicas, recurriendo únicamente a las fuentes de los periódicos en caso de necesidad extrema, antes de volver a nominar. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( discusión ) 15:29 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ AirshipJungleman29 y Generalissima : Gracias por los comentarios. Originalmente, creé el artículo basándome en las fuentes académicas, pero luego busqué artículos de periódicos para profundizar más. No le di más importancia a los detalles adicionales que encontré; las fuentes adicionales solo me dieron más flexibilidad en términos de redacción, citas, etc. Creo que esto fue valioso en algunos lugares, pero también veo que debería haberme concentrado más en citar las fuentes académicas.
He rediseñado las citas y ahora casi todo en las secciones de antecedentes, resumen del juego y consecuencias está respaldado por Lenehan, Veazey, Henderson o Wolff. También he ampliado algunas de las partes más débiles de estas secciones con muchos más detalles, incluido el papel de McCarthy en impulsar la participación de la NCAA como mencionaste. He mantenido varias de las citas de periódicos contemporáneos en el artículo, pero el artículo no depende estrictamente de ellas. ¡Por favor, dime lo que piensas; realmente aprecio tus comentarios detallados! Gracias, Iago Qnsi ( discusión ) 05:06, 9 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Generalísima

En sintonía con Airship, creo que sería una buena idea citar los libros además de los periódicos. Las fuentes primarias están bien como apoyo, pero nunca deberían ser los pilares principales para algo que se cubre en fuentes académicas. Generalissima ( discusión ) (it/she) 14:26 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

La Isla Bonita

Nominador(es): Christian ( discusión ) 16:33, 6 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Este artículo trata sobre una de las canciones más emblemáticas y conocidas de la cantante estadounidense Madonna , "La Isla Bonita". Habiendo nominado este artículo anteriormente, y habiendo leído los comentarios dejados por otros usuarios, fui fuente por fuente, asegurándome de que todo lo mencionado esté citado correctamente. Christian ( discusión ) 16:33 6 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Benjamín F. McAdoo

Nominador(es): Generalísima ( charla ) (ello/ella) 14:57, 4 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Benjamin Franklin McAdoo Jr. fue el primer arquitecto negro con licencia en el estado de Washington. Tuvo una carrera larga y productiva, que incluyó trabajos en el área de Seattle, Jamaica y Washington, DC. También intentó (sin éxito) postularse para la legislatura del estado de Washington. ¡Me divertí mucho escribiendo este artículo y espero que la gente disfrute leyéndolo! Generalissima ( discusión ) (it/she) 14:57 4 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentarios de PMC

Ya hice mi revisión de GA con miras a que esto sea un FAC en el futuro, pero lo leeré nuevamente. ♠ PMC ♠ (discusión) 23:23 4 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Revisión de imágenes

Además, no es un comentario sobre la imagen, pero sugeriría una revisión de los problemas con MOS . Nikkimaria ( discusión ) 04:47 5 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Fuego de nieve

Buen trabajo. Como es habitual, se aclara que estos comentarios son sugerencias, no exigencias. Algunos comentarios:

No estoy seguro de que esta sea la mejor redacción. ¿Es del artículo de Mahmoud? Porque dice: "Estaba muy preocupado por los derechos humanos... No solo creía en la vivienda justa, sino que sentía que debía participar en ella". No estoy seguro de que sea exactamente lo mismo, y el artículo sobre el derecho a la vivienda habla de ello como un concepto de los años 90 que vendría después. Es evidente que Mahmoud creía en la vivienda asequible, pero no estoy seguro de que la redacción actual sea la mejor manera de expresarlo, a menos que haya otra fuente que relacione esta conexión de forma más clara. (EDICIÓN: Veo que añadiste esto porque PMC lo recomendó en la revisión de GA. Bueno, supongo que depende de ti, yo diría que reformules y/o no incluyas el enlace, pero está bien sin importar cuál sea tu decisión).

No estoy seguro de que esto sea exactamente lo que dice la fuente. "Este distrito contenía los barrios predominantemente negros de Seattle". A pesar del error tipográfico, creo que está diciendo que, en la medida en que Seattle tenía gente negra, vivían aquí, pero eso no significa que fuera "predominantemente negra" en general. Seattle tenía cierta reputación de ser completamente blanca fuera del Distrito Internacional en esa época, según tengo entendido vagamente. Creo que necesitamos una mejor fuente si el Distrito 37 realmente era predominantemente negro.

Hay varias escuelas de pensamiento sobre el nivel adecuado de concisión, pero creo que el texto actual es demasiado conciso y hará que los lectores tengan que hacer clic en enlaces wiki para adquirir suficiente contexto para entender lo que realmente estaba sucediendo. Tal como está, el comentario sobre Charles M. Stokes parece que podría ser simplemente un trasfondo histórico sobre los políticos negros en Washington, y no es inmediatamente obvio que esté vinculado a la vacante. Además, los lectores no estadounidenses pueden no darse cuenta de que muchos distritos legislativos estatales eligen a los 2 candidatos principales y se confundirán sobre por qué el número 3 demandó al número 2. Finalmente, citar a un abogado del lado perdedor tiende a ser un poco dudoso en general: a menudo exponen el caso como lo entienden sus clientes y es un relato muy parcial. (No digo que no pueda ser cierto también , pero no es una fuente muy impresionante en general). En particular, según lo que dice el artículo, parece que la persona número 3 tenía razón: la casa de McAdoo realmente no estaba en el distrito 37. (Por supuesto, es posible que los abogados de McAdoo también tuvieran razón en que las reglas podrían no haberse aplicado tan estrictamente para un candidato bendecido por las máquinas). Sugeriría algo como "Charles M. Stokes fue elegido para la Cámara de Representantes de Washington por el distrito 37 en 1950 y 1952 por períodos de dos años, pero optó por postularse para el Senado estatal en su lugar en 1954. McAdoo se presentó a las primarias del Partido Demócrata para el escaño que Stokes estaba dejando vacante. Su plataforma..." (Y luego decir algo sobre la naturaleza de los dos primeros puestos del avance). Pero depende de usted.

Este es un punto bastante menor. Entiendo que para las figuras menos famosas hay más espacio para los detalles, pero no creo que la mayoría de los arquitectos/abogados/etc. tengan mencionados los estados para los que están certificados, a menos que sea de alguna manera relevante (por ejemplo, que en realidad no tenían una certificación y estaban haciendo arquitectura en negro o algo similar). Tal vez sea mejor eliminarlo o verificar la relevancia de esta lista. SnowFire ( discusión ) 22:25 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Bueno, parte 2.

Las guías de estilo difieren en este caso en cuanto a si se debe incluir un guion, y no se pueden controlar las categorías ni ver también los enlaces a otros artículos de Wikipedia, pero yo diría que hay que ser coherentes en este artículo. Se utilizan tanto la versión con guiones como la versión sin guiones; yo diría que hay que elegir una.

Mega-nit: La intención de esto es clara y siéntete libre de dejarlo como está si así es como se expresa en la arquitectura, pero ¿quizás "encargos para diseñar residencias privadas"? En teoría, esto podría malinterpretarse como si los propios encargos diseñaran residencias privadas.

Discutir sobre comas es a menudo una cuestión de estilo que no merece la pena, pero yo diría que a pesar de todas las comas anteriores, hay que incluir una después de "día" para insinuar la diferencia de tiempo.

Opcional: ¿Vale la pena decir que sí, que él y su familia se mudaron a Seattle? Solo que dijimos anteriormente que se mudó con su familia a Portland, y no es del todo raro dejar a la familia atrás y viajar de un lado a otro los fines de semana o días similares.

Meganit: Convert tiene un parámetro sigfig, por lo que recomendaría {{convert|887|sqft|m2|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}. Los 0,4 metros cuadrados adicionales no son realmente pertinentes ni relevantes. De manera similar, ¿eran exactamente 620 pies cuadrados o solo unos 620 pies cuadrados? Supongo que es lo último, por lo que sugeriría convertir esa conversión a solo 1 y ~60 m^2.

¿Es esto del artículo de Mumford? Lamentablemente, no está en la biblioteca de Wikipedia. Es más una charla informal que una solicitud de cambio, pero es un poco sorprendente... la idea de la "Casa del Mérito" y las casas modulares en Jamaica parecen sugerir que los objetivos habituales de McAdoo eran que fueran más "asequibles y eficientes", mientras que la "integración en el paisaje" me sugiere un enfoque más a medida, artesanal y costoso (es decir, las casas de la cascada del mundo). ¿Realmente hizo casas pequeñas que también se integraban en los paisajes y cosas por el estilo? ¡Impresionante si así fuera!

Charla aparte: esto es culpa de la fuente, no tuya, pero es una lástima que no se especifique con precisión qué hizo McAdoo por estos edificios ni cuál fue su papel. ¿Alguna de las otras fuentes entró en más detalles sobre su carrera en los años 70?

Se ve muy sólido en general, ¡gran trabajo!

Tyla (álbum)

Nominadores: dxneo ( discusión ) 08:45, 4 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Este artículo trata sobre... el álbum de estudio homónimo de Tyla , lanzado en marzo de 2024. Fue grabado en varios países durante más de dos años. Precedido por " Water ", que ganó el premio Grammy inaugural a la Mejor Interpretación de Música Africana , el álbum debutó en el puesto número 24 del Billboard 200 después de vender 24.000 unidades en su primera semana, lo que lo convirtió en el álbum con la posición más alta en la lista Billboard 200 de una solista africana en la historia de la lista. Fue descrito como un álbum que no se puede saltar.
Soy consciente de que este álbum está nominado a pocos premios, pero me he propuesto mantenerlo mientras siga activo. dxneo ( discusión ) 08:45, 4 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Incidente de Roswell

Nominador(es): Feoffer ( discusión ) 04:14 2 oct 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Este artículo trata sobre una teoría de la conspiración que sostiene que el accidente de un globo de las Fuerzas Aéreas del Ejército de los Estados Unidos en 1947 cerca de Roswell, Nuevo México, en realidad fue causado por una nave espacial extraterrestre. Con una amplia y pulida fuente, el artículo detalla los hechos reales de 1947, el posterior auge de las teorías de la conspiración sobre ovnis, el surgimiento de las teorías de la conspiración sobre Roswell, su evolución y su posterior desacreditación. Feoffer ( discusión ) 04:14 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Revisión de imágenes

  • corregido Feoffer ( discusión ) 04:49 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
  • También renombré el archivo. Rosewell->Roswell Feoffer ( discusión ) 05:18 5 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Soporte de HAL

Marcando un lugar. Pronto habrá comentarios. ~ HAL 333 17:53, 5 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Gracias de antemano por los comentarios. Excelente nombre de usuario y firma. Feoffer ( discusión ) 13:58 6 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Muy buen trabajo. Te felicito por abordar un tema como este. ~ HAL 333 14:44, 6 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¡Todos tienen muy buenos puntos! Creo que los tenemos todos. Feoffer ( discusión ) 02:41 7 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Un placer apoyarte . ~ HAL 333 05:35, 7 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Monumento a la Bota

Nominadores: ‍ Relatividad ⚡️ 22:12, 1 de octubre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Este artículo trata sobre un extraño monumento ubicado en el Parque Histórico Nacional de Saratoga, Nueva York. Tiene forma de bota. Sin embargo, el homenajeado del monumento nunca se menciona en el monumento porque su nombre era Benedict Arnold , alguien que traicionó al ejército continental ante el ejército británico. He llevado este artículo de la clase Start a la clase GA ( revisión ), y luego lo hice revisar para la clase A, que pasó. Creo que ahora está listo para FAC. ‍ Relatividad ⚡️ 22:12, 1 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Revisión de imágenes

  • Trabajando Lo siento, no tengo experiencia con el texto alternativo. Estoy trabajando en leer sobre cómo agregarlo a una imagen en un cuadro de información. Con suerte, lo descubriré pronto. ‍ Relatividad ⚡️ 02:59, 17 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Matarísvan

Fui revisor en la ACR y puedo respaldar el artículo para la promoción a la clase FA. También hice la revisión de fuentes y las verificaciones puntuales en la ACR, que fueron aprobadas; puedo volver a hacerlas si es necesario. Matarisvan ( discusión ) 19:11 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentarios

  • Hecho
  • Vinculado en la sección Antecedentes; no estoy seguro si necesito vincularlo en otro lugar
  • cambiado a "batallas"
  • Hecho
  • Como dije en el ACR, lamentablemente no. Todas las fuentes que se usaron en esa pequeña sección datan de 1927-1931, pero nunca se menciona una fecha específica. ‍ Relatividad ⚡️ 18:01, 5 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
  • En cuanto al último punto, creo que deberías al menos decir que el incidente del "informante misterioso" ocurrió en 1931, porque eso parece indiscutible. Actualmente no hay nada que permita establecer un marco temporal dentro de los más de 130 años de historia del monumento... -- ChrisTheDude ( discusión ) 14:02 9 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
    @ ChrisTheDude : Listo. ¡Gracias por la reseña! ‍ Relatividad ⚡️ 00:45, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Gog el suave

Rehusarse a revisar.

Seguiremos hablando de esto. Gog the Mild ( discusión ) 20:53 16 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Reemplazo de la moneda de cobre británica en la década de 1860

Nominadores: Wehwalt ( discusión ) 17:12, 30 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Este artículo trata sobre... otro aspecto de la historia numismática. Nunca tuve que utilizar las monedas de bronce británicas predecimales, ya que mi primera visita al Reino Unido no fue hasta 1986, y para entonces ya habían desaparecido hacía 15 años. Se consideraban grandes e incómodas, pero una vez fueron incluso más grandes y estaban hechas de cobre puro que se desgastaba fácilmente. Así es como eso cambió Wehwalt ( discusión ) 17:12 30 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Apoyo de la UC

Me conquistaste con "sus nimiedades pedantes" - aparecerá. UndercoverClassicist T · C 06:47, 1 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Añadido.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 16:28 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
El primer párrafo dice: "en una variedad de tamaños".-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 16:28 2 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo hace, pero no dice que un motivo principal de la reforma fue hacer que las monedas fueran físicamente más pequeñas (en lugar de simplemente más livianas ). Sin embargo, la primera oración del cuerpo del texto menciona esto como el problema principal con las monedas de cobre. UndercoverClassicist T · C 16:39, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, lo he dejado más claro. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 18:32 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Quieres decir que el sistema LSD era inconveniente o la motivación política que llevó al nombramiento de la Comisión Real?-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 16:51 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿De dónde viene la Comisión Real sobre Moneda Decimal? ¿Quién decidió crearla, cuándo y por qué? Creo que ya hemos enterrado el tema por el momento. UndercoverClassicist T · C 16:53, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No tanto como se podría pensar, ya que las investigaciones sobre la moneda decimal se produjeron repetidamente en el siglo XIX. Pero he añadido un poco. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 18:32 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bien.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 16:51 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
OK.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 16:51 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
He trasladado a Victoria, lo que espero que solucione el problema. ¿Tienes alguna sugerencia sobre cómo solucionar el otro problema? -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 16:51 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Un poco radical, pero ¿qué tal si ponemos el penique de Boulton donde está ahora el que tiene una acuñación exagerada y juntamos las dos monedas "defectuosas" en una plantilla de doble imagen donde está actualmente el cuarto de penique desgastado? UndercoverClassicist T · C 16:54, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cada uno de los conjuntos de imágenes muestra ambas caras de una moneda. ¿Te refieres a un conjunto de cuatro imágenes o a algo más? -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 18:32 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ah, no me había dado cuenta de que cada una tenía dos imágenes, pero parece que el |perrow=parámetro de la plantilla de imágenes múltiples puede crear una cuadrícula de dos por dos. UndercoverClassicist T · C 19:50, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Todavía estoy mirando esto.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 01:21 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo he intentado.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 16:51 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Supongo que sí. Hecho.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 16:51 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Quizás sea ENGVAR, ya que la redacción simplemente me suena a economía de palabras. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 16:51 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Soy reticente porque no estoy seguro de dónde tuvieron lugar estas charlas junto a la chimenea. Se podría suponer que en el número 11 de Downing Street, la residencia del Canciller, pero eso es sólo una suposición. Y no todos los primeros ministros del siglo XIX vivieron en el número 10, ya que tenían residencias más cómodas en Londres; algunos hicieron que el Canciller viviera en el número 10. Supongo que podría investigar dónde vivía Gladstone en 1860, pero estamos entrando en territorio de investigación original si la idea es hacer una conexión al número 10 de Downing Street o al 11. Y no estoy seguro de lo útil que sería un enlace a la propia calle. Me inclino a decir que la mayoría de las personas que lleguen hasta aquí en este artículo comprenderán la importancia y por qué Graham se sintió elogiado y lo dejarán así. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 14:00, 2 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que un enlace a Downing Street sería bueno: el titular establece que históricamente ha sido el centro de poder del Primer Ministro y el Primer Ministro Principal (de hecho, eso es la gran mayoría de lo que trata el titular ), y tiene El término "Downing Street" también se utiliza como metonimia para el Primer Ministro o el Gobierno británico en general. Estoy de acuerdo en que no necesitamos entrar en detalles sobre qué puerta negra estaba frente a la chimenea en cuestión. Por cierto, si leo bien el artículo homónimo, parece que Gladstone usó 10, 11 y 12, por lo que es un punto discutible de todos modos. UndercoverClassicist T · C 14:27, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hecho.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 16:51 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Próximamente habrá más novedades. UndercoverClassicist T · C 06:35, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Yo diría que el único lugar en el que añadiría algo es en las sumas a las que hace referencia Gladstone. Las otras sumas son simplemente el valor total de las monedas y el valor actual tiene poca relevancia. Es la misma cantidad de monedas independientemente de la inflación. También dudo de decir con ligereza que las sumas a lo largo de 160 años son equivalentes. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 16:51 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esto es cierto, pero creo que también es relevante que las £1.367.963 (como dices, 136.796.300 peniques) producidas durante los primeros tres años valieran alrededor de £17.389.310.308 en dinero de hoy, en otras palabras, una suma bastante grande. Entiendo que la inflación no es una guía perfecta para el valor en la práctica: también se podría contextualizar diciendo que esto era aproximadamente una vez y media el gasto anual del gobierno. En cualquier caso, cuando manejamos números grandes, es útil que los lectores puedan tener algo con lo que relacionarlos. UndercoverClassicist T · C 17:00, 2 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
He añadido plantillas de inflación, pero las he mantenido fuera de la descripción del intercambio de monedas de Malta, ya que el valor nominal es lo único relevante, no el valor actual. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 18:32, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Se llama Britanniarum, más bien Gran Bretaña e Irlanda y, en cierta medida, las colonias. Véase esta moneda. A veces lo deletreaban si había espacio. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 14:00 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso es todo, con algunas solicitudes de aclaración/comentarios. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 16:51 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Y otra vez.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 18:32 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esto se agrega en respuesta a sus comentarios anteriores sobre quién es la fuerza detrás de la creación de una comisión de moneda decimal. Si mencionamos a Herschel y poco después mencionamos a otra persona como maestro de la casa de la moneda, es útil explicar por qué fue así. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 20:45 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bien.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 21:18 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
La fuente menciona falsificación. He consultado el Hansard para esa fecha y eso es lo que dice.
Supongo.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 21:18 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
DE ACUERDO.
Linecar, aparte de una frase, no da ninguna indicación de que se esté refiriendo a la canción. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 22:21 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, pero es la frase más famosa de esa canción, y solo se encuentra en la canción. Es un poco como si alguien dijera "¡Hágase la luz!" o "Benditos sean los queseros"; no necesitan decirnos que están citando la Biblia. Honestamente, me sorprende que "Britannia rules the waves" no sea una redirección a la canción de todos modos. UndercoverClassicist T · C 06:10, 3 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Un pequeño apunte: para mí, sólo reconoces algo que es verdad ("reconoció que había bebido el té, pero negó haber comido las galletas"). Dado que el final del siglo XIX fue el punto álgido del poder imperial británico, no creo que podamos afirmar realmente que "Britannia ya no gobernaba las olas" es una afirmación verdadera: o bien nunca lo hizo, en cuyo caso es falso según sus concepciones, o bien lo siguió haciendo, en cuyo caso es falso. ¿Sugieres "implicaría que Gran Bretaña..."? UndercoverClassicist T · C 06:42, 4 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
He cambiado a "significar".-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 13:06 4 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
OK.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 21:18 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo he mencionado de pasada.
Fue William Ewart (político británico) . No estoy seguro de que sea necesario mencionarlo, aunque si lo considera necesario, agregaré un enlace al Hansard. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 21:18 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
En términos generales, prefiero la voz activa a la pasiva, y dar información en lugar de guardarla: creo que agregar el nombre sería una mejora con pocos costos, pero no es decisivo para el artículo. UndercoverClassicist T · C 20:43, 3 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Muy bien, lo he reformulado como sugieres. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 21:43 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Corte.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 21:18 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cambiado.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 21:18 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, creo que no hace falta decirlo. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 21:18 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy seguro de que así sea: es una inferencia sensata , pero no es la única lectura posible de lo que está escrito. Por ejemplo, podría haber ido el lunes con una moneda, haber recibido muchas críticas, luego haber vuelto el miércoles a otra reunión/visita social y haber recibido más críticas sobre el mismo trabajo, o haber descubierto que Victoria había cambiado de opinión y ahora sólo lo odiaba un poco. Incluso entonces, ¿por qué hacer que el lector se esfuerce más de lo necesario? Me viene a la mente el dicho tan repetido de que un buen texto debe ser como el agua en una pecera. UndercoverClassicist T · C 22:06, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
He cortado su opinión.
  • Tu tren, pero no veo que esa fuera la mejor solución en este caso: simplemente reformular el tiempo habría parecido una solución "fácil". Incluso algo como "Linecar ha escrito que esta historia es probablemente falsa" habría resuelto el segundo problema. UndercoverClassicist T · C 22:40, 2 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
  • Lo entiendo, pero el pasaje es más vago de lo que recuerdo, así que creo que es mejor omitirlo.
Reelaborado.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 22:12 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

En los tres anteriores, veamos si lo que tengo ahora es satisfactorio.

