Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2023: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add one
Add 1
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}


{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Five Nights at Freddy's (video game)/archive2}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Revolutionary Girl Utena/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Revolutionary Girl Utena/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nuremberg trials/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nuremberg trials/archive2}}

Revision as of 07:54, 13 August 2023

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2023 [1].

Five Nights at Freddy's (video game)

Nominator(s): The Night Watch (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a horror video game that had an...interesting impact on internet culture. It spawned a media franchise with several sequels and spinoff media, and created an...interesting fanbase that remains to this day. The first game was described by the creator as a "lightning in a bottle", and had a generally positive response even as its sequels were less warmly received. I've been working on this article for a few weeks, and have included the best sourcing that I can find. I've expanded the Reception and Legacy sections that were subject to opposition in the previous FAC. I look forward to addressing your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The cosplay is missing alt text
Did the alt text. I'm not sure what you mean by costume tag Nikkimaria. Can you please tell me what I missed? The Night Watch (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have a tag for the photograph, but the costume itself also has a copyright associated with it, since it's not a simple or utilitarian design - what's its status? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to fully determine the costume's copyright status on commons, so I just went ahead and removed it. The Night Watch (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

Leaving a marker for a review soon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was a fun read (and a flashback to middle school), comments are below! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "night security guard named Mike Schmidt. As Schmidt, the player must complete their night shift without being" → since "night security guard" is mentioned, I think the second mention of "night" is redundant and you can get away with "complete their shift"

Gameplay

  • The first paragraph is near-identical to parts of the lead; could this be reworded at all?
  • "Each animatronic character has distinct behaviors, and most of their movement takes place off-screen" → could you mention how many animatronic characters there are (I know they're listed in "Plot" but I think just throwing a number in here would be helpful)?
  • "The titular Freddy Fazbear character then appears playing the "Toreador Song", causing a game over" → this may seem very nitpicky, but does Freddy actually play the song himself, or does the song play from somewhere else before he attacks?
Freddy plays the song himself, at least according to the cited Gamezebo article.
  • "The player must conserve the power by using the doors, cameras, and lights sparingly, keeping enough electricity to last until 6:00 a.m." → This sentence feels unnecessary in its present form, since it just reiterates that the doors, cameras, and lights consume electricity, and then reiterates that each shift ends at 6 a.m.
I felt like this sentence would describe how the player is expected to play the game strategically, but I can remove it if needed. I have reworded it from "until 6am" --> "until the end of the shift".

Plot

  • "The player controls Mike Schmidt, who has signed up as a night security officer at a family pizza restaurant called "Freddy Fazbear's Pizza"." → this information is already given in the "Gameplay" section, so it doesn't need to be repeated here as well; I have no preference one way or the other as to which section it's kept in, I'll leave that to you to decide to which section it's more relevant
  • "the titular Freddy Fazbear" → this exact construction is used in the "Gameplay" section
  • "suggesting that the children's corpses were hidden inside" → is this mentioned by the in-game newspaper clippings? If not, it'll need a source to make sure it's not OR (even though it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion to make, given the context of the game)
Couldn't find one, so removed.
  • "On the fourth night, Schmidt's predecessor is implied to have been killed by one of the animatronics while recording the message" → As I can recall, the sound of an animatronic attacking is audible to the player on the phone call; I would be more explicit about how exactly this was implied rather than just saying "it was implied"
You were right, the audio implied it.

Development and release

  • "Hoping to create a new project that appealed to non-Christians" → is this stated explicitly in the source? I skimmed it and it looks like he didn't necessarily want to appeal specifically to people that aren't Christian, just that he didn't want to make another Christian game (though please let me know if I'm missing the quote)
I tried rewording it to be more accurate to the source
  • "The audio was produced out of several sound effects" → recommend replacing "out of several sound effects" with "using several sound effects"
  • "in addition to number of files that he purchased" → missing word ("a number of files")

Reception

  • "Critics considered FNaF to be frightening" → the abbreviation "FNaF", however obvious it is, isn't previously defined in the article before being used here (though in this particular instance I'd replace it with "it" since it's pretty clear you're talking about the game)
Would it help if I included the abbreviation in the title as Five Nights at Freddy's (FNaF)?
Yes, I think that would be a good fix. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "but to also detect the noises the animatronics made to indicate their approach" → in the universe of the game, the animatronics aren't making noises to indicate their approach, they're making noises as they approach and the player just happens to be able to hear them
  • "by relying not on jumpscares, but by pressuring the player with the possibility of one" → remove comma