Personalmente no entiendo por qué BRITANNIAR no debería ser BRITANNIARR según la lógica, pero miré la fuente y dice "requerido" y aparentemente Gladstone había estado esperando esto durante un año, así que me inclino a decir que "debería" es justo.
Está bien. Buen hallazgo. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 22:12 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bien.00 Wehwalt ( discusión ) 01:21 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
DE ACUERDO.
DE ACUERDO.
Creo que, dado que mencionamos anteriormente el peso del penique de 1797, puede ser útil mencionar las piezas de bronce en el texto principal. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 22:12 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ah, sí, me refería a las conversiones imperiales (es decir, no pongas un corchete después de cada una de las unidades métricas: simplemente escribe una nota al pie como 'es decir, [tantas] onzas de peso y [tantas] pulgadas de diámetro...')
UndercoverClassicist T · C 22:38 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Trabajaré en esto el jueves.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 01:21 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fijado.
Reformulado.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 01:21 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es cierto. En referencia a Peck, el problema parece ser que la Casa de la Moneda Real tuvo que trabajar más rápido, en masa , con las monedas británicas , como dice Peck. Aclarado. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 01:21 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Necesito mirar las fuentes y ver qué se quiere decir. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 01:21 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hecho.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 01:21 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Creo que lo he solucionado, pero tengo problemas para distinguir esas cosas a simple vista, así que si es el guión incorrecto, simplemente muéstrame cuál es el correcto y lo cambiaré.
Hay algunas cosas que no están hechas, las imágenes y las toneladas y la plantilla de conversión, las terminaré el jueves. Gracias por la reseña. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 01:21 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Eso es todo por el primer intento: volvamos a ti.

He terminado los últimos tres y también el Rule Britannia. Creo que eso es todo. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 13:01 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Apoyo después de algunas correcciones menores: muy buen trabajo. UndercoverClassicist T · C 14:14, 4 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Revisión de la fuente

Estoy trabajando en ello. Dugan Murphy ( discusión ) 00:14 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Aquí hay algunos comentarios para comenzar:

Seguiré trabajando en ello. Dugan Murphy ( discusión ) 01:01 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Gracias, todo está hecho hasta la fecha.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 20:43 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Veo que has respondido a mis comentarios anteriores. Aquí tienes más:

Debería haber leído 1878 en lugar de 1879. Está arreglado. Los informes de Fremantle se consideran autorizados en su campo, hay una discusión al respecto en nuestro artículo sobre él que escribí. Él estaría en posición de saber estas cosas. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 13:16 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me lo creo. Veo que la página 10 de Fremantle 1878 respalda la oración. Dugan Murphy ( discusión ) 13:25 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Resumen: Todos los libros están en manos de bibliotecas académicas, con la excepción de los informes de Fremantle, que como fuentes primarias se están utilizando de manera adecuada según WP:PRIMARY , con la única posible excepción planteada en mi comentario anterior. Algunos de los artículos son del British Numismatic Journal , que parece tener buena reputación. Los demás artículos son de publicaciones periódicas primarias que creo que se están utilizando de manera adecuada. Para un artículo bastante corto, la lista de fuentes parece representar una amplitud decente de conocimientos, complementada con un uso justo de fuentes primarias. El estilo de cita parece consistente. Dugan Murphy ( discusión ) 02:22, 3 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Gracias. He hecho un comentario y he terminado el resto. Wehwalt ( discusión ) 14:43 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Veo que has añadido a Emma Howard como editora, pero has mantenido a Spink & Son como autor de Coins of England . Worldcat incluye a Spink solo como editor y no incluye a ningún autor, sino que lo archiva bajo el nombre de Howard como editor. ¿Crees que es más apropiado mantener a Spink como autor y archivarlo en la lista de esa manera? Dugan Murphy ( discusión ) 17:32 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Se trata de una serie, ahora anual, que comenzó en 1929 y ha tenido varios editores a lo largo de los años (tengo una copia de la edición de 2004, editada por Philip Skingley). El único nombre que aparece en la portada es el de Spink, ya que es el único nombre que aparece en la página del título. El nombre de Howard aparece solo una vez, en una nota en la página vi. Ni en la edición de 2023 ni en la de 2004 aparece el nombre del editor en la portada ni se menciona de forma destacada. Creo que es mejor que el lector se quede con Spink como autor. Wehwalt ( discusión ) 20:25 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Suena razonable. Considero que esta revisión de la fuente es un aprobado . Te invito a que eches un vistazo a mi nominación actual de FAC , que aún necesita revisiones. Gracias de antemano si puedes dejar comentarios. Dugan Murphy ( discusión ) 02:13 4 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Revisión de imágenes

Se agregó texto alternativo y se intercambió la imagen. Gracias. Wehwalt ( discusión ) 19:56 4 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Apoyo de Tim Riley

En cuanto a las observaciones introductorias de Wehwalt, que aparecen arriba (no las discuto), no obstante, el sonido satisfactorio del ruido metálico de los grandes peniques de cobre en los teléfonos de la GPO en las cabinas telefónicas sigue conmigo sesenta años después (y todavía pienso en 50p como diez chelines). Sea como fuere, leí casi hasta el final del artículo antes de encontrar algo que objetar, por más que lo intenté (y Dios sabe que lo hice). Pero en el párrafo que comienza con "La Real Casa de la Moneda ofreció una prima del 2 por ciento..." tengo tres puntos menores. Primero, en inglés británico es habitual traducir "por ciento" como dos palabras; segundo, no veo por qué el subdirector de la Casa de la Moneda debería verse privado de la capitalización que obtiene su superior, el director; y tercero, "esto se hizo efectivo el 31 de julio" no es un término británico familiar: "esto se hizo con efecto a partir de..." sería el término británico normal. No es nada revolucionario y no tengo ninguna duda en apoyar la elevación de este artículo, que leí con gran placer y del que aprendí mucho. De primera categoría, incluso para los magníficos estándares de Wehwalt. Tim riley talk 22:10, 5 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Listo, muchas gracias por los comentarios.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 22:56 5 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentarios de Mike Christie

Apoyo , con algunos comentarios muy menores:

Hecho.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 01:43 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hecho pero expresado de forma ligeramente diferente. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 01:43 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
La moneda que aparece al final de la sección de fondo es la mejor que tengo disponible. Tengo acceso a las imágenes de Heritage Auctions, pero no parece que hayan vendido una muy buena. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 01:43 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
La Real Casa de la Moneda eligió diámetros de modo que una determinada cantidad de monedas colocadas una al lado de la otra equivalieran a un pie. Supongo que las reglas eran menos comunes que hoy en día. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 01:43 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

- Mike Christie ( charla - contribuciones - biblioteca ) 15:08, 7 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Eso es todo. Gracias por tu reseña. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 01:43 11 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

mujinga

Al comentar esta versión, encuentro algunos problemas de integridad del texto/fuente:

Intenté cambiar eso, pero la razón por la que me quedé con el texto es que "obtenido" podría ser un lenguaje parlamentario técnico.
He jugado un poco con el lenguaje, pero repito, los posibles sinónimos son escasos. Creo que está bastante claro que querían que las nuevas monedas mostraran a la Reina como una mujer de más de cuarenta años, como era, en lugar de la mujer que había sido en 1839. He retocado el lenguaje. Lo siento por el Digest/Gazette. -- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 22:13 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Arreglado, lamentablemente tuve que copiar esto manualmente y obviamente cometí un error o dos . Wehwalt ( discusión )
Cambiado.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 22:13 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Corregido.-- Wehwalt ( discusión ) 22:46 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Los he cambiado.

En total, realicé 9 comprobaciones, tres estaban bien y seis no. Es una cantidad preocupante de errores y me pregunto si encontraré más si continúo. Me detendré aquí y me opondré por ahora Mujinga ( discusión ) 20:23, 15 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Gracias. Verificaré todas las fuentes y me pondré en contacto contigo cuando tenga alguna respuesta. Wehwalt ( discusión ) 21:04 15 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Tangara de garganta cereza

Nominadores: Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 19:19, 28 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC)[ responder ]

Una de las aves más amenazadas del mundo, de la que actualmente solo se conocen 20 ejemplares. Pude obtener permiso para utilizar tres fotografías; anteriormente no teníamos ni una sola. El artículo acaba de pasar una revisión detallada de GA (gracias a User:Esculenta), y ahora creo que está listo. Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 19:19 28 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Revisión de imágenes

Agregado.
Agregado, gracias -- Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 18:48 29 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

alta frecuencia

Lo analizaré durante la próxima semana. Charla sobre la granja de cerdos 23:54, 29 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Acabo de agregar la entrada correspondiente al glosario, pero también expliqué el término directamente en el texto. -- Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 11:53 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mata significa bosque en portugués. Agregué una traducción, tanto al pie de la primera imagen como a la primera mención en el texto. -- Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 11:53 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Desde la perspectiva de un no experto, esto parece estar en buenas condiciones; apoyo . Hog Farm Talk 03:16, 3 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¡Muchas gracias! -- Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 11:53 3 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Universidad de California

Reservando un lugar. UndercoverClassicist T · C 08:23, 30 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Soporte : esa es la última de mis inquietudes resueltas. Excelente artículo: elegante, claramente bien investigado y sumamente legible. UndercoverClassicist T · C 05:59, 8 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Me cuesta encontrar motivos para quejarme; admito que no soy ornitólogo, pero este parece un artículo claro, autorizado y pulido.

Genial, muchas gracias por la reseña. Abordé todo lo mejor que pude:
Hecho.
Agregué "visualmente distintivo", si eso ayuda. La mayoría de las aves son menos fáciles de identificar que esta, y algunas tienen un plumaje totalmente anodino y solo se las puede identificar por el sonido.
Sí, eso está mejor, cambiado.
Porque sólo parece la parte inferior de la pierna, pero en realidad es parte del pie (el muslo superior en las aves normalmente no es visible, tiene una orientación horizontal y está oculto en el plumaje debajo del vientre).
  • Sería bueno encontrar otra solución que las comillas: ¿quizás una nota a pie de página, si no otra cosa? Eso sí, muchas fuentes parecen describirlo como parte de la pierna (la parte del cuerpo del mismo nombre en los humanos es el tobillo, que puede considerarse parte de cualquiera de las dos). UndercoverClassicist T · C 21:35, 1 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Opté por "la parte más baja y sin plumas de la pierna". -- Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 22:21 1 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
El Bosque Atlántico no se limita a Brasil, solo decimos que la tangara está restringida al Bosque Atlántico de Brasil. ¿Crees que deberíamos agregar más información sobre la extensión del bosque?
Creo que eso ayudaría, y podría considerar reformular la introducción a algo como "áreas brasileñas del Bosque Atlántico": "el Bosque Atlántico de Brasil" se lee como si el bosque en sí fuera de Brasil o de alguna manera perteneciera a Brasil (cf. "el Océano Pacífico de China", "los Alpes de Francia", "el Danubio de Hungría" - ninguna de esas me suena del todo correcta). UndercoverClassicist T · C 21:35, 1 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ok, lo agregué y escribí "la Mata Atlántica de Brasil" en lugar de "de Brasil". -- Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 22:21 1 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bien, hecho.
Corregido, junto con otro caso similar.
Por supuesto que sí.
Cambió.
Esto último. Espero haberlo dejado más claro ahora.
Sí, arreglado.
Cambió.
Abandonó.
Hecho.
MOS:TITLE tiene lo siguiente: "Siga el uso mayoritario en fuentes independientes y confiables para cualquier tema determinado (por ejemplo, The Out-of-Towners pero The History of Middle-earth). Si ninguna ortografía es claramente dominante en las fuentes, se usa por defecto minúscula después de un guion [...]". La ortografía utilizada en el artículo es la que utiliza el proyecto.
  • Supongo que ellos tienen el voto decisivo, en una votación de uno solo. UndercoverClassicist T · C 21:35, 1 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Una búsqueda en Google arroja tres páginas de resultados, pero ninguno de ellos tiene la palabra "throated" en mayúscula. -- Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 21:38 1 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Existen muchos riesgos que podrían hacer que tal esfuerzo sea contraproducente. Lo reformulé: y se ha probado la alimentación complementaria con gusanos de la harina.
Hecho.
Reformulé: "El turismo dirigido a las especies puede ser problemático si se utilizan excesivamente grabaciones de sonido para atraer a las aves". Esto debería dejar en claro que el ecoturismo puede funcionar sin la reproducción de grabaciones de sonido y no es necesariamente problemático por esta razón.
Intenté decir "y fomentar el orgullo dentro de las comunidades locales por su patrimonio natural", con la esperanza de que sea mejor. -- Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 21:16 1 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
  • No creo que realmente sientas orgullo por algo (a menos que quizás nos refiramos a sentir orgullo indirectamente cuando otra persona ha logrado algo: 'su madre estaba orgullosa por ella cuando aprobó el examen'), pero sí sientes orgullo por ello o acerca de ello. UndercoverClassicist T · C 21:28, 1 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Vale, volví a decir "en". O tal vez "y para alentar a las comunidades locales a enorgullecerse de su patrimonio natural", ¿si así queda mejor? -- Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 21:36 1 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso funciona, pero nuevamente tengo algunas dudas de que no tenga mucho sentido: se lee como algo que se escucharía en una presentación de las personas que llevan adelante una iniciativa de este tipo. ¿Cómo se ve, en concreto? UndercoverClassicist T · C 21:40, 1 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No me interesa eliminar la parte sobre las especies emblemáticas , ya que creo que se trata de una información crucial. La frase en cuestión describe con precisión lo que se supone que debe hacer una especie emblemática: una especie con la que la gente pueda identificarse, de modo que se preocupe por la conservación. Sin el apoyo de la población local, la conservación a largo plazo no puede funcionar, es una parte integral, por lo que creo que tenemos que mencionarla. En su boletín se puede ver cómo se ve concretamente esa difusión (por ejemplo, [1]). -- Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 22:34 1 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como estabas pidiendo algo concreto, el descubrimiento de poblaciones de un bagre en peligro crítico de extinción es un resultado directo del programa de especies emblemáticas de la tangara, como se analiza aquí [2]. El bagre se menciona brevemente, pero podría hacer una oración aparte, si crees que es necesario para aclarar el punto. -- Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 23:21 1 octubre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Oh, no, no tengo ningún problema con la idea de la especie emblemática; mi problema es la afirmación de que está "alentando" a las comunidades locales a enorgullecerse de las cosas naturales que las rodean. El médico puede alentarme a hacer más ejercicio y comer menos, pero eso no significa necesariamente que lo haga , o que el estímulo haga alguna diferencia en algo que nos importe a ambos. Si hay un buen vínculo que se pueda establecer que diga "la gente dijo que se sintió inspirada por su orgullo por la tangara de garganta cereza para ir a buscar otras especies en peligro de extinción, y terminó encontrando un bagre en peligro de extinción", eso resolvería el problema de manera agradable. De manera similar, si ha habido una campaña mediática que costó X mil dólares para promover la imagen del ave, eso también sería algo bueno en lo que basar la afirmación. Este es un caso en el que no estoy seguro de que las fuentes de WP:ABOUTSELF sean excelentes, porque necesitamos alguna medida externa de si el estímulo a) existe de manera significativa y b) es realmente lo suficientemente importante como para hacer que WP:DUEWEIGHT sea importante . UndercoverClassicist T · C 06:24 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
He reescrito completamente esa parte, por favor vean si está mejor. -- Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 08:41 2 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Generalísima

Debería intentar hacer una revisión de fuentes para un artículo biológico, para variar. Las fuentes aquí parecen de alta calidad para el tema; casi todo se cita a publicaciones académicas, ya sean informes o revistas. Revisé los dos de Saíra News que me hicieron reflexionar; es un boletín del instituto de investigación, que encaja perfectamente con una declaración ABOUTSELF sobre esa adquisición de tierras y la noticia, muy poco probable de ser cuestionada, sobre los aracaris depredando el nido.

Las citas se presentan de manera uniforme y se utilizan RP para artículos de varias páginas. Hubo un par de situaciones en las que las citas estaban en el orden incorrecto; las resolví. Parece que está bien para mí; Apoyo . Generalissima ( discusión ) (it/she) 21:32 30 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Comentarios de Mike Christie

Hice algunas correcciones menores; siéntete libre de revertir cualquier cosa con la que no estés de acuerdo.

Sí, ambos se refieren a 2023: 15 individuos en la Mata de Caetés y los cinco restantes en la otra reserva, es decir, 20 en total. Espero haberlo dejado más claro ahora.
Lo hice cronológico ahora.
Dije "es posible" para dejar en claro que esto es mera especulación. -- Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 22:46 7 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Esos son los únicos problemas que veo. Mike Christie ( discusión - contribuciones - biblioteca ) 15:47 7 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

¡Gracias Mike! Se han respondido todos los comentarios hasta ahora. -- Jens Lallensack ( discusión ) 22:46 7 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Se ve bien, apoyo . Mike Christie ( discusión - contribuciones - biblioteca ) 00:01 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Mujinga

Cerro Panizos

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second time's hopefully the charm. This volcano is in a remote area of northwestern Argentina and southeastern Bolivia, it bears no traces of recent activity but it is an important member of a regional volcano group. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

I am happy to support with regard to the prose, and the article seems comprehensive. I think the actions suggested in the previous nomination and a recent copyedit have contrinuted much in bringing this contribution to FA level. Graham Beards (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also support per my review in the previous FAC. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did what was essentially a pre-FAC review on the article talk page and have nothing to add to those comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up that I will be away for a few days. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 05:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJo, Very little from me, just a few of very minor points:

I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Done. In case you are interested in any pre-nomination review, Socompa is the next article on my FAC block. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

Two are public domain, the other is CC BY-SA 3.0. The image "LandsatLook_Viewer_Cerro_Panizos_ignimbrite_shield.png" has an alt text and a caption, the other two images are part of the map preview of the infobox mountain template. All images are relevant to the article and placed appropriately. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

I'm completely ignorant on this subject, but after a careful and enjoyable perusal of the article I'm confident enough to sign up to support. The substantive content is well and widely sourced, and my only quibble on the prose is that we have a rash of "numerous"es: some more precise numbers or at least a few synonyms for "numerous" would be nice. Tim riley talk 22:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synonymized several. @SchroCat: now I am back and available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang is the only non-Bond novel that Ian Fleming wrote. He did so shortly after suffering a heart attack and while he was supposed to be convalescing. Although he planned to release a story a year, he never saw this first one published, dying two months before it hit the shops. This has been through a re-write recently and all constructive comments from good faith editors are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Tim riley

Had my say at the peer review, and on rereading for FAC I see nothing to add. Happy to support promotion to FA. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments - they were much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

Overall, nothing but nit-picks from me.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Chris, much obliged. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent work as always. Am supporting.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PMC

I'm an uncultured millennial who's never seen the movie or read the book, but put me down for a review nonetheless :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me, very little to pick at here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PMC, just a little nudge on this one - although no obligation to add a !vote either way if you don't want to. - SchroCat (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, sorry! For some reason I thought I had replied to this already. Looking good to me, I'm a support. (And I do intend to get to the libels GAN this week). (PS, if you have time, I could use some more eyes at the McQueen Nihilism FAC). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks PMC. Nihilism is on my list, and I should be there in a couple of days at most. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

Loved the book as a kid, but haven't thought about it for decades! Just a couple of things:

I think he's probably better known as Trog (at least in the UK), as that's his common professional name. - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Nice article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks AirshipJungleman29. The first two points sorted (although let me know about the second of them) and the third answered. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work which I gladly support. (If you have the time/inclination, any comments on another FAC of mine would be much appreciated.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this. I shall certainly pop round Chagatai Khan shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Is "The Man who Supercharged Bond: The Extraordinary Story of Charles Amherst Villiers." cited by anyone? That ISBN also says that it was published in 2010, not 2009. I am pretty sure I have reviewed the other sources here already. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's cited by anyone (at least, not on the searches I have done). The book itself says 2009 on the imprint page. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

Many thanks, as always Dudley; these have all been dealt with (with the one exception) in this edit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Catch Me Now

Nominator(s): 15:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Olivia Rodrigo's song "Can't Catch Me Now". Just two months after raking in massive critical acclaim with her second studio album, Guts, Rodrigo contributed this lush folk ballad to The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes. The song, which consistently escalates in intensity throughout its duration, drew positive reviews for its sound and Rodrigo's vocal performance. Oscar buzz soon followed but the competition was unfortunately too tough. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here. 15:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pending review from NegativeMP1