Legacy

  • "Upon release, Five Nights at Freddy's was a financial success and gained a large following" → this makes it sound like the game was a smash hit the moment it was released; if "upon release" means "after it was released", then that is redundant since it can't become a hit until after it's released in the first place. I would recommend either dropping it or (if supported by the sources) emphasizing how quickly it became a hit ("Shortly after its release" or something similar)
  • "By 2015, Five Nights at Freddy's had become one" → the name of the game is used already to begin the paragraph, so you can just use "it had become" here
  • "the most shown video games on the platform" → what does "most-shown" mean? Are you talking about the number of people who recorded and uploaded gameplay or the number of viewers on the gameplay and Let's Play videos?
I believe the source said uploaded gameplay rather than views.
  • "platform, becoming featured by" → remove the comma after "platform" and change "becoming" to "and was"
  • I'd go with "Markiplier", "Jacksepticeye", and "Pewdiepie" instead of their real names, since those are far more commonly-known
  • "series and media franchise, beginning with the release of a sequel Five Nights at Freddy's 2" → remove comma from after "franchise" and add one after "sequel"
  • "Other than video games," → unnecessary since "written works" (definitionally not video games) are mentioned later in the sentence
  • "He intended to pass on management of the franchise to a different party" → did he?
I have no indication that the management was passed on, it just said that he intended to pass it on.
  • Of course, we're limited to the content in sources, but I'll admit I was a little surprised that MatPat wasn't mentioned in the second paragraph; he strikes me as the leading guy on FNaF "theories" and "lore" etc.
There was a surprising lack of academic material to use for the sourcing, and the book source that I used for the Legacy section was one of the best that I could find (it was edited by two assistant professors at Cal State). But I couldn't find any reliable material that mentioned MatPat and FNAF on Google Scholar, nor any significant reliable sources that reinforced his role via the WP:VGSE.
  • "and would later begin a program" → "and later began a program"

References

  • This might not be within the scope of FA criteria on referencing, so this one is totally optional, but if you want to tidy up the refs section and eliminate some duplicate refs (just with different page numbers), you can use {{sfn}} to cite different pages of a book (the one I'm spotting a lot is Clarke/Wang 2020) without copy-pasting the whole {{cite book}} template over and over again. I use this method a lot and I think it looks a lot cleaner and easier to navigate, see John C. Young (pastor)#References if you're interested.

That'll be it for now, I'll come back for another read-through and some spotchecks when these are taken care of. Ping me when you're ready for another look or if you have any questions! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed some of the comments above. When you're ready, I would appreciate some spot-checks to help with the sourcing! Once again, thank you PCN02WPS! The Night Watch (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

Here's some random spotchecks (footnote numbers from this version of the article):

  • FN 2: "Five Nights at Freddy's is a point-and-click survival horror game" - verified
  • FN 9: "Gamezebo called it a "brilliant horror experience" that capitalized on fear of the unknown" - verified (source says "induces" fear of the unknown, not "capitalizes on", but that sentence goes on to explain how it capitalizes on the fear that it has induced, so I'm good with this wording)
  • FN 10: "Reviewers felt that FNaF's gameplay mechanics were well-designed." - verified
  • FN 17: "A version for Android was launched on August 25, 2014," - not verified, the date in question is not mentioned in the source (as far as I can see)
  • FN 18: "followed by an iOS port on September 13, 2014" - maybe verified; the article is dated Sep 13, 2014, but it's not explicitly stated that the game released on that day, though I'm not going to raise too much of a fuss about this unless the Android date can't be confirmed for sure
  • FN 26: "franchise has expanded to include written works; The first of these, Five Nights at Freddy's: The Silver Eyes, was published in 2015" - verified
  • FN 32: "filming began in 2023 and the picture is set for release on October 27, 2023" - release date verified, filming date was not verified in FN 31 and FN 33 is offline, could you provide a quote?
    • Also - I don't know that FN 31 really adds anything; it barely mentions FNaF and doesn't give a release date or filming year for the movie explicitly, so I'm not sure that it's needed (at least in verifying this particular information)
  • FN 35: "Cawthon has occasionally commented on some fan theories, including one presented by the YouTuber MatPat" - verified (glad to see MatPat turn up in a book, of all things!)