Soon. I hope... λ NegativeMP1 17:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if I'm going to review this article anymore following some real-world developments. I'm also unsure if I am currently in the right place to determine what meets FA criteria or not. If something like a spotcheck or an image review is needed, let me know in a couple weeks and I might volunteer. But I don't think I will be reviewing the article prose. I wish you luck, and I'll try to make up for it at a later date. λ NegativeMP1 17:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pbritti

Somehow this song from her discography had escaped my notice until now, so this review gives me an excuse to throw it on. Will complete in the next 24 hours. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Since it has been a week, I thought I'd send a reminder. But please take your time :) 17:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't forgotten! Expect comments tomorrow UTC (for real this time!). ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Yeah, I was asked to link this during the GA review. I have just unlinked it.-- 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • GAs introduce all sorts of peculiarities. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioning that a producer was a frequent collaborator of an artist is standard practice for Background sections. "Out of the Woods" mentions the producer's prior work with Taylor Swift, for example. An example of a NOR violation would be a statement like "Can't Catch Me Now was conceived during the Guts sessions". Guts and its success were mentioned in several articles announcing the subject song, like this, this, and this, so the article would be incomplete without discussion of Nigro's involvement in it.-- 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources determine the details that comprise complete coverage, so I would like an RS cite here that engages with this relationship as a continuity with Guts. Otherwise, it could be considered as unnecessarily emphasizing Nigro's relationship with Rodrigo's work. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for having to push back on this, but that is not how NOR is applied to background sections based on my experience at FAC. If you see articles like Laundromat (song), even CD liner notes are referenced to provide information on previous collaborations between writers of a song. We cannot nix a project that the two collaborators released together just two months before this song. That part is staying.-- 20:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a NOR violation since the album receiving critical acclaim is a widely held opinion by secondary sources and is cited. Not really PUFF either since that guideline refers to exceptional claims in wikivoice, e.g. "Mariah Carey is widely regarded as the best vocalist of all-time". An album with a metascore of 91 and six Grammy nominations being referred to as acclaimed is standard fare imo.-- 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we mentioning this critical acclaim at all, though? It's a sentence that has zero bearing on article's subject and utilizes a reference that makes no mention of "Can't Catch Me Now". It's unnecessary glossing. Nix it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It complements readers' understanding of the critical reception for this song, which is covered later. Comments like it marking "one more step towards Rodrigo's world domination", it representing a change in her sound, or forming an earnest addition to her discography are better understood when not divorced from how her prior output was received.-- 20:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Student newspapers are not allowed as sources on FAs.-- 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware, but I linked to it as a possible aspect of the subject that has gone unrepresented in the current article, particularly when the article lacks reference to any secondary source on the 7". ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subjects that were not reported on by reliable secondary sources should be unrepresented in the article. Usage of unreliable sources as a reference would constitute a violation of the FA criteria.-- 20:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will return with additional comments shortly, but my spot-checking of sources is also yielding positive results besides the issues mentioned above. Great work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pbritti. I look forward to it.-- 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined towards an oppose now, unfortunately. I am especially concerned by the repeated preference to defer to the precedence of individual articles over policy and misunderstanding of my question of whether an element of the subject has been adequately covered. (I am not asking you to cite the article I linked and stated that; I am asking you to tell me if there are RSs that do cover it.) This is exacerbated by the apparent willingness to overlink to comply with a GA request. These are minor requests with a policy basis, so please make them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is disappointing, since other FAs have been pointed out as examples that your interpretation of policies is not shared by the larger community or the precedent here at FAC. I cannot remove important details from the article due to one user's unpopular interpretation of a guideline. I am not sure how else I am supposed to state this to make it clearer, but no, there aren't any RS that cover the "angle" in the student newspaper you have linked. But thanks for your feedback anyways and happy editing.-- 05:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed at NORN. No further concerns. The article is well written and the citations are strong. I would reckon it among the best song articles on the project. Support. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Sky Harbor

I was asked to review the article on WP:DISCORD, and at first glance the prose looks good. Maybe a couple of errors here or there but otherwise written well. In honor of Olivia Rodrigo's Guts World Tour and it stopping in the Philippines (and also because she's Filipino American and it's Filipino American History Month), I will endeavor to review this more deeply and will post some thoughts on the article later depending on my real-life workload. --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, MaranoFan. Thank you very much for taking the time to write this article, and I'm glad that you had taken the time to write it. For this review, I will focus primarily on prose and writing, deferring to others more versed in the current FA process than me for more technical aspects:
  • In the first sentence of the composition and lyrics section, I would include that Dylan Waterhouse plays the instruments you mention in the next sentence ("..., who also plays..."). In the current arrangement I am left wondering who "he" is.
  • In the music video section, is the "white sleek dress" a specific dress, or is it a white dress that happens to be slimming?
  • I personally write out numbers as words so long as it's ten or below ("Ten days later" instead of "10 days later"), but I get that this is a stylistic choice.
  • According to MOS:NUMERAL, it seems to be a personal choice for integers greater than nine.-- 05:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned initially, the prose itself is written well so I don't see any major impediments to the article becoming an FA, and I think the suggestions made here would push that case even further. Best of luck. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for reviewing this and the nice words, Sky Harbor. Done on points one and two.-- 05:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I appreciate the edits made and I am glad to vote Support for this nomination. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It's a phone number, upon calling which fans can hear snippets of upcoming music from Rodrigo.-- 09:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, that's very 1980s! LOL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done, ChrisTheDude. Thanks for the comments. I really, really appreciate it.-- 09:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review - pass

Image licencing, rationales and placement seem OK to me. The sample needs an ALT text. Sources look pretty mainstream but I wonder why some have archives and others don't. What makes Qobuz a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sample does not contain video so it does not need ALT text. TimedText is already present. All sources should now have archives except the singlechart templates, as there does not currently exist a way of adding archives to them. Qobuz is just a music store and streaming service which is used for credits since Tidal went behind a paywall. The information about credits is provided to them by the record label when songs are published there. In the case of this song, it matches the vinyl booklet (hard to read). Do the reviews pass now, Jo-Jo Eumerus?-- 10:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to qualify that Pbritti's concerns above are not overridden by my review of the sources, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Since this is almost down to older nominations, would it be okay for me to put up another one? My schedule has changed a bit due to starting a job and I would only have time to attend to comments on a new nomination during the weekends (aka the next few days).-- 04:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would. FrB.TG (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Older nominations

American Writers

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

America's #2 novelist travels to London in 1823 to become #1 and reverse British disdain for US literature. Pretending to be English, he hooks up with a Scottish publisher and becomes a regular contributor for a leading Edinburgh magazine – the first American to do so! One of his submissions is the first attempt anywhere at a history of American literature and the first critical survey of the new nation's authors. British readers appreciate it and American readers go nuts in their hatred, the biggest hater being a young newspaper apprentice named William Lloyd Garrison. In the long run, the words bear influence and the critic is to a degree absolved by scholarship. This is my 9th FA nomination (7th on a John Neal (writer) topic). I very much appreciate reviewers taking the time to read the article and leave comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Hello Dugan Murphy, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

They are all in public domain, mainly because the underlying works are not covered by copyright anymore due to their age. All images are relevant to the article and placed at appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt texts. The only minor issue I spotted is that the caption of "John Neal by Sarah Miriam Peale 1823 Portland Museum of Art.jpg" says "1823" but wiki commons page says "circa 1823". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: Thanks for the image review and for picking up on the Peale painting date issue. I just made the recommended change to that image caption. Does the image review pass? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EG comments

I'll leave some comments soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • The two lead paragraphs are a bit long, which is not bad in itself. However, for readability, I recommend splitting off the sentence beginning with "The series was well received in the UK and exerted measurable influence over British critics" (currently in paragraph 2) into its own paragraph. This new paragraph seems like it would roughly correspond with the "Contemporary reactions" and "Modern scholarship" sections.
Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: The phrasing "later critics decades later" is a bit clunky. I'd reword this, e.g. changing the first "later" to "subsequent"
Great point. I chose "other" instead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Moving there from Baltimore, his goals" - This has a dangling modifier. Neal, not his goals, moved to the UK from Baltimore.
I swapped "Moving there from Baltimore" to "Having moved there from Baltimore". Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "That edition remains the most accessible of Neal's literary productions." - Pattee's edition?
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blackwood engages Neal
  • Para 2: "Neal's resources were running low after living in England with no income for three months." - This also has a dangling modifier (Neal's resources didn't live in England; Neal did).
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "a period in which such periodicals were more influential than ever before" - Should this be "a period when..."?
Yes, I think so. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "The magazine had not, however, published a single piece on an American topic from June 1822 until Neal's first piece in May 1824." - Unless June 1822 was when Blackwood's was first published (which it wasn't), I would rephrase this to "The magazine did not, however, publish a single piece on an American topic from June 1822 until Neal's first piece in May 1824." Otherwise, it may sound like it had never published a single piece on an American topic, ever, and that June 1822 was when its first piece ever was published.
Rephrased. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank you for noticing all these! I have addressed each comment so far. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll have some more comments on Thursday or Friday. Thanks for getting to these so quickly. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot about this. I will leave comments on Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Hog Farm's review is complete. Feel free to jump back in when you're ready! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll leave some comments shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steady contributorship:
  • Para 1: I might have been missing something, but why would Blackwood reject Neal's articles after learning who Neal was? Was it because Blackwood didn't want to accept an American's submission?
It was Walker, not Blackwood. The rejection was because Neal was American, so I edited the sentence to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "The first installment of the American Writers series came out in the September 1824 issue" - The phrasing "out in" sounds kind of awkward so I would just use "was published" in place of "came out".
Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymity:
  • Para 2: "under the name X.Y.Z." - Technically this would be an initialism or an acronym.
Changed "name" to "initials". Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paras 2 and 3: "most British readers likely knew they were reading the work of an American" ... "Readers on both sides of the Atlantic largely knew they were reading the work of an American" - In light of the second statement, the first seems repetitive. I think you could rephrase this section to only include the second statement ("Readers on both sides of the Atlantic largely knew they were reading the work of an American").
I didn't follow your suggestion exactly, but I changed the first sentence of the last paragraph in that section to remove the reference to British readers. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Content:
  • Para 1: Do any of the sources explain why there is a discrepancy between the quantities of names? (For instance, were there instances in which several people were covered in the same paragraph?)
None that I can find. My understanding of the discrepancy is explained below in answer to one of Hog Farm's comments, but that's not appropriate to include in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "a proportionality Richards said was "frequently grossly violated"" - Later on in this section, the article mentions that Neal wrote about all of these authors from his own memory. If I'm reading this correctly, was the proportionality of the description of each author based on how much he remembered about them (rather than being based on their importance in the American literary scene)?
I believe Richards in that quote was saying that Cooper (top US novelist at the time) deserved more than half a page if Neal was to give himself 8. None of the sources say that all the authors who got less coverage from Neal got that little because of Neal's poor memory. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "He wrote it all in a style unique to himself" - Do the sources describe this style at all?
I changed "style" to "conversational tone" to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Richards considered that coverage to be far out of proportion to his role in American literature" - Nothing wrong with this sentence, I just found it funny that he believed himself to be one of the few writers of "truly American literature" and wrote eight pages about himself.
That's John Neal. He was about as shy about praising himself as he was about taking himself down. He did both in American Writers, as the article states. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Neal's critique of William Cullen Bryant was likely the basis for the section on Bryant in James Russell Lowell's satirical poem A Fable for Critics over twenty years later" - Was this critique parodied for being inaccurate?
Not at all. The source quotes Neal's critique of Bryant and says: "Lowell later put this into metres in his Fable for Critics." Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thanks for these comments! They are all addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing them so quickly, and my apologies for being relatively slow with these comments. I'll leave more feedback this weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
United Kingdom:
  • Para 1: "many used quotes to substantiate" - I'd clarify that they used quotes from American Writers.
Clarified! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "with ushering a brief period of increased critical attention of his novels among British reviewers" - Would the British Critic review (in the previous sentence) be one such example of increased critical attention?
Yes. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I take it that British periodicals reviewed American Writers much more positively than American periodicals?
Yes, that's what the second sentence of the "United States" section says. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
United States:
  • Para 1: "Neal wrote five novels in Baltimore" - This is referring retrospectively to Neal's authorship of these novels, so I would say "Neal had written five novels in Baltimore...".
Recommendation accepted! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: Were there any other notable American authors, besides Fairfield, who reviewed the piece positively?
Not that I can find in the sources. Richards introduces that Fairfield quote by saying that Fairfield represented a minority in the US on the matter. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Portland, Maine:
  • I wonder if this section should be retitled to reflect that it's about Neal's return to Portland, Maine. The way the section is currently titled, it gives the impression that this is solely about commentary from people in Portland, Maine.
The parent category is "Contemporary reactions" and this subsection is "Portland, Maine". The way I see it, each of these subsections is thus understood to be "Contemporary reactions in <UK/US/Portland>". It feels beside the point that the contemporary reactions presented in the previous two subsections are all printed in periodicals, versus in Portland, where they were printed on broadsides and communicated with a racist prank and fistfights. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Influence on American writers:
  • "By claiming the US did not yet have a distinct literature, it is possible Neal helped authors of the later American Renaissance" - Did any specific person say this? The text that I've underlined gives the impression that there may be disagreement over whether Neal did help authors of the later American Renaissance.
I don't mean to give an impression of disagreement, so I've reworded to hopefully better reflect the source. This is what it says: "In his essays on American literature as of 1824 in Blackwood's Magazine, he described all American writers—including himself—as failing to imagine or enact a genuinely American literature suited to express the energy, newness, and difference that elsewhere distinguished the new nation from its English forebears. In brief, Neal suggested that Charles Brockden Brown, Washington Irving, and James Fenimore Cooper were little more than transatlantic reproductions of, respectively, William Godwin, Oliver Goldsmith, and Sir Walter Scott. With the decks so cleared, Emerson and his associates could imagine for themselves a fresh start, so disregarding fifty years of American writing since independence." Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have more by Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank you for the additional comments! I have addressed them all. Looking forward to more. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I'll review this once Epicgenius has completed their review. Hog Farm Talk 13:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, feel free to review the article. It might take me a while to get through this page due to real-life work commitments, and I can resume my review once you're done. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here we go. I'm trying to multitask between reviewing this and listening to the KC Royals playoff game, so apologies if some of this doesn't make any sense. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this up. The Sears book does say he had an article in every issue between July 1824 and February 1826, but checking that against other sources, it seems that Sears has a typo and meant to say Feb 1825, not 1826. I have changed Feb 1826 to Feb 1825 in the first paragraph of that section and left the last sentence of that section alone. By saying he didn't publish anything substantial between Feb 1825 and Sep 1825, I could also say that the only thing he published in Blackwood's between those two issues is what Richards describes as a "short note" on Maximilian Godefroy. I think it's better as it is rather than adding this detail, but let me know if you think otherwise. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The list of authors at the end of the article is based on the table of contents for the 1937 edition, which lists out the authors covered in each installment. Your comment gave me reason to double-check for differences between this part of the article and the TOC. I found 3 authors missing from the Wiki article, so now the Wiki list includes 122. There are two cases in which Neal lists one author name, but Pattee clarifies in each case that the name is a pen name shared by two different authors. This is to say that, if I used the pen names in this list instead of the authors' individual real names, there would be exactly 120. For the scholars who count 135, I think they are counting not only the 122 in this Wiki list, but a few authors mentioned briefly by Neal in the 5 core installments who did not make into the 1937 TOC, as well as the extra authors mentioned in "Late American Books", which is often lumped in with the American Authors series and was included in the 1937 edition. However, those authors are not mentioned in the 1937 TOC, so I decided not to include them in the article's list. Thank you for reading all that and let me know if you have any thoughts on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! The roman numeral citations are for the introduction to volume 6; the page 257 citation is to the introduction to the chapter on American Writers. I've added a separate entry in the source list for the item on page 257 and edited the inline citations to fit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work here; I fully expect to support. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the compliment! I have addressed all your comments. Do you think any of those comments warrant further discussion or do you have other comments? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good to me; supporting Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laquintasaura

Nominator(s): LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the earliest known members of Ornithischia, one of the three major groups of dinosaurs. It's a very important picture of their evolution and the first time a primitive ornithischian rather than one of the more famous later forms has made it up to FAC—though hopefully not the last. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General thoughts by Generalissima

That's all at first check. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! With the changes things are looking a bit better. Support on image/prose. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback by Shushugah

Sourcing and references

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

The skeletal diagram by Maurissaurio could be referenced (He, Mauricio Garcia, is a published researcher in the area). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just the type tooth in the original description. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fonseca et al. (2024) does have Laquintasaura as a basal thyreophoran with clades labelled if needed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also newer, so could be better. FunkMonk (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

I already reviewed this at GAN, but here some more comments, for now just on the lead:

Coordinator note

Three weeks in and just the one support. LittleLazyLass, I notice you haven't edited since 30 Sep but if you're seeing this, I recommend that you resolve the outstanding comments by reviewers above and ping them when done otherwise it might have to be archived in the next few days if there's no progress. FrB.TG (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll make sure to make more edits today. I've just been busy lately, sorry. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 15:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

45th Chess Olympiad

Nominator(s): Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an international team chess tournament in the spirit of the Olympic Games that took place in Budapest, Hungary in September 2024. The featured article on the 44th Chess Olympiad was used as a model.Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks for the review. I've corrected the image formatting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

Well, that was quick, it only just ended. I shall review in a few days time, once the frequency of edits has gone down. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting on the lead for now:

More soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: Thanks for your comments. I've taken care of them all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see award-winning journalist Leonard Barden has written a review of this event in his Guardian column. Seems an important source. This is what I take from it:

I see the article has dropped from the Main page, so should be more stable now. I shall shortly begin my review of the body. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch of comments:

More later, once you have caught up with the above. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: I've improved the article in line with your suggestions. I don't think adding Nakamura's comment about So's performance is really necessary. Carlsen's failure to win an individual gold medal seems like navel-gazing, but I still decided to include it in the summary for what it's worth.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with your decisions. All changes look good, except for the bit about Olympiad Best Game prize: The source you have added is just to the game. It needs the Barden source to verify the award. Also, perhaps consider adding that Modi awarded the Indian team players financially, as per Barden's latest column. I'll finish the rest soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Barden's source for the game and a sentence on the cash awards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch of comments on prose:

Apologies for taking so long. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

@Jens Lallensack: Thanks for your comments. I’ve re-arranged the “Fair play regulations” section so that every paragraph is referenced. The decision on the Kyrgyz proposal is mentioned in the “FIDE Congress” section, but it’s good to keep it under “Concerns and controversies” as the proposal was really controversial and raised a lot of concerns that FIDE might lose its affiliation with IOC and that chess federations might lose government funding. I wasn’t sure if the decision should be repeated there. What do you suggest?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017 North American winter storm

Nominator(s): ~ Tails Wx 15:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! This article regards a historic winter storm across the Southern United States in December 2017, which produced unusual amounts of snowfall across multiple states across the region. Developing from a cooled atmosphere and the resulting effects from cold temperatures and a cold front over Texas on December 5–7, the low-pressure area associated with the winter storm also caused heavy snowfall across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern regions of the United States, before moving offshore into The Maritimes and eventually over the Atlantic Ocean as a low-pressure system. After traversing the open waters, the low-pressure system also caused high wind gusts and severe weather across Germany and Switzerland. Overall, this winter storm caused eight fatalities, 45 injuries, and $1.06 million in damage. This article is currently a GA and has passed a GAN on March 31 this year. This is also my first FAC nomination, and am looking forward to any comments or suggestions regarding this article! ~ Tails Wx 15:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

Drive-by comment: can we do no better for a map than File:Vapor imagery December winter storm 2017.png? It is rather low-quality and has a misleading GIF icon in the corner. Given that the data is in the public domain, I'm sure it's possible to find or even create a better visualization. Good luck on your first FAC! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, got that image switched out and replaced with File:December 2017 winter storm snowfall map SE US.jpg. Thanks, TechnoSquirrel69! ~ Tails Wx 03:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: I did scale up the map a bit; let me know if any further changes are needed for that image in terms of resizing or scaling (courtesy link to that respective section: #Meteorological synopsis). I did add alt text to the remaining images that didn't have them, and for now, I hid the two images and don't plan on changing that until either the licensing review is done or the files are deleted for whatever reason. Thanks! ~ Tails Wx 04:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, scaling should be done using |upright= in order to respect user preferences - see MOS:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done here - I did set it to 1.6, as a side note. ~ Tails Wx 04:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Any chance this could be added to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/FAC urgents? ~ Tails Wx 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Hahn

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Otto Hahn, the German chemist who was awarded the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of nuclear fission. Today Hahn is something of a divisive figure. A century ago, there was much less of a distinction between chemistry and physics. Hahn was involved early in the chemistry of radioactive substances. Their presence could be detected from their radioactivity, and their unique half lives. Unfortunately, most of the new elements he discovered turned out to be isotopes, a concept that had not been invented when he began. He also had to deal with a lot of disapproval from more traditional chemists, for whom chemistry involved substances you could see, and smell and taste. Early on he formed a professional relationship with a physicist, Lise Meitner. Among his generation, he was regarded as progressive in his attitudes towards women, even a feminist. But women like Meitner still considered him a male chauvinist pig, and their historians have been much less reticent about publicly calling him one. After World War II, his cause was to resurrect the reputation of German science, which had been tarnished (to say the least) in the Nazi period. In this role, he sought publicity and downplayed uncomfortable truths. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LittleLazyLass

You're quite correct; there is no standard. There are 33 featured article biographies of physicists and chemists, of which I brought 23 of them to featured. The article is written in chronological order and follows the layout guideline in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. I will consider your proposal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I'll try to review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 13:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue this; hopefully tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 02:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipate supporting, but want to give this another read-through first. Hog Farm Talk 02:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I am working on this now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some initial comments:

I'll keep looking and leave more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to a couple items above; otherwise, I consider those initial comments addressed. I'll have more fresh comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see my comments above are all satisfactorily addressed. Here are a few more:

I'll continue looking at the sources and more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having finally gone through the rest of the citations, here are some more comments:

Summary: Everything in the References list are books held by academic libraries or articles in academic journals. Everything in the "notes" section looks reliable and primary sources are used appropriately, with the exceptions noted in individual comments above. There are a lot of works from Hahn's lifetime by people in his life, which makes me wary, but I'm willing to accept the reasoning you stated above in reply to one of my earlier comments on that topic. There certainly is a wide breadth of sources included here. With the exception of a few cases addressed in my above comments, the citations are consistently formatted. This article represents a lot of work and I can appreciate it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

More to come tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, my next set of comments:
  • Link to uranium-234?
  • Link to Cornell University Press in the body?
  • Why did Planck order the expediting of the shipment to Freundlich?
  • Link through ILL to Ernst Telschow?
  • "While Hahn was in North America": What month and year?
  • Link to the Zeitschrift für Physik and the Chemische Berichte?
  • Link to Werner Heisenberg?
  • Could we also add the inflation template for the 12 million and 47 million marks?
  • Link to Lawrence Badash in the body and biblio?
  • Link to the University of Frankfurt?
  • Link to Dubna?
  • Do we have ISBNs or archive.org links available for Hahn's four books? If so, consider adding to the "Publications in English" section?
  • Add URLs for refs #6, #164, #165, Yruma 2008?
  • Add translated titles for refs #49, #50, #73, #74, #75, #99, #165, #168, #170, #177, #184, Gerlach & Hahn 1984, Hahn 1988, Sime 2004, Stolz 1989?
  • Add the language parameter for refs #49, #50, #99, #165, #184?
  • Link to Jeff Hughes (historian) and Kristie Macrakis?
  • Add ISBNs or other identifiers for Feldman & Ford 1979 and Kant 2002?
  • Could we add the WPMH tag? The biography is notable enough for MILHIST since Hahn did work on the German chemical and nuclear weapons programs.
That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection)

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the disastrous loss of the entire Taxi Driver collection to, er, negligence, McQueen was still uncertain about launching his own label. After some dithering, he gathered up every odd and end he'd created since then and put them together in the primal scream that was Nihilism. Not yet capable of the sweeping narratives that would characterise his later career, and on a budget of approximately zero, he went for pure shock tactics. Models smeared in filth and fake blood stalked down the runway, wrapped in cling film, breasts and genitals flashing. The audience was struck dumb and even photographers quit snapping, aghast at the sight. Reviews were mixed, with many accusing McQueen of misogyny while others recognized the burgeoning talent beneath the gore. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Hi ♠PMC♠, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

The logo is in public domain per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Commons:Threshold_of_originality. The other two images are licensed under CC BY 2.0 and CC BY-SA 2.0. All images have captions and alt texts. They are relevant to the article and placed at appropriate locations. The description on the wiki commons page of "File:Nihilism from Alexander McQueen Savage Beauty.jpg" should be updated: it listed 5 items but the image is a cropped version that only shows one item. I'm confused since the wiki commons description says "Savage Beauty exhibition, 2011" but our caption says "2015 staging". The file was uploaded in 2011 so that date is probably correct. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

I looked through the prose and sources during the GAN review. I think a secondary source review is in order for FAC, but I can definitely Support on prose here; this is an extremely solid and thorough article. I noticed a couple cites were out of order, so I went ahead and fixed those. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

As always, suggestions not demands, etc. etc.

Very tight article. Nice work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

I hope that these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times, but I highly doubt that I will find anything further. Wonderful work as always, and good luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

To follow - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all sources are reliable and appropriate, the formatting consistent and in line with recommended guidelines and practice. I've run some additional searches, and no higher standard of source came out; no additional information or aspects for examination were located. - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC prose review

Robert Poore

Nominator(s): AA (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Anglo-Irish sportsman and military officer Robert Poore. Hailing from an Ango-Irish family of some standing, he was a prolific first-class cricketer who, interestingly, played Test cricket for South Africa. Mostly associated at first-class level with Hampshire, he was known for his outstanding 1899 season when, between June and August he was the highest first-class run-scorer in England and averaged 116.58. In that time he made 304 against Somerset, which was the highest individual first-class score for Hampshire until it was surpassed by Dick Moore's 316 in 1937. His average in 21 innings across the season was 91.23, which was a record average for an English season, that was not broken until Don Bradman averaged 98.66 in 1930, and not surpassed by an English batsman until Herbert Sutcliffe averaged 96.96 in 1931. He was a multi-talented sportsman, having success in polo, tennis, racquets, squash, and was the best-man-at-arms in several of the British Armed Forces Royal Tournaments. He had a long and distinguished career in the British Army, serving in the Second Boer War and WW1 amongst others, and ending his career as a brigadier-general. The article has been reviewed by WP:CRIC members, who have made suggestions. As a sidenote, I don't think we have any Irish cricketers at FA! AA (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Because it's come up in an article I'm working on at the moment -- the militia wasn't, technically, part of the British Army, but a separate institution (unlike its successors, the TA and the Army Reserve). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Weren't they amalgamated with the British Army sometime around 1906? AA (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- reading more carefully, I think you've threaded this needle fine: you have been clear about the distinction between militia and regular service. Might be worth checking whether the militia of the Wiltshire Regiment is accurate, or whether it was a militia battalion under the command of the Wiltshires (but not part of them) -- for example, the Bucks Rifle Volunteers were under the command of the Oxford Light Infantry, but didn't wear the cap badge and were rather protective of their separate identity. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist I've made a slight amendment in the article, linking to the 3rd (Royal Wiltshire Militia) Battalion in both the lede and "Military career" section. AA (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the change has gone slightly the wrong way, unfortunately: if he joined up in 1883, that's before the creation of the TA in 1908, so he would have been part of the Volunteer Force, rather than the British Army, until 1886. That's compatible with the body but not the lead. Being even more picky, in the British military, terms like "3rd (RWM) Battalion" don't make sense without an attached regiment, so you need "of the Wiltshire Regiment". UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Poore began his military service in the Volunteer Force with the 3rd (Royal Wiltshire Militia) Battalion of the Wiltshire Regiment in 1883, before gaining a regular commission in the British Army in 1886." And reads along the same lines in the "Military career" section. Does that make more sense?! AA (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works perfectly. As the Volunteers were (very) part-time, most people who served in them would have either had a day job or been so aristocratic as to not need one: I wonder if we know what else he was doing for those few years? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can find out! Thanks again :) AA (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have had a further look and it appears to be a rather quiet (or unwritten) period of his life. The family were very wealthy, so I wonder if he had need to work? AA (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, trying to do a proper review: may be a bit fragmentary:

The rank of second lieutenant (introduced in 1877) was abolished in 1881 and reintroduced in 1887. All new officers in the period (and existing officers of second lieutenant rank) were granted the rank of lieutenant. If you want a citation its covered on page 271 of Roper, Michael (1998). The Records of the War Office and Related Departments, 1660-1964. Public Record Office. ISBN 978-1-873162-45-3. - Dumelow (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work -- as usual, lots of pedantry here and, due to my lack of expertise on the subject, mostly quibbles about style and MoS. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: I was absolutely confident it was going to be in The Jubilee Book of Cricket (1897) by Ranjitsinhji, but to my surprise it wasn't. The original upload by User:Materialscientist was taken from Getty, and they haven't provided any authorship or publication information. AA (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can a publication old enough to satisfy the terms of the current tagging be found? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would any of these images suffice? AA (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing publication info on those - is it known? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one has erroneously been listed on ESPNcricinfo as having been published by The Cricketer in 1899, however it wasn't published until 1921. I have located the picture from this volume of Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game, published in 1899. AA (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that would make it PD in the US for sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely upload to the Commons (and when I do, it's always my own cricket photos), so I'm a little unsure if I have done this correctly. The original author is Lafayette, who I am fairly certain is the Irish photographer James Lafayette (deceased 1923). AA (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the wording of the copyright template you've used, it indicates that you'll need an additional tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the PD-US tag to it. AA (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Matarisvan

Hi AA, my comments:

That's all from me, I will try to get a source review done soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC - source review: pass

I'll do a full prose review in a day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC prose review
Lead & IB
Military career
India and South Africa
Hampshire

Hope these are helpful. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted

Nominator(s): Fathoms Below (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a virtual reality game released as part of the Five Nights at Freddy's franchise. Last year after I helped promote the original game to FA status, I've been curious on whether another FA could be made with this franchise. This game probably has the best chance overall. In summary, Help Wanted adapts the first five games in the series in an anthology format, while also including some new minigames. So let's see what we can do here. Fathoms Below (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

Will review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done second point, @Vacant0, is there a specific policy requiring the translation of the source titles? Just curious, because I'm not sure if that would be required. My previous FACs used a few non-English sources and I wasn't asked to translate the titles. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of one, but I might be wrong. I know that there's a policy about foreign quotations, but not foreign titles. I was told to add translated titles at a GA review some time ago, so I've been doing it since then. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked around at some pertinent policies and guidelines (WP:NOENG, and WP:FOOTQUOTE) and it seems like translating the titles into English is not required, though quotes not in English should be translated to English. I might ask around and see if translating the titles to English is preferable or if they should be kept as-is. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then. I do not see it is an issue that should bar the article from becoming FA. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is relatively short so I'll go through and read, and leave any recommendations if I spot any. If the article does not receive a source check, you can ping me and I'll do that too. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done
Done
Done
Done
The reviewer says "distorted visuals" and there isn't much that I could find that went into detail on the graphics.
Scott Cawthon via his company ScottGames. I'll add that to the infobox
reworded
A lot of the sources weren't in English and it was hard to summarize their thoughts. This section was the one that I thought might need some extra eyes
I'll have a deeper look in the next few days and leave some comments that could improve the section. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Done
Should I change it to "effectiveness"?
Yes, that sounds better. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Done
Metacritic lists only one review for the sequel from UploadVR. Should I include it?
Sure, why not. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a great way to integrate the review to be honest. Is there a way you think I should add it somehow. Say something like "UploadVR called the game ___ and ___?" Just curious, I just want to make sure that I'm doing this right.

Vacant09, a few replies above. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go paragraph by paragraph.

Easy to get into, especially for people unfamiliar to the franchise
Reworded a little to be more in line with the source. Does this work?
Yes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to add a quote from the article instead. Does this look better?
Yes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Reworded. Does this work?
Yes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Effective at scaring the player
Reworded
This was a tricky one, but I reworded it. Does the new version make sense? I think I got it more in line with what the reviewer was saying.
Yes, it sounds better. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for addressing my comments. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NegativeMP1

I've done work on every other game in the Five Nights at Freddy's series and conducted several source searches for this article before this FAC at the request of the nom (hell, we nearly co-nom'd), while also reading through it countless times. So knowing the subject matter and what all is out there, I firmly believe that this article clearly meets the FA criteria (though I did choose to wait for Vacant to finish his review before I supported), and I hope that this passes. λ NegativeMP1 07:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smash Hit

Nominator(s): Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This article is about a 2014 smash hit mobile game, Smash Hit. You shoot balls and break glass and crystals. There's also a virtual reality version of the game. This is my second FAC nomination overall. This article was promoted to GA last month and was then reviewed by three editors in a peer review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h+

Support I was a reviewer at the PR and can say that I have no comments left. 750h+ 23:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

This looks interesting! Putting myself down for a review later. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TechnoSquirrel69:. Do you still plan on reviewing this? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay; I am indeed! I have started a source review but haven't gotten an opportunity to wrap it up yet. I'm hoping to do that and post my comments later today. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review

Citation numbers from this revision. Let's do this!

General comments

That's a full source review, but I might be back for further review of the prose. Feel free to reply to my comments in line and let me know if you have any questions! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, @TechnoSquirrel69:! I've addressed your comments. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0: I have one reply above; everything else looks good! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me; source review passed. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium

I'm putting myself down to take a look at this later this week. Sohom (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Sohom Datta:. It's been 13 days so are you still interested in reviewing this? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TWOrantula

Ooh, shiny! Gonna review this later. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 23:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @TrademarkedTWOrantula:. Are you still interested in reviewing this article again? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the wait! I'll plan to review this article's prose sometime this week (if time is on my side). TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 14:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Take your time. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead

BP!

Hi. I will point this out early so you can work this out immediately before the actual source reviewer comes.

Draken Bowser

Looks neat. Just a few ideas below:

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While scouring for Swedish sources I realized we should probably mention when Mediocre was founded. Only, Dagens Nyheter states that the company was founded "in the fall of 2012", but the company blog says "fall of 2010", although the aktiebolag wasn't registered until 2011 (which was also the year Sprinkle released). Not sure what to do about that. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a 2011 PG interview in which Johansson said that Mediocre was founded in fall of 2010. Escapist and Holmquist's blog also say 2010. Based on this, should I include this in the article? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a few more: Dagens Nyheter and LiU.se. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't me sliding into these DMs, but is "rate of fire" the correct word here? You shoot five balls at the same time, not individual balls at a faster rate. IceWelder [✉] 20:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I did not know what terminology to use without making it sound worse. I've changed this now but it can be improved if it does not sound good enough. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should simply call it a "limit"? Draken Bowser (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly? The sentences are currently worded as: "By default, the player shoots one ball at a time, but can shoot up to five at once by smashing a consecutive sequence of crystals. Regardless of the amount, the player will only lose ball of ammunition per shot." Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the year of their foundation in the article, considering that multiple sources indicate that it was founded in 2010. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freston (causewayed enclosure)

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another Neolithic site in England, this one being investigated by a Canadian research team, for some reason; only one excavation so far, so not a lot of findings to report, which is a pity as there's a possible Neolithic longhouse or Anglo-Saxon hall in part of the site, which I'm sure the team are keen to get to. The article has had a very helpful pre-FAC review from UndercoverClassicist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sawyer777

very exciting, always happy to see archaeology at FAC! i can commit to a review for this in the next few days. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

initial suggestions/comments:

overall the prose and such is great, not many issues at all. i think i'll do a source review for this as well - if i've not done that by sunday, ping me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source review

in terms of source quality, no complaints. especially for more rural/"obscure" sites like this, these (archaeological journals, books/chapters from university presses, government trust reports, &c.) are definitely the best kinds of sources one can find. if necessary i have real-life access to most of these, but not immediately on my laptop.

comments:

a spot-check is probably unnecessary what with how many FAs you have, but just for good measure:

... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- have fixed Palmer. I can send you a copy of Curwen if you need it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, sorry lol i forgot to put the "good" down for Curwen initially. now that we have Palmer 1976, support. :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Another archaeology one, I'll be sure to review soon. Hog Farm Talk 23:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for how long it took to get to this; work got busiser than I expected.
Supporting, I read through it and had no concerns from a non-expert perspective. Hog Farm Talk 22:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HF; I appreciate the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

Just some random comments for now.

All responded to; thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments...

Support from UC

Good to see this here. I will chip in, though it might be wise to wait until we have a few more reviews (as I left comments on a recent draft): let me know if a good moment comes up, otherwise I'll keep my eye on the page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, I think this would be a good time if you have more comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ask and you shall receive...

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon

With the caveats that I am neither an expert in neolithic structures nor a native speaker, I offer the following comments on prose. (My only somewhat relevant claim here is that I have been twice to Bury Ditches.)

That's all. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; all addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks -- and I made the remaining change per the comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

I don't have much.
  • "sally ports for defenders to emerge from and attack a besieging force.[note 2]" I feel the from in "emerge from" dangles a bit. Maybe "sally ports that defenders could emerge from and ..."
    I see your point; I made it "that defenders could emerge from to ...", which I hope connects the clauses smoothly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is also evidence that the enclosures played a role in funeral rites: food, pottery, and human remains have all been found deliberately deposited in the ditches.[11] The construction of these sites would have required substantial labour for clearing the land, preparing trees for use as posts or palisades, and digging the ditches, and would probably have been planned for some time in advance, as they were built in a single operation." The sentences of this paragraph don't feel connected, and the second sentence feels more general than the first. I guess I expect a paragraph to start with the general and work its way to the specific.
    The "also evidence" is meant to be a reference to the "Evidence of attacks" in the previous paragraph; I think this sentence was moved to the next paragraph to avoid a short paragraph of one sentence. I've moved it back and have now joined the remaining sentence with the following paragraph. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "either would make Freston a site of "potentially national importance"" Given the string of cites that followed, I think it would be helpful to the reader to say who is asserting this.
    The quote is from Martin (2007), who did the geophysical survey for English Heritage; the quote is then given verbatim in Carter et al. (2022). I decided to use the quote because Carter repeats it, so giving it more support, but although he supports it I think I just have to cite Martin as the source. I've done that -- let me know if that's enough or if you think Carter should be mentioned too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review; changes made and a couple of notes above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims 4

Nominator(s): Theknine2 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2014 social simulation game The Sims 4. Initially released to mixed reception due to its limited variety of content and gameplay features, the game has since been significantly expanded upon by its developer Maxis, who has continued to support the game via free updates and many many DLC add-ons (thanks EA!). The game differentiates itself from previous entries in the series in several ways, such as: its stronger representations of gender identities and sexual orientations, fully-featured versions of the game on consoles, built-in online features (thankfully optional, unlike Maxis' SimCity, at launch), and being free-to-play from 2022 onwards.

This article achieved GA status in November 2022, after its third nomination (That was my fault, oops! I was a way more inexperienced editor back then.), and I have done a lot of work to the article to make it happen, including basically re-writing the whole thing. It's my first time attempting an FAC, so I am receptive to feedback and changes (including major ones, if necessary), but I do believe that the article has reached a point where it qualifies for FA status. Thank you in advance! Theknine2 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

Welcome to FAC! I'll have a look and review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0: Done. Theknine2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0: Done. Theknine2 (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at some parts of the prose this week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, @Theknine2:. Considering that this is your first nomination, FACs need to be assessed by several reviewers in order to get promoted. This also includes source and image reviews. It's soon gonna be a month since you've nominated this article for FAC, and so far, I've been the only one who left a review. So as a recommendation, you should follow the advice at §How to get the best from the process or simply ask WP:VG FAC editors to leave a review. Cheers and good luck, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve made the above changes. Thank you for your feedback so far! Theknine2 (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I’ll get to working on this within the next two weeks! I’m still committed to working on the FAC. Theknine2 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Hurricanehink

Support - I figured I should since I have an open FAC with Hurricane Dennis. I've never played The Sims 4, just the first three, so I'm curious about the read.

A pretty good read! Nothing major stood out to me, so it won't be much to get my support. Let me know if you have any questions about these comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the review.
  • According to WP:VG/DATE, release dates for non-English markets should not be included, since this game was developed and published in the US. I’ve changed the phrasing to simply reflect its earliest official release date.
  • Added in prose
  • Price probably isn’t necessary for the article (WP:NOTPRICE)
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done - changed it to “households”, which is the term used in the game.
  • It’s an enhancement of the Build Mode portion of the game (present in all Sims games), rather than a completely new feature.
  • An explanation of the “Plumbob” probably belongs in the The Sims article rather than here. (It is a good suggestion) I can’t currently find citations specifically discussing the Plumbob, so I’ll leave it as is for now.
  • I’ve added a relevant citation, though it’s not about the expansion pack.
Theknine2 (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick replies, happy to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Chollet

Nominator(s): Rjjiii (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I first read about Leroy Chollet in a local newspaper that mentioned him as an African American basketball player who played in the Whites-only inaugural NBA Finals because he did not tell anybody that he was Black. That sounded a bit off, so I googled him but didn't find much. The Wikipedia article was a stub. As I read about the guy, I expanded his article. This is my first nomination, so feel free to offer any guidance on this process. Rjjiii (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

Lovely article. I'll take a look. All of the suggestions listed may be rejected with justification. 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
early life

No problems here. 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

college carreer
professional career
later life

Excellent work for a first nomination, short and sweet article, hope we'll be seeing this on the main page as TFA soon! 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 750h+, I've addressed the comments above in the article,[8] Rjjiii (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 750h+ 23:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

I did the GA review for this and am glad to see it here at FAC. I left some comments on the article talk page in preparation for FAC, and I see those have been dealt with, but rereading the article now I have a couple more comments.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Mike Christie, addressed in article,[9] Rjjiii (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support; fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Image and source review

Images are well placed. Have the newspapers been checked for a copyright notice? Does the ALT text for the second image have to be this long. Source-wise, is there a reason for the inconsistent application of "via newspapers.com."? What makes Statscrew a reliable source? Newspapers seem to be inconsistently formatted, both between the "References" and "Sources" section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking it out, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Rjjiii (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I am questioning Stats Crew is because I don't see a clear editorial mechanism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Gotcha, I've removed the ABL stats cited to Stats Crew. It's just there as an external link now. Rjjiii (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK. Unrelated to sourcing, but ALS should be spelled out IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Done. Rjjiii (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check

I notice that there is an inconsistent citation format between the notes and the article text. Unrelated, but I wonder if Milan Cemetery could be linked anywhere - for me it sounds like Milan the Italian city. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I appreciate you checking them out. In one case above, I somehow removed a citation without realizing it and have put it back. In the others I've offered quotes. I've wiki-linked Milan to Milan, Ohio. Regarding "an inconsistent citation format between the notes and the article text", does that mean using citation footnotes in the explanatory footnotes? That's worse for accessibility (on mobile), but I can do that if it's an FA requirement. To provide a copy of the sources noted above, can I email you? Since you're catching some errors, I'm going to try to double-check the cited pages first. Rjjiii (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (on the email thing) and yes (the footnotes and article text should be using the same citation style) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Kraken

Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Seattle Kraken are a team that competes in the National Hockey League. They are the league's newest team, having been founded in 2018 and playing their first game in 2021. I think this article meets the FA criteria. Also, mind that this is my first FA nomination; I've done some FL nominations before, but nothing like this. Nevertheless, feel free to give a review. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments the statement that ""Kraken" was a name that was already popular with fans prior to its official adoption" is cited to a spammy promotional article on the NHL website. If this is a reliable source, which I doubt, it would be better to say that the name was chosen as it rated best through market testing or similar. Independent sourcing would be much superior. The para starting with "Buoy, since his introduction, has been in a feud with Bissonnette" is also written in-universe, and oddly presents the mascot as being an actual person rather than a PR thing. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I have made the changes. I deleted the part about the Kraken being a popular name before announcement, and I edited the paragraph about Buoy and Bissonnette. XR228 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead
Establishment (2017–2021)
First seasons (2021–present)
Arena
Logos and uniforms

HF

Will review. Hog Farm Talk 22:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it for my first round of comments; due to some of the concerns above I don't plan on entering into a support or oppose declaration until after a source review addressing spot-checks and source reliability. Hog Farm Talk 23:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I have made the changes. Also, this morning, the Kraken announced something called the Kraken Hockey Network, so info about that has been added to the broadcast section. XR228 (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look at this once it passes its source review. Hog Farm Talk 22:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Going into five weeks and this nom hasn't reached a consensus to promote. I'm adding it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so it is likely going to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 KNVB Cup final

Nominator(s): Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 May 2015, one of the best days of my life. My favourite (local) football club winning something for the first (and thus far, only) time. Travelling down to Rotterdam with several family members, seeing people on viaducts waving and cheering on the passing buses with us fans (even ca. 100 km down the route), and the incredible (but tense) atmosphere in the stadium, is something I won't forget. There's one image in the article, which is not mine, as the few pictures I took were all a bit blurry ;) I've used online and newspaper articles to try and give a comprehensive (and of course unbiased) view. All comments are appreciated! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

Image review

Comments

Comments from Mike Christie

I've copyedited; let me know if you disagree with any of the changes I made.

That's all I have. It's hard to get this sort of article to flow smoothly, with engaging prose, but I think this gets there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good; support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Going into five weeks and this nom hasn't reached a consensus to promote. I'm adding it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so it's liable to time out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs - I understand this nom still needs a source review and probably another content review, but with 2 supports and 0 opposes, it is closer to a promotion than to being archived, right? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav torpedo boat T6

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T6 was a dinky little steam-driven torpedo boat that started life as an Austro-Hungarian vessel. She saw extensive service in the Adriatic Sea in the latter stages of WWI, performing convoy, escort, patrol and minesweeping tasks, and anti-submarine operations. After WWI she was taken over by the new South Slav state, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes – which was renamed Yugoslavia in 1929. She was captured by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, and despite her age the Italians put her to good use on coastal and second-line escort duties in the Adriatic. When the Italians capitulated in September 1943, her crew tried to reach an Allied port, but scuttled her when this proved impossible. This article is part of the 36-article Featured topic, Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy, that I am slowing improving to the point where every article and list is Featured (I'm about two-thirds of the way there). Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Yugoslav torpedo boat T3.jpg - a reprint of the source just credits the image to "Photo, Official" - could you please explain where the indication is that this is a British official photo, rather than a Yugoslav one?

The answer to this is with reference to the captions of photographs of RN ships in the same book, which have exactly the same annotation, "Photo, Official", whereas French ships for example, have "French Navy, Official" (see page 139 for an example of the latter). I consider it is entirely reasonable to assume that because it does not say "Yugoslav Navy, Official", but uses the same annotation as RN vessels, that it was taken by a RN source (probably the naval attache, or by a RN ship on a show the flag visit). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that the caption doesn't quite work right now - it's technically unsourced since the distinction is never made in this article that T-3 was of the T type instead of the F type. The same source this image is from does include a photo of one of the two-funnel models of these torpedo boats, but it's of much lower quality so I can understand why it is not used. Hog Farm Talk 23:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is necessary to cite the fact that T3 was a T-group boat as it is very unlikely to be challenged. I could add it and a citation to the caption if you think it is necessary, but it seems like overkill to me. An explanation of the distinction is made per "The F-group had two funnels rather than the single funnel of the T-group" under Description and construction. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Hog Farm. See what you think of my responses above. Thanks so much for having a look! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - passing on the image review. Hog Farm Talk 13:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie

Solid article. Paragraphs and sentences occasionally need splitting, and I have some thoughts on commas. Ping me when all of this is handled. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Description and construction:

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, it has become larger over time as more material has become available, and is now a bit unwieldy. I have reorganised it a bit, then split it. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Career:

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have addressed this, perhaps not exactly as you envisaged. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sammi Brie, all done I reckon. See what you think? Thanks for taking a look, apologies for the delay in addressing your comments. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pendright

Placeholder - Pendright (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

Hi Peacemaker67, my comments:

Good question. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, not sure how that got through previous reviews... Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is already piped to the Fasana Channel, but no harm in linking directly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, will do a source review soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Going into five weeks and this nom hasn't garnered a single support. Unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so it's most likely going to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Wong

Nominator(s): JokEobard (talk) 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a character from the Resident Evil game and film series; who is known for her red dress.

The article has undergone a lot of changes due to the reviewers at the 2nd peer review. It received several reviews from Aoba47, PanagiotisZois, Panini!, and Crisco 1492 (thanks for their help). Because of it, I feel like the article is ready for the FA criteria. Thank you! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Panagiotis Zois

Given my involvement with heavily rewriting the content of the "Reception" section, could I even take part in this FAC? I feel like a "conflict-of-interest" situation might arise.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I don't think thats a problem in fact some reviewers wants to assist nominators more in a different way so that they can easily resolve any issues. Additionally, you were also not the author. Just in case you don't want to continue the review, you can strike it out. Thanks! Regards 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 14:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I wanted to ask is about the "Reception" section. The part about the Dragon Lady trope is interesting, but as it stands, only two sources are used. Are there at least one-two more sources discussing this trope that could be added? PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PanagiotisZois. No, I went throughout and couldn't find more. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 09:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate, but understandable. All right. I've gone over the whole article again. It look really good. There are a few things I would like see changed, but that's more of personal taste, and not something that is required to make the article better. Taking this into account, I support this article's promotion. Always nice to see articles of female character get more love and attention. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

Will review this again. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vacant0. I don't think they need book pages since the book itself contains almost everything about the RE plot; and as usual almost the entire book pages mentions Ada (same with the usage of that sources from Jill Valentine). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only used two TheGamer, but it is marked reliable unlike the content before. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I ended up removing the Chinese comic book source. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecked:

Nice caught! I Ended up removing the claim of ref 25 because I cannot support the claim. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at the prose by the end of the week and will then decide my vote. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Take your time 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492

Chris Woodrich I expanded a bit [14], and yeah she mentioned about her representation as a woman. I hope this is fine for you as a non-native English speaker. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)<[reply]
  • To avoid too much mark-up, we had some discussion of Jennings' arguments at my talk page. Linked here for transparency.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • Worth mentioning in the lede that Lily Gao has reprised the role in the most recent release?
I'm not sure if this is needed as this may be potentially being removed by my co-nom, but I added it [15] 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to avoid mentioning Resident Evil 2 twice in two sentences? I had reworked it to use "latter", but that was reverted. Maybe "the prototype for the sequel"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My conom reverted it. I replaced it now with "sequel". 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances
  • After the restructuring, it's not clear who Alice is on first mention.
Added [16] 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the distinction between an alternate skin and a costume? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the "costume" as an "alternate skin" [17]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concept and design
  • "randomly and without much thought" - This is a bit awkwardly phrased. Any means of rewording this? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, not sure how since Kadoi said he "randomly thought her name without much thought" in the first Resident Evil. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the word he used, we may stray too much if we rephrase it. It's a minor quibble, anyways. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Separate Ways" is mentioned three times in three sentences. Any chance of reworking this to avoid the repetition?
Honestly, I prefer to repeat than to say DLC imor minigame because it confuses readers. In the original RE4, it is a minigame; but in the remake it is now DLC. Or you got any suggestion? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworked it with this edit. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • For the feminist critiques of the character, I was wondering if there is any consideration of the deuteragonist in Ada's chapter in Resident Evil 6 vis-a-vis Ada herself. She has a name, a face, and a known story, whereas the faceless male-coded deuteragonist in her chapter is there simply to ensure that the game's co-play mechanics are available (he isn't even H.U.N.K.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Woodrich You mean if I can find more reception about her appearance in RE6? Nope. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was more wondering if anyone had contrasted Ada with the Player 2 character in that chapter, but given that the character is essentially a non-entity, makes sense that nobody has.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not, but I will recheck it again to make sure in Saturday since I couldn't access my computer yet this time. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

I will do a thorough read-through of the article later in the week. I have a few quick comments for now.

Please ping me in a week if I have not posted anything further. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are my comments up to the "Reception" section. I hope that this is helpful and let me know if you have any questions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aoba47. It seems like all of them are already resolved by @JokEobard (Thanks to him). Though, I don't know what's the best descriptor for Ethan Winters. Replacing "protagonist" into "civilian" seems kinda odd for you or not? Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I am likely just over-thinking it. "Protagonist" is likely the best word choice as it would clearly let readers know that Ethan is the primary character from that game. I agree that "civilian" would not really work in this instance, and after looking through the article about him, I could not really come up with a better word choice so I believe your current version is the best in regards to this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added, but not sure if this is the best descriptor for her after checking here [19]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that is better than nothing. It can be difficult to find a good descriptor for this if the person does not have a clear focus in their overall research. It should be fine in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already restructured by other editor. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would clarify that Gao was the one that received the criticism, not the character itself. It may also be worth briefly noting the review bombing as well to provide that additional context for readers. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience with my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I hope that is helpful. I have really enjoyed reading through this article. Ada has always been a character from RE that stood out to me the most so it was nice to finally learn more about her. I am a huge fan of spies in general. It would have been cool to see a RE game lean more into the spy stuff with Ada as a lead, but I doubt most people would want that lol. I hope you are having a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for being sincere. This character as a spy is my favorite thing to the franchise. I'm glad Aoba enjoyed reading it. I am attempting to work on it. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I am not the only one who would want an Ada-centric game lol. I just love spies in general, and I cannot really think of anything zombie-related taking that kind of angle. The rephrase looks great to me. Thank you for being patient and understanding with my comments. I have a minor comment on the citations. I have been told in past FACs to be consistent with whether or not citation titles use title case or not. I am mostly raising it to your attention, and it would not affect my review as it is more so focused on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment and yeah thanks to Chris Woodrich for rephrasing it. I already did italized the game or film titles before and I am not sure if there are still other citations that have been overlooked or you mean this type of capitalization [20]? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am referencing how words in the citation titles are capitalized. See MOS:TITLECAPS. I do not believe that it is required, but I will leave that up to the source reviewer. Again, this is just something that I wanted to raise to your attention and it is not a requirement for my review. I will read through the article later in the weekend. I do not imagine that I will find anything major, but I want to make sure to be thorough. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I will attempt to go through all the citation titles on what is needed to change. Thanks a lot for reviewing! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the nomination. I was debating on asking if the "a mysterious masked figure" description for Ada's planned appearance in Resident Evil Village should be more specific and mention the plague doctor element, but it may be getting too specific for something that was ultimately cut. Otherwise, everything looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review (with two notes about completeness)

File:Early concept art of Ada.jpg has the problem that it seems to illustrate a part of the article subject more than the whole, and thus doesn't meet the "significantly" part of WP:NFCC#8. Otherwise the image placement and stuff is fine. Source-wise: Are these Twitter accounts and Terasaki, Kimberly associated with the franchise? #58 and the sources under #70 throw an error message that must be suppressed. The bibliography seems reliable, while the rest of the sourcing is conditional, so to speak, on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. One thing that jumps out to me is that we don't have much description of her appearance, even though there are one or two paragraphs discussing the reception of her appearance. Also, the games themselves aren't cited as sources anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus The two twitter sources are associated to the franchise like Vicky voiced her in DBD, while the terasaki source supports the claim that Sally Cahill vliced RE2, RE4 and RE Dark Chronicles. I don't understand why the sources at #58 and #70 are error to you since it was sourced fine; I don't know what needs to "suppressed" with that (You need to clarify what it is since other editors didn't spot any error at those sources at all). Also, there's nothing more that can be found to add about her description and most of it are now already at the "appearances section" and there are some games are cited like who designed her appearance. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" warning at 58 and 70. My question about the Twitter sources was more what makes them reliable sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" at us from our POV? (I also asked my conom if he saw the "error" or "harv warning", but nope) Also, the Twitter sources came from the voice actors themselves (Other FA also uses that kind of tweet as a source), so I will say that they're fine. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it's a function on which userscripts one has. I also note that archiving Google Books links is pointless. Did some spotchecking, nothing jumped out to me but I must stress that I don't have much confidence in my assessments of the reliability of typical video game sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. When I use the sources, I did make sure to check it first at WP:VG/RS before using it. I will say all of them are reliable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are they high-quality, though? That's a bit of a tougher question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus Yes. I did not include any inconclusive sources. The 2 sources of TheGamer are the only ones that may be controversial cause its Valnet, but it says "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable." + that sources were also used in the recent promoted article Raichu. So, it will be fine. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check

Reviewing this version:* 4 Do the games and commentary name Taylor as the voice actor?

Yes 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ref 10 supports the first sentence, while 42 at the second sentence. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this was removed wholesale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)
Still there, seems like. Also "portrayed Ada in the live-action film" appears twice, perhaps it can be reworded? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus reworded, and the current source for ref 12 os different now and the Complex source was already removed. The current source for ref 12 supports the voice being dubbed in Japanese, aswell as the promoting thing from Li. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
17 supports everything, while I did replaced the source 20 into Digital trend to support the claim where Wesker sent Ada to steal the virus. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now "Los Iluminados" doesn't appear anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus ehh, it is mentioned in the ref 17. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bet you ctrl + f it, but in their website they double spelled the "L", which it was written as "Los Illuminados". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, the article might need correction then. Also, does the cult use the parasite, is it infected by it, or both? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus the IGN articles does not us since they are spled correctlt. Also, both. They are infected and does contain the Las plagas parasite and often used it like for ex. when you blow up their head the giant parasite emerged and attacks protagonist. Is this aye already since this is the last one? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 15:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the source, it doesn't seem clear that the cult is using the parasite, instead of merely being its victim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus Sorry for confusing you. I did ask RE fans at discord and they were right that the cult was only infected, and they didn't "use" for parasite since the creature is already controlling when they were infected. So, they didn't use them but was only infected and being controlled by the Las plagas parasite. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (3rd party comment) Referring to the primary source (i.e., RE4), every villager met by Leon and Ada has a Las Plagas parasite in them ("infected"). Three leaders (Saddler, Mendez, and Saddler) have a "higher breed" of parasite that allows them to control others infected by Las Plagas. They also "use" Las Plagas to infect others; Saddler's ultimate goal is to infect Ashley (who is implanted with a parasite about midway through the game) and have her infect her father, the President, thereby allowing him to control the United States through him. This is consistent in both the original RE4 and in the remake. So, based on the games, "infected" (as per Ref 17) and "used" (which doesn't seem to be in the sources used) are both correct. That being said, I agree that we need a source that explicitly says "use" if we're going to use that word.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its hard to find and verify that claim that they "used" the parasite. I reworded it now to only "infected". Since most of the cult were also victims and were just infected only. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* 24 Seems like we can't verify this until the webarchive works again.

I will say this source definitely support the claim and was spotchecked by Vacant before web.archive.org was taken down. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I just ended up removing the sentencr, but she still appears so her being mentioned appearing at novelization would be fine. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Ada was initially conceived as an Umbrella researcher named Linda" is supported by ref 48, while ref 47 support the rest 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask for a quote on #48?
Replaced it into Bloody Disgusting as a source just in case you're gonna doubt about it since I cannot access to that book. Bloody Disgusting still confirm that Ada was linda in the early concept, which it says that Linda was renamed as Ada in the final version. Jo-Jo Eumerus 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the end of game's credit scene. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It just supports her appearance in the "Separate Ways". Thats it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Download it at libgen website. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Library Genesis seems questionable, legally speaking. I am a little uncomfortable with sourcing something to pirated text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry for suggesting you about this as a source reviewer. I was able to download/receive books from other users after making request at resource. I've already emailed it to you the ref 56 and ref 72 book pages. I used Ref 56 so that I can claim her outfit as "red slit dress". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 16:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'fraid that the emails did not include any content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus its in the second email. I already emailed you again for 3rd time now. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For you to see at twitter [21] 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why that would be a reliable source, and it only supports part of the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 16:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus made a comment. If you can't access books then you download it from libgen website for free. About books, I was able to borrow/receive them from anotherr user via email after requesting at resource. Can I maybe take a screenshot and email it to you??? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 10 and 24, can I have a second pair of eyes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus about ref 24, this was the content fron a separate ways Ive taken to that website.

GI: Let’s talk about Separate Ways. Was this your idea? How it all come about?

Kawata: Actually while we were thinking about the game itself we realized that the development time was actually very long and we wanted to add something to the game more than just porting it. We wanted to really add something to the game and one of the things we realized was that Ada shows up in the game later but you don’t know much about her and she’s a very strong character and she deserves to really stand out in the game. So we really wanted to give her that side story in order to let her stand out the way she should have in the game

. I ended up removing the ref 10 and 40 aswell due their source problem I guess, its a Japanese full text and it might be a questionable source while archive org is still down. I've also already emailed it to you the ref 56 and ref 72 book pages. I used Ref 56 so that I can claim her outfit as "red slit dress". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus can you update? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Panini!

I workshopped some of this article with (if your username were to be shortened, would you rather be called just "Boneless" or just "Pizza"?), including a peer review. My main gripe was the reception section, but this recent version is written very wonderfully, with its detailed critical opinions and comparisons to stereotypes and popular genres. I'm not a character guy, but I think you nailed it; really! My other concerns have been picked up prior to FAC. I Support this article. Panini! 🥪 21:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

I had a chance to re-read this article. It was already very close not long ago. It has improved significantly, and I can support the prose as being featured quality. Great work. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kung Fu Man

Tossing my support, but two suggestions with one purpose: I feel the note section is unnecessary:

With these two small changes, the notes section can be removed for easier reading.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tintor2

Just like in the previous nomination, I think Boneless Pizza did a good work with Ada but I think he improved on it thanks to the fact the article provides more coverage about her other appearances like the making of the character.Tintor2 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

Nominator(s): K. Peake 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (2010), the fifth studio album by American rapper Kanye West. It was recorded during West's exile in Hawaii after a period of controversy through 2009, resulting in a maximalist style with elements of his previous work. The album was met with widespread critical acclaim and also received much retrospective praise, including being ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time. West promoted the album with four singles that were top 40 hits in the United States and the film Runaway, while it reached the top 10 in countries like the US and Canada. The article became a GA back in 2011, more than five years before I joined this site, though I have monitored it over the years and put in extensive work back in both 2022 for the first FAC and even more so for the multiple candidacies of 2024. The prevention of FAC on the last occasions were mainly the book sources not included and too much close phrasing, although I have put in a massive effort to clean these up and also worked on the reception to have concise themes. Clearly having waited over a month after the last candidacy had closed, I had brought this to the maximum potential and would appreciate any users commenting to follow this constructively with whatever suggestions since last few times, it appears the same ones commented with concerns in one candidacy but saved others until the next. West's magnum ops surely deserves FA; we can do this, fans! K. Peake 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

I'll leave some comments soon. If I don't follow up by Wednesday, please ping me. ~ HAL333 19:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to come. ~ HAL333 20:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 Thanks for these comments, took me over a week but I checked back happily to find them – I've covered everything now. Please let me know if you want to clarify anything, look forward to seeing your further comments! --K. Peake 18:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2:

Those are all my comments for now. This might need a second look from me, especially after others have commented. Comprehensiveness and most other aspects look great, but reference quality is a concern and the prose is lacking in many spots and needs to be polished for concision and "punchiness". ~ HAL333 17:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Peake? FrB.TG (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HAL333 I have covered these comments now, although I would like to respond to what you said about sources. You can find The Daily Telegraph listed at WP:RSP, I had a discussion about HipHopDX on the Kids See Ghosts FAC and one about Hung Medien under the Late Registration FAC – check the source review tabs if you don't see it first time. Regarding what you said about the prose, I have been dedicating myself to cleaning this article up continuously as will be able to be seen if you take a look through my responses to these past four candidacies so to have it up to scratch on the fifth would be very satisfying! --K. Peake 20:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Going into five weeks and this nom hasn't garnered a support. Unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so it's liable to time out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse of Peter

Nominator(s): SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you flip to the back of a Christian Bible these days, you'll find the Book of Revelation as the final book in the New Testament. But did you know that over in some rather plausible alternate timelines, there would be TWO books of Revelation in the back - the Revelation of John, and the Revelation of Peter? It took centuries to come up with a consensus New Testament; the contents weren't obvious. Our oldest surviving list that is close-ish to the New Testament, the Muratorian fragment, actually includes the Revelation of Peter as part of its canon! Some other early Christian writers seem to have thought it deserved canonical status, too. That didn't happen, of course, but it's interesting. (Although given some of the content, Christianity may have dodged a bullet here...)

This article includes the latest scholarship, as there's been decent interest lately - Eric Beck wrote a 2019 book on it (the thesis it's based on is open-access, link in the article), Bart Ehrman covered it pretty heavily in a 2022 book on katabases in general, and a monograph collection on the topic just dropped just a few months ago, also free & open-access (link in article). I ran the article past Beck over email and he didn't have any complaints, so hopefully a good sign. SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I don't know that I'll be able to do a full review here, but I do own and have read a copy of Edmon L. Gallagher's and John D. Meade's The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity, published by Oxford University Press (I own the 2019 paperback edition).

I'm not sure how helpful this might be, but that's what I can contribute to this. I've been considering acquiring and reading a copy of Metzger's work on the canon for awhile; I liked his work on the textual history. Hog Farm Talk 01:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy feedback!

SnowFire - I think that's all of my thoughts on this. I guess as full disclosure, I'm approaching this from an evangelical Christian perspective, although I think I've kept my personal religious beliefs out of this. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Some impressive scholarship on display here. I think my comments will mostly have to stick with Wikipedia minutiae rather than really getting to grips with the subject matter, but I hope they are useful. If you wouldn't mind, could you answer the points below each one, rather than in a list at the end -- I can see this review getting even longer and more confusing otherwise!

More to follow -- greatly enjoying it so far, having just dipped my toe into apocalyptic literature for another (much less impressive) article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot on a first pass -- quite a few comments, but please don't take the quantity as a reflection of the quality of the article -- most are very small and will be quickly resolved. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the extensive review! Here's a diff of changes so far (no section swap), and the section order swap separate diff. Will investigate the other comments as well. SnowFire (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt replies -- I haven't got to all of them; most are absolutely find and need no reply, and I've put a few responses above where I think one is needed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I haven't forgotten about this - just had an unexpectedly busy Labor Day weekend & travel + not wanting to do some of these fixes before I could hit the books again. Will hopefully respond soon-ish now that I have a tad more free time. SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all -- I still have a few of your replies that I need to get my head around. If they're still below the "Resolved" collapse box, I'm meaning to get to them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies! Did another pass - see diff. SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- I'm working my way through; it's going a bit slowly but hopefully steadily. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

    • I would not expect explanations in references. I think the present method is not fully in line with WP:CITEHOW
      • A simple "Lastname Year p. 100" is the basic case, sure, but I would say that WP:FOOTQUOTE covers this - "Sometimes, however, it is useful to include additional annotation in the footnote, for example to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting." For ref 43, say, I don't think Lapham's view on the transfiguration parallel is so significant that it merits discussion in a full reader-facing footnote, but that including Lapham as a reference unadorned could create a complaint that it's missing subtleties in the position. There's no perfect fix here, but having a somewhat fuller citation is basically harmless and not at all unusual, and makes a lot of sense for articles with strong references yet sometimes contrasting results.
    • @UndercoverClassicist: your thoughts? I would like to know who Richar Bauckham, Gaston Maspéro, etc in the article because their name provides no information about their relevance. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few schools of thought on this -- to me, the overarching principle here would be the FAC mantra that "if it's consistent and it works, it's fine". Personally, I used to be in the school of "introduce everyone", but discussions at some FACs here (from memory, this was prominent at Beulé Gate) have pushed me more towards not generally introducing people where that introduction would be "this person is the sort of expert you'd expect to see quoted here). Some of the reasons for this are:
  • False distinctions -- particularly in a field like this one, there aren't bright lines between e.g. "theologian/religious historian/scholar of Judaism", and choosing one epithet over the other can give a misleading impression that two people are coming at this from very different angles, or else misrepresent the field. Even worse, titles like "scholar" or "writer" sometimes disguise the fact that the person isn't really an expert in this topic at all.
  • False precision -- if we implicitly endorse someone as "the historian X...", we give readers the sense that they are all equally qualified and worth listening to, which isn't often the case. The oft-cited user essay on this point uses the example of David Irving, who would need a lot more context than that.
  • Repetition -- readers will generally assume that we don't quote people who aren't worth listening to, so if the introduction does nothing more than say "this person is worth listening to", it's tautological and adds needless words (and so takes away from the article's clarity). This is a similar argument to why we don't write things like "a notable fact is..." or "it is important that...".
With that said, if the person being quoted is not a run-of-the-mill current expert, there are good arguments for introducing them -- particularly if:
  • The article is very interdisciplinary, and people are coming at it from very different perspectives (see Ove Jørgensen, where I had to introduce practically everyone to be clear if they were a classicist, a ballet scholar or a personal acquaintance of the subject).
  • The view is particularly dated, or otherwise considered obsolete.
  • They are being used as something other than an academic expert: this came up a lot in Homeric Hymns, where classicists/philologists/literary scholars were generally not given epithets, but people like Ezra Pound, who passed judgement on the topic from a different perspective, were introduced to make clear that their expertise was different from that of the (many) academics mentioned elsewhere.
That's quite a lot of verbiage to say "it's really a moot point", but I hope it helps. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I still think that introducing the scholars mentioned in the article is the best method: if a scholar is to be named in an article for whatever reason we should not be forced to make a research for them and a scholar's name itself is not informative. Encyclopedic approach itself leads to simplifications: we are summarising the content of lengthy scholarly studies. I would ignore the "oft-cited user essay" for it has only been visited 41 times this year (5 times on the same day indicating that somebody referred to it in a discussion [25]). Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the sentence could be rephrased to avoid PoV language: "According to scholarly consensus/Most specialists think that/.... these Ethiopic versions were translated from Arabic rather than from the original Greek text."
  • I do not want to read references to have basic info. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. That said, in side chatter, there's already quite a lot of "scholar X said this" in the article (and if you check the page history of the cited scholars, you'll see that I created the Wikipedia articles on them). So it's something I personally am interested in, but my impression is that general readers are only interested if there's actually a nerd fight to be had (e.g. Martha Himmelfarb criticizing the ghost of Albrecht Dietrich), not just simple attributions of who said something noncontroversial first.

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks now without a single support for promotion. I'm afraid it's at the risk of archival if there's no significant progress over the next three days or so. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

Btw, if we can get this finished by Thursday it would be good, as then I'm away for 10 days. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • In my opinion, your use of language is sometimes clumsy and confusing, but other editors obviously disagree, so I will discontinue this review and leave it to them. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

All images are appropriate and captioned. They have alt-text and are formatted correclty. Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by IntentionallyDense

I will be doing the source review for this article. I usually do this by filling out a table as I go. I will ping the nominator when I'm done but anyone is welcome to make comments as I work. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla and unions

Nominator(s): ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about unionization efforts at Tesla in different countries and Tesla's relation to trade unions more broadly. A lot of attention is brought to Elon Musk's commentary, but this Wikipedia article authoritatively brings attention to older campaigns and countries in order to WP:GLOBALIZE coverage. It is a GA and has continued to be expanded since. This is my first WP:FAC so I am appreciative of any assistance/guidance along the way. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Hello Shushugah and welcome to FAC. I'll do the image review. The article contains the following images:

They are own works published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. They are relevant and placed at appropriate locations. Both images are from Germany. Since Tesla is an American company, it would be good to have America also represented image-wise. The images lack alt-texts, see MOS:ALT. The captions are fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

📸 Done! I agree more photos would be nice. I have contacted United Auto Workers and IndustriALL Global Union to WP:DONATE some photos because there are nice ones that show diversity and breadth of Tesla workers movement. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the alt text. It would be great if it works out with the photos from the unions. If not, alternatives would be to use a picture of a Tesla factory where workers tried to unionize, like Gigafactory New York, or to have a multiple image of the logos of the different unions that made attempts. The article is relatively short so we don't need many images. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 using logos of unions would violate WP:NFCC rationale. I do not think the differing logos add contextual understanding to the differences between the unions, their efforts. The logo usages would need to be minimal, and this article is akin to a list of different union efforts (me thinks). I did also consider whether creating a geographic map with different union logos would be possible, but I believe that would be improper WP:Derivative work. Generally I think the File:IG Metall brochures for Tesla employees.jpg is the best image for the moment, being prominent in both English/German and representing the largest/most active union campaign. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about adding an image of Gigafactory New York (like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/File:Tesla_sign_2.jpg) to the subsection "Giga New York"? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added it with captions and accessibility text. I note in Giga New York image caption, this is months before first union effort there. I opted to leave Fremont without a photo as the Tesla Fremont Factory and NUMMMI have numerous photos, and immediately above it I added a dynamic photo from 2023 United Auto Workers strike using File:United Auto Workers Strike 2023.jpg which plays an important role in overall enthusiasm for UAW union revitalization at non-union automobile manufacturers. Images are CC-BY-SA 4.0 and PD respectively. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for including the images, they help add variety. I think it would it be better to move the image of the 2023 strike to the last paragraph of the section "Fremont Factory", where it is discussed. Otherwise, looks fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 ✅ Done! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That solves the remaining problem. I moved the image a little down so that it is closer to the paragraph discussing the strike but feel free to revert if you prefer the original placement. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Femke

Lovely article. My initial comments:

Further more, I checked the both the US-based China Labor Watch and the Hong Kong based China Labour Bulletin for any related news about Tesla. There are several articles about employee dissatisfaction at Tesla, but nothing about collective action (strikes -- which are formally illegal anyways in China) or worker representation. I will contact CLB and CLW for any hints to the contrary as well, but as far as I can tell to best of my research, no there is not. I have written Volkswagen_and_unions#China and Apple Inc. and unions#China where there was more to write/say. I am also keeping an eye, if anything changes/appears in terms of sourcing from the Netherlands. This paragraph was rightfully so removed. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. With Mike's comments addressed, I'm happy to support. I would still remove at least one of the Tweets from Musk as it's given undue attention to this framing. Instead, incorporate it into the text? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Gog the Mild, would a time extension be possible as this is my first FAC and I've only had the chance to receive and respond to generous feedback from Femke in the past 4 days. As you can see above, we have been collaborating extensively since. My hope is that some more editors will opine now that the ice has been broken. Kind regards ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a further review or two are started, then I and my fellow coordinators will certainly consider extending the time scale, we have no wish to close any nomination down prematurely. But do note the "if". Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild this is moving along. There are currently 3 supports and an image pass. One thing I was wondering about is source review. I've seen several source reviews, where people mainly comment on the formatting of source review, rather than in-depth review of text verification/source integrity. In my opinion, Mike Christie generously and thoroughly reviewed the content of the sourcing, and there have been numerous discussions back and forth with all the reviewers either about presence/absence of certain sources. Do I need to explicitly solicit a source review, in addition other reviews? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, could you confirm or otherwise as to whether you consider your review to include a source review and/or a first-timer's source to text spot check and/or a plagiarism check? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask about the use of some of the sourcing, but did not do a full review of all the sources as I would for a FAC source review, nor did I look at the formatting of the sources. I did a spotcheck at the GAN, but of course that doesn't count as the spotcheck for a first FAC. I have more confidence about the sources than I would have for an article I hadn't reviewed, but I think it would be best to have someone else do a normal source review and spotcheck. If nobody gets to it by the end of the week I can probably do it -- I'm travelling from Wednesday through Sunday but would probably have time next Monday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

Noting that I was the GA reviewer for this.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again Mike, and thank you for your in-depth reviews both times round! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Have struck most of the above, and left a couple of replies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responded to all of them now! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One minor point left. I will read through the article again, probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie Done! Guess I will need to write Metal and Electronics Industry article right? For consistency all wiki links ought to be blue or red (WP:HUMOR). Looking forward to your final review and appreciative of all the time you, Femke and Phlsph7 put in.~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second read-through

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

OK -- I think the language you now have works, given that as you say it probably won't quickly become clear whether the most recent campaign can be said to have failed or ceased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed thoughts; the union dues point is a very good one that I hadn't thought of. I think you're right that removing "resulting in reduced bargaining leverage" is a good idea -- it's still in the article at the moment but it sounds like you intended to remove it? I would also remove "As a result", since it's already clear to the reader that that sentence follows naturally from the previous one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie replaced with shorter sentence (removing also a second overall) of The electrification of vehicles and a non-unionized Tesla weakens IG Metall's bargaining power in the overall automotive sector in Germany due to shrinking union membership and lower union density. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One point left above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the last point above. That takes care of everything with regard to the content. Looking through again, I see quite a few consecutive paragraphs starting with "In <date> ..." which isn't the most engaging prose style. I think this could be improved. I can take a crack at it, probably later today, if you like? Or if you want to, go ahead before I get there. I'm asking for a bit more variety in presentation of the sequence of events, to avoid WP:PROSELINE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie I will take a crack at it. Something like Modifiers "Later in X" as well as moving dates to end/middle of sentences to help with variation and removing dates when not absolutely essential altogether? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, generally that sounds right. Sometimes joining short paragraphs can help, since you can then say things like "the following year", or "eighteen months later". I think this is my last complaint and I feel confident of supporting once we've addressed this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie Done! I removed two mentions of date, since they were not crucial/could be reasonably re-summarized as "three years later" or in other cases, moved it to the back/middle of paragraph. Curious for your feedback. Also found gnarly American/British inconsistency with successful and succesfull. My current text editor shows both as correct. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've done a copyedit which you're free to revert if you want to; I did put back in one instance of "In <date>" to avoid starting a sentence with a figure. Looks good; thanks for your patience with my nitpicks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. comments

No comment besides commending Shushugah for their excellent work in preparing this article for its inevitable FA status! QRep2020 (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

Article looks in good overall shape. A few (good faith) suggestions.

This version of the article reviewed, no previous reviews read.

If nothing else, the article succeeds in telling us everything we need to know about Mr Musk's concern for those who make him his profits. It's a good read, and maintains an absolute neutrality—an achievement in this kind of topic! Cheers, SerialNumber54129 15:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Serial Number 54129 for kind words and review! I have addressed the above feedback and also took liberty to add some other grammar rewrites. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Shushugah, your changes are all well-thought out. I'm happy to support this article's promotion: it casts an important light on the underbelly of supposedly modern industrial relations. SerialNumber54129 11:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way—and not part of the review—you might consider a page move to e.g. Tesla and trades unions, as just 'unions' could refer to other kinds of union. In any case, leave it until after promotion. SerialNumber54129 15:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 labor unions, labour unions, trade unions are all possible expanded variants of unions. I think creating redirects in case people search for it is pragmatic solution, while keeping the article target as succinct as possible. And given all the other similar articles, I'd prefer to keep it consistent if possible and have a wider RfC on that (Microsoft and unions, SAP and unions etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I keep forgetting the AmEng usage; you're absolutely correct, of course, Tesla and labor unions would be best. SerialNumber54129 18:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

The New York Times and The Guardian do not need an ISSN. What makes turningpointmag.org/ a high-quality reliable source? I kinda wonder if there are think tanks or research papers discussing the topic, rather than just news media and NLRB rulings. Spot-check wise, going by this version:

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) for your source review! I am able to access the New York Times, Business Insider and USA Today sources you requested access directly via Archive.is, but if that does not work for you, I'd be happy to send you a PDF copy of all of the sources you requested and any other.
If and when there are any think tank or other institutional reports on Tesla unionization, I would be happy to attach them in the article. Regarding efforts mentioned in the article, but also possible efforts not mentioned, e.g on China or Netherlands. I have accessed a private, non-published report for example, claiming that Netherlands workers were covered by FNV Metaal (Dutch union) collective agreement, but I haven't found any published (offline nor online) reports confirming this, so it's not mentioned in the article since verification isn't possible. Of course, I may have missed valid sources; I have reached out to a number of academics, as well as union officials in relevant departments for any tips on reports, photos they're willing to donate etc.. and will continue to remain vigilant for future sources. The wide variety of languages these sources might exist in, is one hurdle.
Regarding turningpointmag.org, I do not think it is the highest quality source ever, but it has an editorial board and even if it did not, I would consider Gabriel Kuhn the author, to be a relevant WP:EXPERTSPS who provides unique perspective and specifics on union/non-union member participation within the IF Metall led strikes as a non-member himself. Still, I have weighted his claims in his voice, instead of wiki-voice. I have rephrased bit about families being contacted with According to union leader Gabriel Kuhn, Tesla contacted individual strikers after family members shared news of the strikes on social media, which discouraged non-union participation in the strike. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus I believe I have addressed all the open points. Let me know if you find any more issues. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think #60 is the only thing still pending. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am able to gift NYT links (do not open this unless you are @Jo-Jo Eumerus). I moved #60 NYT source to the sentence ahead, and switched the API source with existing Reuter source that actually verifies claim about electrician and other port workers. The edit change is visible here. Thank you for your time reviewing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seen it, but it seems to say that the union only stopped unloading - and only when it's them who unloaded? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've added a couple of RS that both support the claim of "loading and unloading"; format them as necessary. I don't understand what and only when it's them who unloaded? actually means, so am unable to help with that. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 20:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the question correctly, it’s whether a complete stoppage of unloading happened or whether there are non-union/non-striking workers who still continue? In the case of Tesla workers, this statistic is importantly but for secondary strikes it becomes borderline trivia either way. The wider impact has not been successful, in part because trains/truck deliveries of Tesla vehicles. In some cases (my hunch) it’s more about symbolic solidarity. The distinction between loading/unloading is not clear to me. The port strikes are directed at Tesla vehicles headed to the Swedish market. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source only mentioned unloading, that doesn't imply that loading was affected too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: (@FAC coordinators: ) What? There are three sources, two of which explicitly reference loading as well as unloading. (Footnotes numbered 60 & 61 in this version.) SerialNumber54129 11:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
60 doesn't mention loading and 61 is paywalled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: 60: Dockworkers are refusing to load or unload Teslas at this port and all others across the country; 61: For six weeks, dockworkers at Swedish ports have refused to load or unload the electric cars made by billionaire Elon Musk. Also see WP:OFFLINE and WP:PAYWALL. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 14:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OFFLINE and PAYWALL are policies about non-online or you-have-to-pay-for-it sources being acceptable, they don't mandate that a spot-check should pass sources that the reviewer cannot see for themselves. In these cases, I ask for a quote, screenshot or emailed copy. But OK then, not sure why I didn't see it before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Well, one's policy; is policy primate, I ask? I hope quotes suffice, because the articles are on the Wayback Machine, and IA has gopt itself completely caned over the last couple of weeks with DDOS attacks. They're still not back online from the latest. They reckon it's down to Brazillian script kiddies, but my money's on some COINTELPRO-style operation by the black bag departments of Hachette and Penguin. SerialNumber54129 15:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second largest Nazi mass killing, also one of the least known. I'm not a fan of the title, but I think the article is now ready for FAC after going through GAN and GOCE, for which I thank Catlemur and Miniapolis (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Joeyquism

There was a good point brought up on this article's talk page about its title. What I'm primarily concerned about is WP:NPOV with regards to the word "atrocities" - while anyone with a working conscience would, of course, label these acts as atrocities, I'm not sure if this is neutral phrasing. There's mention of using the term "war crimes" instead; perhaps this would be a better descriptor? If that term is incorrect due to sources saying otherwise/definitions imposed by authoritative bodies or simply just not to your taste (it would make the title longer and introduce another instance of the word "war"), let me know. joeyquism (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe: I might add that I should be able to commit to a full review soon, and I will likely start after my move in a couple of days (though moving efforts will ultimately take precedence). If I don't get anything down here within the next one-and-a-half to two weeks, you are welcome to ping me liberally. joeyquism (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. My main objection to the title is that the article's scope is more broad—it covers the totality of experiences of prisoners of war, which were not necessarily atrocities or war crimes. In a lot of cases, the sources don't specify whether something is a war crime, although they are clear that many violations of the Geneva conventions occurred. (t · c) buidhe 03:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reasoning seems fair enough. I will not press on the title any further. joeyquism (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

I will try to come back for a "proper" review, but two small points for now:

The map was chosen to show the quick advances at the beginning of the camp which enabled the Germans to capture so many prisoners. I'm not attached to that map in particular, but I didn't see any others that made the speed of the advance as clear. I wonder if any confusion could be alleviated by explicitly pointing it out in the caption. Fixed the capitalization issue. (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm imagining one with nice labelled lines, or coloured waves, showing the frontline at the end of each year, but I'm not sure if Commons has one of those. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this map exists but I thought it was harder for readers to take in than the one I used. (t · c) buidhe 12:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, pros and cons to each. Two maps might be the way to go? I might have a look on Commons and see if I can suggest anything sensible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a first pass -- my admiration continues. Clear and authoritative throughout: purely on prose, I found the "death toll" section slightly less sparkling than the rest, but that may be a reflection of the difficulty of conveying what is essentially a long list of (rather harrowing) statistics. As ever, my respect for taking on such a challenging and important topic and conveying it so well. I hope these comments are helpful, and please do take them as the beginning rather than the end of a conversation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- apologies for a long and no doubt torturous review, but I hope it's been to the article's benefit. Once again, huge respect for doing an excellent job with such a challenging subject. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary from fifelfoo on all of 1, 1c (inflation specific), all of 2, 3 (textual quotation), 4, including plagiarism samplings

I appear to be liable to assist, for various reasons of past personal reading. And in that matter, if people believe my past editing in historiography of state murders would bias me or cause the appearance of bias, please ask me to cease my contributions immediately? I haven't done one of these in a while, so this may take some time, and my standards may be out of alignment with current standards (I did check back on customs and practices last year). If I can have 4 days to get through the major headings? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1a: reviewed: oppose
1c Well-researched inflation specific: improvement needed

I am not attacking the sources selected, or the choice to make a calculation for the purposes of the readers' benefit. Nor am I attacking the choice of calculation for comparison (USCPI). But there are two problems with the inflations: US cents are not specified (a wide variety of nations use cents); Current footnote 190abc Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 2019. doesn't indicate that the calculation was a triviality performed by editorial staff. Consider "Approximately 13 cents in contemporary US dollars,[189] or $2 today." and "Calculated using Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 2019." Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1e Stability: support

I'm convinced the article is stable, I noted a series of 3K additions, and removals, the talk page appears to have been functioning when these emerged and raised them, and editors on the talk page sought as editors to reach a proper editorial resolution including asking for external assistance without prompting or conflict requiring such. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 Media: query (resolved)

Have you considered using blockquotes drawn from primary sources which are themselves used in secondary sources as "typifying" of individual experiences? Text can act as media. It is useful for blending "colour" with "personal experience" and "voice from the era"? This is a query only, not a decline. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 Length: support

I am satisfied the length suits the topic, and the section lengths suit the importance of the sections to the encyclopaedic presentation. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Shushugah

Thanks Shushugah. Without actually checking the captions, I assume that the perceived problem is because they adhere to MOS:CAPFRAG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild exactly. I see that consistency between sentence and caption fragment is not explicitly required. Some of the captions could easily be converted into sentences, but not required nor beneficial. So strike my feedback on MOS:CAPFRAG. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the wikilink, appreciate feedback and your support :) (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

It's great to see a high quality article on this very important topic. I'd like to offer the following comments:

Thanks for your review (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, though I've left a further response above. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I am surprised that there has not been an image review so far. Here goes my attempt at one, Buidhe:

Matarisvan

Text review:

Source formatting review:

I'll try to do a source review with spot checks soon. Overall, I found the article impressive and well written, congratulations to you on writing such a great article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

There are redundancies in the prose. I have made some edits to the Lead as examples [27]. The main problem is the excessive use of "numbers" as in "numbers of" and so forth. Can we check that these are needed and for variations where possible? Graham Beards (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the copyedits. I went through the body and reduced the use of the word "numbers", but I cannot think of a better rephrasing in the remaining cases. Although some could be replaced by "amount", I don't think it would be an improvement. (t · c) buidhe 16:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am pleased to add my Support. Well done. Graham Beards (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

Ok, so currently you have "Two-thirds of them had died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942—ranking as one of the highest death rates from mass atrocity in history." I think that if you are going to go with this it needs to be based on a number rather than a fraction. Eg 'By early 1942 over two-thirds of the more than three million Soviet military personal taken prisoner had died.' Then, perhaps in a separate sentence, 'This is one of the highest sustained rates of killing for any mass atrocity in history.' How does this or something like it sound? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe. I keep coming across niggly issues in the main article, so I am going to recuse and review in full. I anticipate that much of it will be copy editing. I will do some of it straight into the article. If you disagree with or don't understand any changes, could we discuss that here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild do you have further input? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 10:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David, I do, I do. Apologies, I am fighting my way out of a nasty, six-day dose of Covid. (Unless I go radio silent again, in which case keep counting.) I shall get onto it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infant school

Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People who grew up in the UK might remember attending an infant school or the "infants" of their primary school. What they might not be aware of is that the concept has a long and complicated history; stretching from New York to New Zealand.

This is my second featured nomination. The article has recently been promoted to good status (See:Talk:Infant school/GA1). Thank you to anyone who decides to review it.Llewee (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

  • Since the movement began in Scotland, could some lead mention be done as to whether infant schools flourished in Scotland?
  • Frustratingly, I haven't been able to find much information about Scotland. Charitable infant schools certainly existed there in the early part of the movement but Scotland seems to drop out of the story at the middle of the 19th century. Presumably infant schools weren't adopted into the state system there to the same extent.--Llewee (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a complete picture but I have added more information about the history in Scotland into the body of the article.--Llewee (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to David Salmon and Winifred Hindshaw," What is their profession?
  • The source says they were as senior staff at a teacher training college. I have described them as "educationalists in the early 20th century".--Llewee (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "manager Robert Owen". Is manager the proper term or was the the owner or some such?
  • The source says manager. I have added some additional detail and dealt with the false title issue.--Llewee (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He saw child labour as damaging and forbid children under the age of ten from working in his factory." Should forbid be forbade.
  • done--Llewee (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Various other figures — including Robert Pole, David Goyder, William Wilson, William Allen and Thomas Bilby — also established infant schools and wrote books about the subject." Given that these are apparently not notable, though I did not check, are they worth naming?
  • Taken them out, Goyder comes up in the US section but mentioning him here doesn't really add much additional info.--Llewee (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Academic David Turner" this and also Owen above, I thought false titles were disfavoured in British English?
  • tweaked wording--Llewee (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "T.B Stephens" Is this properly punctuated?
  • Changed to "T.B."--Llewee (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making it easier for them to pay infant schools relatively low fees.[47]" An apostrophe somewhere, likely after schools
  • reworded sentence--Llewee (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The number of children under seven in schools for older children also rose." I'm not a fan of having "also rose" refer back to a previous section. Perhaps begin, "Like workers' wages, the number of ..."
  • I've changed "also rose" to "increased".--Llewee (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it would be sometime" some time?
  • done--Llewee (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some teachers failed to teach reading to poorer pupils, with no reason to develop an interest in the subject outside of school. " This sentence doesn't read as complete.
  • Combined with previous sentence.--Llewee (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For instance, an employee of the Board of Education, Lord Eustace Percy later wrote in his memoirs:" He appears to have been president of the Board of Education (and earlier, parliamentary secretary), which are political positions held by members of Parliament. He was not an employee.
  • Sorry I missed this one, changed to "political appointment".--Llewee (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Infant-stage children solving puzzles at a school in Dominion of New Zealand (c. 1900 – c. 1947)" I would omit "Dominion of".
  • done--Llewee (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In order to encourage the freed workers to remain working there and spread Christianity among their children." Not a sentence.
  • Combined with previous sentence.--Llewee (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the owners power: missing apostrophe
  • reworded--Llewee (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a system of state funded schooling in Ireland " redirects to Stanley letter. WP:EASTEREGG would seem to have some relevance.
  • I've changed the link to "establish a system" to try to make clearer what the linked article is about.--Llewee (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised throughout the Ireland section, there is no mention of religion.
  • The Catholic Church is mentioned a lot in the book. I've added more information about its influence into the article but I'm trying to keep the focus on topics that are specifically relevant to infant schools/classes.--Llewee (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "skepticism". I thought this was "scepticism" in BrEng.
  • Yes, changed--Llewee (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overtime maybe over time
  • done--Llewee (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now. I guess what strikes me at first glance is that this seems mostly about the past, the history, without much discussion of what present-day infant schools are like. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt I think less information specific to infant schools exists for more recent times because they have gradually lost some of their separate identity. I have tried to flesh out the "part of primary education" section with more information.--Llewee (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support certainly on prose. I'm hedging some on comprehensiveness for the reasons stated above, but hope to be able to enter a full support following additional reviews. Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Generalissima

Some general notes:

  • I have tidied up the terminology section and added a few dictionary sources.--Llewee (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • done--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • done--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • done--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • done--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • done--Llewee (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taken out the existing locations.--Llewee (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have got all the ones that have articles now.--Llewee (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • done--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • done--Llewee (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • added--Llewee (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it for now. Let me know when you want me to take a second look, @Llewee:. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima, I have responded to each of your points now and expanded the article with information from journals. I hope you will be able to have another look when you have time.--Llewee (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look back over - apologies that this took a while - but I think it's in a lot better spot now! Happy to support on source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The second image is from a book published in 1840 (See:https://archive.org/details/asystemforeduca00wildgoog/page/n130/mode/1up). I will have a look for the other ones in a moment.--Llewee (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this which says the first image was published in 1834 in London.--Llewee (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about the third. I'm not sure if it was ever published before it was released on Flickr.--Llewee (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced this image with File:St Marys Infants School children in Saturday Market, Beverley for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee 1899 (archive ref DDPD-2-2-8) (25381071806).jpg. It was taken in 1897 and does not appear to have been published until it was released on Flickr in 2016.--Llewee (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed the fourth one was 1828 in New York based on the information in the Wikicommons page and source.--Llewee (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to 95--Llewee (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British museum gives this information on how to use it which links to CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 does that mean it's not available to use?--Llewee (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just taken this image out.--Llewee (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This museum website says it was from The Teacher's Manual for Infant Schools and Preparatory Classes but I can't find the image in this copy of the book.--Llewee (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not an image issue, but I would suggest a thorough review of the article for style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have a number of additional links to the article, including the ones you suggested.--Llewee (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pessimistic drive-by from UC

I'm not sure that this article really is what it says on the tin -- there is comparatively little, indeed almost nothing as far as I can see, about what an infant school actually is in the modern day, how they work, what it's like inside them, how important they are, the problems facing them, and so on. What we currently have, I think, is closer to an article like History of primary education in the United Kingdom.

Similarly, I think the section on Ireland would be better re-thought: as the scope of the article is currently conceived, we need one, and yet it really doesn't have the substance to do what it needs to do -- we have barely anything there after the 1960s, which clearly won't do for an article that purports to be the port of call for infant schools in Ireland as they exist right now.

Unfortunately, I am not sure that these issues can be easily remedied, at least not within the scope of an FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist I have added more information on present day infant schools in the UK and will do more research into them in Ireland. I think the overall structure of the article is inevitable as they are mainly notable for their historic role. There aren't that many separate infant schools left and the term doesn't seem to be used much officially.--Llewee (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our article says that 10% of children of the relevant age attended one in 2018, and there are 1,700 of them -- that's not a small number, though it is obviously much smaller than the figure for primary schools. More generally, throughout the article, I think the distinction between those two things often gets muddy: as alluded above, I don't get the sense that the article really knows how it defines its scope between "infant schools" and "the education of children under about 8". UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, with the exception of the earliest infant schools, I don't think there is much distinction between the two. The article says the term infant school "might refer to a separate school or a department within a larger school". The UK government uses the term infant classes for all children in the relevant age group.--Llewee (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we have this article (Infant school), a separate article for primary education (Primary school), a specific article for primary education in Wales and a lengthy article on education in England with relevant sections that don't fully overlap any of those categorisations. We then have History of education in Ireland and Education in the Republic of Ireland on the Irish material.
In my view, this is a scope-of-article problem, not a scope-of-subject one -- I think it would help for you to have a look at that set of articles, work out how they do (or should) fit together, and then think about where the material you want to write about would be best located. As it stands, I think this article is quite a comprehensive history of how young children have been educated in Britain, but it wouldn't be enough for the article about cars to be primarily a history of how cars used to be built. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that infant schools were a distinctive institution and phase of schooling in the past but have merged into primary education over time. "Infant school" is only really a notable topic for a Wikipedia article because of the history. The balance of the sources available seems to support that. In any case, I've updated the information about Ireland.--Llewee (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

This has been open for over six weeks and hasn't garnered a consensus to promote, and comments seem to have stalled. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so I am afraid that it is going to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

I was invited and am willing to take a look, but have no idea of the topic, being familiar only with German and US varieties of Kindergarten and preschool. But sometimes the view of someone from outside might help ;) I'll write as I read, turning to the lead last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Gerda, I will answer some of the later comments first and then circle back to deal with the more complicated issues in the early sections.--Llewee (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

Intro

Terminology

Background

First establishments

Theory ...

Evolution

Worldwide spread

Teaching methods

Infant departments

Need a break, read until header "Shift to child-centered approach". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read now - without problems - until Ireland. I will take a look at headers and there levels because I don't recall any similar England - Scptland that would have prepared me for Ireland being a different topic. I'll be out tomorrow, patience please. Thank you for changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19th century

20th century

I'll turn to the lead after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water

Nominator(s): — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the turn of the century, Phil Elverum of the Microphones released the folk album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water. Although frequently overlooked in the following years (overshadowed by its younger sibling), the album still received critical acclaim, going on to be "widely regarded as [an] indie pop classic" and inspire "weirdo singer/songwriter[s]" everywhere. Thanks to @Gen. Quon: for mentorship on this nomination. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

Will review. 750h+ 14:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
background and recording
music and themes
release and reception

That's all i got. Fine work on the article! 750h+ 08:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: Thank you for the review! All comments implemented. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 750h+ 00:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Source and image review and spotcheck

Images seem well-placed. File:ItWasHotWeStayedInTheWaterCover.jpg has a broken source URL. Where on the source for File:Will Oldham 2017.jpg is the licence? File:The Pull - The Microphones.ogg's rationale probably needs to describe a bit more why a sample is needed. File:Eric'striplive.jpg from which one file is derived has a broken source. I don't see ALT text anywhere. Source-wise (spot-check contained therein):

Thanks for the review: will reply to each point in order. Source URL fixed; per diario.madrid.es website, "With few exceptions expressly indicated, the contents of the daily website.madrid.es are published under Creative Commons CC by 4.0 license" (google translate); file rationale expanded; can't find the Eric's trip file anywhere else, not sure what else I can do, deadlinked content doesnt necessitate removal; alt text added. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the formatting of the bullet points, hope you don't mind.PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for taking the time to review! All comments have received replies — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Could you confirm if this is a pass on the reviews you've conducted here or are there any outstanding issues? FrB.TG (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the question under #3 needs input. And if someone can access #18-#21 that would be great. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algebra

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most people are familiar with algebra from their school days, where they learned to solve equations like . However, there is also a more abstract form of algebra, which is of particular interest to mathematicians because it provides a general framework for understanding operations on mathematical objects. Thanks to Bilorv for their in-depth GA review and to Mathwriter2718 and Chatul for their peer reviews. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (Support)

(I'm done with Major Branches. I'll pick up with History another day)

I couldn't stay away, so I finished this up today. I really can't find anything else to complain about in the rest of the article. I'll just leave you with a couple of suggestions which you can take or leave at your pleasure. One is that in Other branches of mathematics where you talk about algebraic solutions to geometric problems, you might want to mention that origami has been used to solve algebraic problems using geometry, see for example https://sites.math.washington.edu/~morrow/336_09/papers/Sheri.pdf. The other is that I don't think you can talk about Gerolamo Cardano without at least mentioning that he has been credited with inventing (or at least accepting the existance of) imaginary numbers.

I added a short side remark about origami and mentioned imaginary numbers. Thanks a lot for all the helpful suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

UC

I know even less about this one than ethics, so a more sensible person would stay away -- a few comments regardless:

Can I echo Roy's praise for the clarity and approachability of this article -- I'll admit that I skipped fairly lightly over the abstract algebra section, but the rest was absolutely clear and manageable, and I suspect I'm going to be one of the least qualified mathematicians to review this here. Excellent work once again. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for yet another detailed review and for taking a leap to provide a non-expert opinion on the article! Given that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, this is also an important perspective to consider. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I am hugely impressed by the writing and clarity here, and while I am not qualified to vouch for the mathematics, everything within my expertise looks excellent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

Although I am neither an expert in the field nor a native speaker, I have a few comments. Overall I very much appreciated the clarity and structure.

That's all I could see. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edwininlondon, I appreciate you taking the time to review this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more:

That's it for this final round. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I hope I was able to address the main concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Almost all fine, except that there still is a lingering sadness in me regarding the opening sentence with its circularity. I don't think the argument that the technical term "algebraic structure" is defined without reference to algebra is particularly strong. But I lack the expertise to provide something useful. Perhaps it is something like "Algebra is ..., known as algebraic structures, ... I was thinking perhaps the part "manipulation of statements within those structures" can be dropped, as that surely is encompassed by the word "studies". But maybe the phrase "manipulation of statements" is rather critical, as it conveys the essence of the field. Sorry, I can't express what is better. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current first sentence is: "Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic structures and the manipulation of statements within those structures". This definition is not circular since "algebraic structure" has a precise definition that does not refer to the field of algebra. So it's not a problem with the definition itself but only with the linguistic level since it is preferable to avoid repeating the words algebra-algebraic.
I'll brainstorm some alternatives:
  1. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies abstract structures and the manipulation of statements within those structures
    The expression "abstract structures" does not have a precise definition and could mean all kinds of things, so this formulation sacrifices information for linguistic improvements
  2. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies operations from a Cartesian power of a set into that set and the manipulation of statements using these operations.
    This is precise but most readers will have difficulties figuring out what "operations from a Cartesian power of a set into that set" means. Especially for the first sentence, this is not a good idea.
  3. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies operations on mathematical objects and the manipulation of statements using these operations.
    This is a less detailed and more accessible version of (2). Instead of repeating algebra-algebraic, this formulation repeats mathematics-mathematical.
When compared to these alternatives, I prefer the current version, but I'm also open to other ideas. Option 3 would be my second choice.
Roughly speaking, the first clause on algebraic structures covers abstract/universal algebra while the second clause on the manipulation of statements covers elementary/linear algebra. If we removed the second clause, we would focus only on the more abstract side of algebra. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for generating alternatives, much appreciated. I'd be curious to hear what other FAC reviewers think. In my mini-sample of 2 non-maths people, both raised an eyebrow at "algebraic". Alternative 2 is too technical indeed. Number 3 would be my preferred option. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any mileage in "certain abstract structures, known as algebraic structures", or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract structures, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those structures.
5. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract systems, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those systems.
6. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract frameworks, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those frameworks.
All of them are a little bit longer than the original. Maybe they could work without the word "certain". In (4), the repeated use of the word "structure" might be a problem. Of these three, (5) would be my preference. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like (5). Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 makes sense to me as a layman, though obviously I can't speak for its technical accuracy/completeness. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented the suggestion. It's a little longer but should be more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Support on prose. My uni algebra is too long ago to fully vouch for the technical aspect, but it looks very convincing. A nice piece of work. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful comments and the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathwriter2718's comments

I am here in my capacity as a mathematical expert. My goal is to review the mathematical content of this page and make sure it is accurate and clear. Others have already done more comprehensive reviews of other aspects.

I think this article is excellent. I have a few extremely minor concerns and one bigger concern, but none will take so long to address. For the big concern, Let us look at the descriptions of linear algebra, abstract algebra, and universal algebra in this article.

"Linear algebra is a closely related field investigating variables that appear in several linear equations, called a system of linear equations. It tries to discover the values that solve all equations in the system at the same time. Abstract algebra studies algebraic structures, which consist of a set of mathematical objects together with one or several binary operations defined on that set. It is a generalization of elementary and linear algebra since it allows mathematical objects other than numbers and non-arithmetic operations. ... Universal algebra constitutes a further level of generalization that is not limited to binary operations and investigates more abstract patterns that characterize different classes of algebraic structures."
"Abstract algebra usually restricts itself to binary operations that take any two objects from the underlying set as inputs and map them to another object from this set as output."
"Universal algebra is the study of algebraic structures in general. It is a generalization of abstract algebra that is not limited to binary operations and allows operations with more inputs as well, such as ternary operations."

I think many mathematicians define linear algebra as the study of finite-dimensional vector spaces. The description of linear algebra in this article is pretty different on the surface, but still a valid POV, and not actually as different as it may appear. Anyway, it would be nice to put in somewhere that the algebraic structure linear algebra studies is a finite-dimensional vector space. The bigger issue is that everyone thinks vector spaces are under the domain of abstract algebra, and scalar multiplication is not a binary operation on a single set, so the descriptions of abstract algebra and universal algebra are wrong. Even if you expanded abstract algebra to be about binary operations where the input sets can be different, this would still not be how mathematicians view abstract algebra.

I think the way mathematicians view abstract algebra vs universal algebra vs linear algebra is like this:

Abstract algebra is the broad field of math that studies algebraic structures.
Linear algebra is the study of a specific algebraic structure that is important in the study of systems of linear equations: finite-dimensional vector spaces.
Universal algebra is the study of a specific algebraic structure called a universal algebra. This structure is kind of unusual in that its instantiations include many of the most important algebraic structures.

I think we should just remove the offending content and not change things too much otherwise. I am merely arguing that we should avoid explicitly limiting "abstract algebra" to binary operations on a single set, and that we should avoid thinking of universal algebra as a generalization of abstract algebra, but rather as the study of a structure that encases many of the most important algebraic structures. If there are no objections, I can make these changes.

@Mathwriter2718: Thanks for taking a look at the article! I followed your suggestion to mention that linear algebra can also be defined in terms of vector spaces. I included the reference to linear maps in the definition so it is more focused. I put it in a footnote since I have the impression that it is difficult to understand for the average reader but we could try to work it into the main text if that is preferable.
Concerning abstract algebra, one problem is that some sources restrict abstract algebra to binary operations. In order to avoid taking sides, I softened this claim by saying that it is "primarily interested in binary operations".
The relation between abstract and universal algebra is tricky. Pratt 2022 says "Universal algebra is the next level of abstraction after abstract algebra". Other sources also emphasize the general nature of universal algebra but don't make the relation to abstract algebra this explicit. I reformulated some passages to emphasize the generality. I tried not to imply that universal algebra is distinct from and more general than abstract algebra. I also added a footnote covering the alternative definition of universal algebra as the study of universal algebras, as you suggested.
I hope these changes are roughly what you had in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good compromise to me. Thanks. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Less important comments:

with
For example, the expression 7x − 3x can be replaced with the expression 4x, since 7x - 3x = (7-3)x = 4x by the distributive property.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
with
This technique is commonly used to determine the values of a polynomial that evaluate to zero.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a short look, I didn't find a good image either. This part of the article already has several images so we might have to remove an image to create space for a new one. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathwriter2718: I appreciate the insightful suggestions. I hope I was able to address your main concerns. I was wondering whether, from the mathematical perspective, you would support the nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 I hope that I can read up more on universal algebra before giving an answer. This might take a bit. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking another look at the subsection "Universal algebra". The main challenge for this subsection is to make the abstract topic accessible to the reader without oversimplifying too much. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phlsph7, is this ready for the reviewer to take another look at yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: The article is ready and, as far as I'm aware, there are no outstanding comments to be addressed. Mathwriter2718 said that they needed more time to familiarize themselves with the literature before wrapping up the review.
@Mathwriter2718: Just checking to see how things are progressing. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 I am very sorry for not getting back to you sooner!! I have recently become extremely busy and I have had trouble finding the time to review the mathematical literature and decide whether I support/don't support this nomination. I will give myself a deadline of tonight to finish this and if I can't get it done by then, then I think I can declare I just don't have enough time right now to do this. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathwriter2718: Thanks for taking another look! If turns out that you don't have the time to review the part on universal algebra, you could explicitly exclude that part from your assessment. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 @Gog the Mild I have finished my review of the mathematical content of the article except for the "Universal algebra" section and I support the FA nomination based on the content that I have reviewed. Maybe there is someone else who can review that section but I am not sure if there are many Wikipedians familiar with universal algebra. Looking at the history of the page Universal algebra one can maybe find people who are familiar with the subject. @Jochen Burghardt has a decent number of edits there. Personally, I'm just not qualified to offer my perspective on that area and I am too busy at this time to really become familiar in the way I would like to before offering an opinion. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more assistance here. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and all the time and energy you have poured into this review! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

So, this is one of these broad topics where it's hard to tell for an outsider whether the coverage is representative. So I'll qualify that I am not reviewing that aspect of a source review. I wonder why some page numbers have Google Books links and others don't. Google Books serves up different results to different people, so I am not sure that these links are very helpful at all. By the same principle, I don't think that Google Books needs archive links. Springer is referred to by various names, is there a need for consistency? Are Jones & Bartlett Publishers and Linus Learning a prominent publisher? What makes "Edwards, C. H. (2012). Advanced Calculus of Several Variables. Courier Corporation. ISBN 978-0-486-13195-5. Archived from the original on January 24, 2024. Retrieved January 24, 2024." a high-quality reliable source? "Majewski, Miroslaw (2004). MuPAD Pro Computing Essentials (2 ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-21943-9.", "Nicholson, W. Keith (2012). Introduction to Abstract Algebra. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-13535-8." and "Mishra, Sanjay (2016). Fundamentals of Mathematics: Algebra. Pearson India. ISBN 978-93-325-5891-5." don't have the retrieval dates where other sources have, although with books and papers I don't think we need these at all. Otherwise we are using prominent publishers and series, although I notice the overrepresentation of Western sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for taking care of the source review! I usually add links to google book pages that offer page previews if I'm aware of them. For some books, google books does not offer previews, in which case I can't add links. It could depend on the reader's geo-region whether a page preview is available. If it is available, it is a convenient way for the reader to verify the material without needing to buy the book. I removed all the google book webarchive links. The problem is that IABot adds them automatically when it runs, so they could be back soon. I implemented a more consistent approach for referring to Springer. I replaced the sources by Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Linus Learning, and Edwards 2012 with alternatives. I added an access/retrieval date for Nicholson 2012. Majewski 2004 and Mishra 2016 don't have access dates because they have no links to a website. The overrepresentation of sources by Western publishers in the article reflects the general prevalence of Western publishers regarding high-quality English-language sources on the subject.
Phlsph7 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like we need some discussion somewhere about IAbot adding archives to Google Books. But not an issue for a FAC I figure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this has already come up several times. I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Google_Books_web_archive_links_and_IABot. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D.Lazard

I did not follow the changes of the article done by Phlsph7 since January 2023. My first impression is that the new vesion is much better. Nevertheless it is too much biased toward educational aspects of algebra. I'll discuss this in several items in order to makes improvements easier.

@D.Lazard It seems to me like your overarching concern is that the article Algebra should be about exactly the thing mathematicians call "algebra". I think it makes more sense for this particular article to be a middle ground between what most people call algebra and what mathematicians mean when they say algebra. For example, you want to remove the use of the word "abstract algebra". Indeed, mathematicians don't use this word to talk to each other about research-level mathematics. But I think it makes a lot of sense to use this word for contrast with elementary algebra. The way I interpret the current state of this article, everything under the mathematics subject classification for algebra falls under what this article calls "abstract algebra".
I probably support your view that this article should be closer to the viewpoint of a modern mathematician than it is now, but I want to be very careful to not transform the intended readership of this article away from the most lay audience possible by going into things like K-theory and nonassociative rings that are certainly not necessary for a comprehensive description of "Algebra" for the lay reader. Math Wikipedia already has a bad reputation for being too technical and obscure, and only a vanishing fraction of those who search for the article Algebra on Wikipedia will have much background. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the Mathematics Subject Classification is to be used by journals to organize research. I don't we should expect that purpose to align very well with what subfields an expository article about "Algebra" should cover. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an encyclopedic article is not to adhere to the conception of some readers ("what most people call algebra"); it is to inform the reader on the whole subject implied by the title. Here, this includes "abstract algebra", and also all the content of the most influencal books entitled Algebra (in particular, Serge Lang's and Van der Waerden's ones). Since no way is given to the reader to accede to information on most of the content of these books, the article is far to respect the policy WP:NPOV, and thus should never to have been labeled as a WP:GA.
I never asked to not speak of "abstract algebra", but it must be given its WP:due weight, which is the name of the part of algebra that is taught at some level of mathematical education. D.Lazard (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Mathwriter2718 here. Writing an article that respects both the mathematicians' definition of algebra and the more vernacular meaning is an intrinsically difficult problem. Having no representation for the latter meaning would itself be a violation of NPOV, and would make the page far less useful for a large and important audience. Moreover, I agree that the Mathematics Subject Classification doesn't necessarily align very well with what subfields an expository article about "Algebra" should cover. The topics that it lists are important enough to include, but it doesn't dictate the organization of an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a related discussion at WT:WPM#Should Algebra be reverted to the version of 21 Decembre 2023?. D.Lazard (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. Eppstein

A drive-by comment: the claim in the universal algebra section that "Two algebraic structures that share all their identities are said to belong to the same variety." and the examples that follow this claim do not match my understanding of the subject. As I understand it, and as Variety (universal algebra) describes, a variety is defined by any set of identities, and an algebra belongs to a variety when it obeys all those identities (even when it might also obey others). So a single algebra might belong to many varieties, not merely the single variety defined by all its identities. Two algebras might belong to one variety, and differ in their membership of another variety. In this same section, "the ring of polynomials" is ambiguous: polynomials over what domain? Footnote [74] appears off-topic; neither linked reference page is about membership of integers, polynomial rings, or rationals in varieties. (One of the two pages uses "variety" in a different sense, from algebraic geometry rather than universal algebra.) The claim that the integers and ring of polynomials (over whatever domain) obey the same identities is unsourced, and may be false depending on the domain of the polynomials. For instance polynomials over GF(2) obey the identity x+x=0 that the integers do not.

Hello David Eppstein and thanks for your comments! I had a look at a few sources and I think your interpretation of varieties is correct. I reformulated the passage to avoid the misleading formulation used earlier. I added the sources I consulted and replaced the example with another. It's a simplified version of the one found in Rosen 2012. If this is still controversial, we could either use the full example from Rosen 2012 or leave it out. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There another issue in this section: it is not said explicitely that not all algebraic structure belong to a variety. For example, fields do not form a variety since division by zero is not defined. D.Lazard (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a footnote to mention this. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter

A drive-by comment: this article is well on its way to being very nice indeed. I am somewhat dissatisfied by the "Applications" section. Despite a recent reorganization for the better, it still suffers from the problem that the applications of algebra are so staggeringly vast that any selection of examples will look weird and arbitrary. Right now, it reads rather like, "Linear algebra is useful in optimizing the yield of pumpkin patches." It needs both to be augmented with further examples and to be phrased in a way that makes clear the choice of examples is illustrative, not exhaustive. The "Education" section is also a bit shallow. It makes sense to focus on "elementary" or "school" algebra, as the text currently does, but we should say at least a little about the teaching of "higher"/"modern"/"abstract" algebra at the university level.

The references need to be combed through for cruft. I have removed a couple that looked like someone just pulled the first item in a Google Books search that wasn't obvious crankery [32][33]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: Thanks for your comments. I added a short paragraph on tertiary education to the "Education" sections. I think it's a good idea to mention it but I don't want to delve too much into it given that most of the literature on algebra education focuses on secondary education. I reformulated some parts of the "Applications" section to make sure that the examples are not presented as an exhaustive account. I also expanded it by adding several new examples. If you have specific examples in mind that are not yet mentioned, I can also try to include them. I also replaced some sources with better alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Saipan

Nominator(s): Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Battle of Saipan in June 1944. Because it was underway at the same time as the Normandy landings in France, it is less well known. It was the first invasion of the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign. The invasion triggered the Battle of the Philippine Sea, which effectively destroyed the Japanese navy's airpower. The island's capture pierced the Japanese defense perimeter and provided the American forces with an island base that put the Japanese home islands in range of the B-29 bombers. The fall of the island led to the collapse of the Japanese cabinet with the resignation of Hideki Tōjō, the prime minister of Japan.

The article has passed an A-class review and the images have been reviewed by Hawkeye7. Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Updated three maps of campaign progress to upright =1.2
  • Alt text added to 27th infantry moving inland, troops moving through Garapan in flames
  • Updated licensing to PD; it is part of the Marine archives.Wtfiv (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

I was one of the reviewers at A class and found this article to be a comprehensive review of the battle. I can happily support for promotion to A class on the general text quality. On source formatting, I would suggest adding archive URLs for the National Park Service source in the Online sources section, and also for Trefalt 2018, the only two sources we don't have archive URLs for. I will be doing a source review tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Matarisvan,
I added the archive link for the National Park Service. I couldn't archive the convenience link for Trefalt as it is behind academia.edu's server, but the doi is available for readers, who have access to the journal. Wtfiv (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source formatting review is a pass then. Here goes the source review:
  • All sources are from reliable publishers.
  • #3, #8, #21, #68, #81, #172, #267, #287: all ok.
  • #124: ok but only Shaw, Nalty and Turbladh 1989 has the required supporting text, I could not find any in Harmsen 2021. Perhaps you should remove the latter.
  • #153: For this text, "Less than a half hour after the start of the amphibious invasion", p. 63 would be the correct one, not p. 64. For the other use of this ref number, p. 64 is correct. You will have to separate the two.
Matarisvan (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For #124, The Harmsen citation and its associated convenience link were corrected to p. 62, which discusses the first night's assault; #153 was corrected to p. 63. Wtfiv (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source review is a pass then. Also I'd really appreciate it if you could check out a PR I opened recently, linked here. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye 7

I reviewed this at A-class and looks good to me. But to prove I read it:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hawkeye7! I fixed it. Wtfiv (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

I figured I should review it since I have an FAC open too.

  • removed repeat of strategic bombing in lead, taking out mention of strategic bombing from the fourth paragraph, but left it in the first since it is important.
  • Changed section name to "History and Geography". The US occupied Guam before the war, but not Saipan. The Saipan became a Japanese possession, part of the mandates, immediately after World War I.
  • nmi removed, rainfall has cm conversions, seven miles now has kilometers.
  • reworded, breaking it into two sentences.
  • added that Nimitz was commander of the Pacific Fleet. Replaced "Forager" with "Mariana Islands"
  • Colon deleted
  • I wanted to keep the format consistent with this article's companion article, Battle of Tinian. Tinian was the next island invaded a month after Saipan. (It's about three miles from Saipan.) I kept the format of that article because it passed both the A-class review and is a featured article using the DD Month Year format.
  • "brittle" changed to "weak"
Battle
Hurricanehink, I assume that for the American sources, time would be based on the WWII version of Military time zone (Zulu time) Saipan's military time zone falls within K time (or Kilo time), GMT+10. But none of the sources clarify this. Wtfiv (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "around" before 8000. Followed MOS:DIGITS, which states that commas are optional for four digit numbers.(Added comma)
  • Linked first occurrence of pillbox in main text.
  • Added footnote that the Invasion of Guam took place on 21 July.
  • Replaced "Intelligence" with "Smith". This follow's Lacey's wording.
  • "The Americans had other assets as well. Over 150 tanks–over 100 of which were M4 Sherman tanks–had been committed to the invasion.[204] The M4 Sherman tank was superior to the Japanese Type 97 tank.[205] It was primarily used to support infantry and was considered one of the most effective weapons for destroying enemy emplacements.[206] Flame throwers were extensively used. Smith had seen the need for motorized flamethrowers and had requested that the Army's Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) in Hawaii install them in M3 Stuart tanks. Seabees with the CWS had 24 tanks, nicknamed "Satans", converted to flamethrowing in time for the invasion. They were very effective for destroying pillboxes, cave defenses, buildings, canefields, and brush."
  • Moved the section on the tanks to "Opposing Forces". Kept the sections on artillery and portable flame-throwers in this section, as this is when they were actively deployed.
  • Reworded sentences. Removed initial "But". Removed some of the other lead "But's" too.
  • That should have read "west coast at Flores Point". Fixed
  • Changed to gyokusai.
  • Added comma. (MOS:DIGITS states that commas are optional for four digit numbers.)
  • Changed to "deadly"
  • replaced with "shells during the battle".
  • added 1944

All in all an interesting read about a battle I knew nothing about! Well done all around. Most of my notes should be pretty easy to fix/address (I hope). Lemme know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Hurricanehink. I've responded. Do these address the issues you pointed out? Wtfiv (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, thanks so much for the quick responses! Happy to support now. Good work on this. I don't usually read military articles, but I found this fairly easy to follow. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Source formatting seems consistent. Are "free Press" and "Metro books" really lowercase? Is Samuel Eliot Morison a reliable source? Some of what it says raises questions. Is http://www.historytoday.com/ a high-quality reliable source? In terms of reliability, it seems like we are working with good sources ... but even with WP:NONENG the fact that English and US-affiliated sources are almost the entire source body raises some WP:UNDUE concerns. Are there really no Japanese sources on the battle? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Capitalization: "Free Press" and "Metro Books" have been fixed.
  • Morison as a source: "New Guinea and the Marianas, March 1944–August 1944." is part of the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. It is not a perfect source, as that article points out. Unlike the United States Marines and the United States Army, the United States Navy never published an official history. Morison's is the closest it comes. The Navy stated that Morison's history was not its official history. His advantage however, is that the navy gave him access to its records, gave him an office office in the Navy Department under the Director of Naval Records and History while writing the book, and a staff of assistance. See the Naval Command and Heritage site for a review of Morison. Morison's strength is clearly one of the reference sources for later histories of the Pacific War, including Ian Toll's Pacific War Trilogy and Hornfischer. (see Hornfischer's review of Morison here.) In using Morison as a source, I did not use his analyses or assumptions of motivations. I used what he had access to, (e.g., ship number, troops, information about plans, and the like.)
  • Just to add here, Morison continues to be widely used by professional historians so is clearly a reliable source. He shouldn't be used in isolation as the books can be dated at times (and sometimes can be slightly eccentric), but that's not the case here. I've referenced Morrison in several FAs that passed with no concerns being raised over the source. The series remains the most detailed account of the US Navy in World War II. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese sources: My contributions tend to aim to a close adherence WP:NONENG when possible, though I will provide foreign language sources with a quote and translation when they make a critical point (see Frederick the Great or Joan of Arc). One of the major problems in most writing about the island warfare in the Pacific is that almost all the Japanese witnesses died. Testimony from Japanese survivors interrogated by the military is included in the article. I did include English-language works from Japanese-speaking scholars studying the Pacific War. These include Tanaka, Irokawa, Kawamura, and Hiroyuki. The former three have author links with their sources. They mainly focus on how the battle impacted Japanese decision making at the grand strategic level.
  • Ironically, one of the major sources for the Japanese military perspective on the island-as cited in the English-language sources- was Takashi Hirakushi. Almost all contemporary histories still cite him as a source, but as a footnote in the article suggests, his first-person testimony may not be reliable. Much of his testimony was initially shared under the name of an officer who had actually died in the fighting, and his story changed over time (cf., Hoffman's version written in the 1950s and Toland's summary based his interviews with Hirakushi in World War II), and some statements are contradicted by interrogations of other survivors. Problems with the details can be found in footnote h in the article. The sources in the footnote provide more information. I've provided convenience links to the sources wherever possible so English-speaking readers can verify the information themselves.
Wtfiv (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • oops, forgot about the Hughes. Removed it and replaced with Atroth.
  • Also,with respect to Japanese sources: Trefalt is an English-speaking source, but her article gives a critical treatment of civilians in Saipan in her analysis of civilian survivor's diaries. Wtfiv (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the Hughes from history today with the peer-reviewed article by him in the Journal of Military History. It's more in-depth and fully cited.
  • Interestingly, Hughes on pg 102 (with a footnote with specific references) also points out that the Japanese sources remain thin, though they would be useful. Very little of the Senshi Sōsho, the Japanese multivolume official history of the war has been translated, and it doesn't include the sections on Saipan Most personal memoirs by Japanese people who were at Saipan have not been translated either. Hughes mentions two untranslated memoirs about Saipan.
Wtfiv (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hughes also mentions Saburō Ienaga's work, which was translated into English, The Pacific War: World War II and the Japanese, 1931–45 (1968; New York: Pantheon, 1978). I had access to this book when writing the article. It gives an overview of a Japanese perspective, but Saipan is not discussed. The closest he comes is a passing mention of the Battle of the Philippine sea as part of the Japanese military being ground down by overwhelming American production. Wtfiv (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo-Jo, I am moderately up to speed with the Pacific Campaign, so I will reread the article with this in mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, did you get a chance to do this yet? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for missing this Ian. There didn't seem to be any bias to me, nor any clearly relevant and unused sources. In brief, I am happy - in the light of my checks and Jo-Jo and Wtfiv's comments with the sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response, I missed this until now. When working on the article, I looked for relevant articles in journals without a military focus when researching the article in the academic search engines of had access to, including Google Scholar. They were few. I used Trefalt (2018) in The Journal of Pacific History analyses Japanese civilian's experience using Japanese diaries and memoirs, Plung (2021) in the Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus discusses Saipan in the context of evacuation policies in Japan, Giangreco (2003) in the Pacific Historical Review discusses American casualties in terms of policy decisions in the war. The Tanaka (2023) chapter in the edited volume The Modern Japanese Nation and Empire c. 1868 to the Twenty-First Century described where Saipan fit into Japanese defense strategy at the governmental level. Though Astroth (2019), Mass Suicides on Saipan and Tinian, 1944: An Examination of the Civilian Deaths in Historical Context. is a book, not a journal, its is an in-depth about civilian casualties in a larger historical context. Wtfiv (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

I also reviewed this in its A-class review. I'd like to offer the following comments in regards to meeting the FA criteria:

done! Thank you for the review Nick-D! Wtfiv (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Saipan's loss had a greater impact in Japan than all its previous defeats. Could be read as "all of its previous defeats put together" or "any of its previous defeats". Could we clarify in the text? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Wtfiv who may not have seen this note. Matarisvan (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
¡Gracias! Matarisvan , ¡me perdí esto! Lo actualicé con cualquiera de sus derrotas anteriores según la sugerencia de Ian Rose . Wtfiv ( discusión ) 20:57 14 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]