All in all, spotchecks are pretty good, just a few things that need attention. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PCN02WPS! I had some surprising trouble with the iOS and Android release dates. I looked it up on the FNAF Fandom website, but couldn't find any reliable sources to verify those dates and I was worried that they would go unconfirmed. Thankfully some advanced source searching allowed me to verify the exact dates using Gry Online, a Polish gaming RS. I was also able to find a source supporting that filming began in 2023. The Night Watch (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS Just a nudge. The Night Watch (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome that those additional sources were able to be found. I think the prose and sourcing is up to standard and I am happy to throw my support behind this nom. Best of luck with the rest of the FAC! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex3427

Disclosure: this is my first time reviewing an FAC. Didn't catch anything except a few nitpicks.

  • As Schmidt redundant, as you just stated that they were playing as Schmidt in the last sentence
  • Optional: I know it isn't required, but would it be better to put a citation for the newspaper clippings as this isn't easily accessible in the game? There are usable sources like this one.
  • in addition to number of files
  • There's a contraction wasn't in the Reception section.
  • Gamezebo described the sounds as excellent This reads weird. Maybe change "sounds" to "sound design".
  • In Legacy, due to its inclusion doesn't seem appropriate because it kinda implies that the game isn't the sole subject of the Let's Plays
  • several written works It's more than several with the extremely large anthology series
  • received a negative reputation Developed seems more appropriate for reputation
  • The detail about the Fazbear Fanverse Initiative would be more appropriate on the general FNaF franchise article, rather than included on here. The games aren't based solely on the first one and the Fanverse began six years later
Removed the content
  • Duplicated references to Indie Games in the Digital Age p. 74
Removed duplicate

@The Night Watch: That's it for me! Overall, I'm gonna support.

Thank you Vortex3427! I believe that I have addressed your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

Hello once again! I really enjoyed Kingdom Two Crowns so I am reviewing this one as well if that is okay.

  • "the player takes the role of Mike Schmidt" - Perhaps "the player takes on the role of Mike Schmidt"
  • "with many considering it to be a frightening and distinct horror game" - Would be fine without "to be" as well
  • "A film adaptation produced by Blumhouse Productions is scheduled to be released on October 27, 2023" - "A film adaptation by Blumhouse Productions is scheduled to be released on October 27, 2023" maybe, since the production role is implied by the name "Blumhouse Productions"
  • "The main game has a total of six levels, comprising the five main nights and an extra sixth night" - The repetition of "night" can be reduced: "The main game has a total of six levels, comprising the five main nights and an extra sixth one"
  • There's two usages of "one of the animatronics" in the Plot section which could optionally be replaced by "an animatronic"
  • "Scott Cawthon had developed several adventure games marketed towards Christians, all of which underperformed financially" - I prefer the use of "commercially" instead of "financially" for these types of usages.
  • "He coded the game with the Clickteam Fusion 2.5 engine, and used Autodesk 3ds Max to model the 3D graphics." - The comma in this sentence should be removed.
  • "Gamezebo described the sound design as excellent, suggesting that players wear headphones not just improve the experience, but to also detect the noises the animatronics made as they approached" - There seems to be a missing "to" either after "headphones" or after "just"
  • Steam (service) is linked a second time in the Legacy section. While I believe this is now allowed, I just wanted to bring this to your attention in case it is unintentional.
That's all from me and I would be more than happy to support this nomination once these are addressed. I see it has received a source review already, but all the sources and their formatting looks good to me as well. If you have some time later, I would appreciate any comments on my current FAC but this is by no means necessary.--NØ 17:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @MaranoFan! I believe that I have addressed your comments. The Night Watch (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by David Fuchs

Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the lead, I don't think you need exact dates for anything after the initial release; it's the lead, there's an infobox right next to it with exact dates and the article body if they want a run down. You can just summarize the later releases and mention the year if you must.
  • "The event left Cawthon less inclined towards making Christian games" — what event? Regaining his desire for game development (the spiritual experience?) or (more likely) the bad performance of the Christian games?
  • "He was inspired to make a horror-focused experience after receiving negative reviews towards his construction and management game Chipper & Sons Lumber Co." - was this another of the Christian games? The timeframe here is a little hard to parse. If Chipper & Sons was before his pivot, it makes sense to mention it earlier, and then loop back to the animatronic comments.
  • The reception section has a bit starting by talking about how FNAF doesn't rely on jumpscares, and then follows up by people talking about the jumpscares getting repetitive. I think a little more structure to this section would make it clearer there was differing opinions on them (and that they exist.)
  • "He intended to pass on management of the franchise to a different party" — so what happened, if he didn't pass on management? It's also weird this fact, which doesn't have to do with franchise spinoffs and takes place in 2021, comes before the 2017 mention of the film.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done.
  • It was the spiritual experience, thanks for catching that.
  • It was after his pivot. Should I mention that it was a secular project or something along those lines?
  • Working on restructuring the jumpscare bit.
  • There has been no news on if he has passed on management of the franchise, just that he "planned" to do so. Considering that he is one of the screenwriters on the upcoming film, it appears as though he still has effective control of FNAF.
The Night Watch (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs follow up ping. The Night Watch (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Source formatting is consistent save for the Brey, Clarke & Wang 2020 one and all necessary information is there, but I confess that I don't know much about the sources beyond what is said at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources - which doesn't list Clickteam and Dread Central. "A voice message mentions "The Bite of '87", an incident which is implied to have led to the loss of a person's frontal lobe and forced animatronic mobility during the day to be prohibited. " is this something explicitly supported by the game itself? For this time, spot-check only upon request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus searching up Dread Central in the RSN, the most recent discussion mentioned that it is a critic on Rotten Tomatoes and has been quoted by several other RSes. It has also won a few awards on reporting. Clickteam is the publisher for the mobile and console versions and is the company behind the game development software that Scott Cawthon used to create Five Nights at Freddy's. I think Clickteam falls under WP:ABOUTSELF for the purposes of sourcing as it is used sparingly in the article. About the "Bite of '87", the exact text of the message is here under section Night 1. The voice message seems explicit. The Night Watch (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that these sources were consulted and either used or ruled out? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of them were college students writing papers, and a substantial amount of the material that the sources discussed talked about the series as a whole (or grouped the series along with other horror games) and not necessarily the impact of the first game. There were some that cited Wikipedia itself. Brey, Clarke & Wang even noted that the game had a dearth of proper academic coverage in their book chapter on the subject. The Night Watch (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. With the caveats regarding not knowing most sources and no spotcheck, mind you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PCN02WPS spot-checked about 10% of the sources, but feel free to do some other checks if you think it would be good. Any sources stand out to you as questionable? WP:VG/S links to a few discussions on the reliability of the sources. The Night Watch (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that I have specific concerns about a particular source but more that if there is a source that is unsuitable but only a videogame expert would know that, I won't notice and thus my comment here shouldn't be interpreted as approving of such a source. As for spotchecks, I usually do them only on request b/c they take time and I don't always have time and interest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the clarification. And thank you for the review! The Night Watch (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 August 2023 [2].

Revolutionary Girl Utena

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Born from its creator's discontent over his lack of creative freedom as a director of Sailor Moon, Revolutionary Girl Utena is a defining work of 1990s anime. Whenever I try to sell Utena to someone (particularly someone that might be skeptical of anime), I describe it as a sort of cousin to Twin Peaks – much like that series outwardly resembles a standard network detective show but ultimately tells a story that is much more surreal and impressionistic, Utena uses the trappings and aesthetics of '90s girls' anime to tell an avant-garde coming-of-age story influenced by experimental Japanese theater and the works of Hermann Hesse.

I expanded this article significantly in February, and brought it to GA that same month. I then took the article to peer review, where it unfortunately did not get any feedback; nevertheless, I'm nominating it here because I believe the article meets requirements and is comparable in its scope and depth to the previous manga/anime articles I've taken to FAC. Morgan695 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Aoba47

  • For this part in the lead, (and has received numerous accolades. The series has received particular praise for its treatment of LGBT themes and subject material), I would avoid using "has received" twice in such close proximity.
  • I have not read the full article so apologies in advance if this is already addressed. To the best of my understanding, after reading the lead, the manga adaptation was created during the anime's development, but the manga came out roughly a year before the anime's release? Is this further addressed in the article? The timeline just seems odd to me, specifically having an adaptation (the manga) coming out before the original product (the anime).
    • Your understanding is correct: the animated series is the originating work from which the manga is adapted, though as animation has much longer production times than manga, the manga ended up beginning serialization before the original broadcast run of the television series. The article talks in more detail about the production of the manga in "Manga" under "Related media". Morgan695 (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source link for File:Revolutionary Girl Utena logo 20170127.svg leads to an error message for me. I would also avoid having a bare link in the source parameter and I would include the title of the website there instead to give a fuller picture to readers of what the link leads to prior to clicking on it.
  • The infobox says the manga is partially aimed at a josei audience, but when I do a search through the article, josei does not appear anywhere else. Do you have a citation to support this categorization?
    • The demographic category of a manga series always corresponds to the demographic category of the magazine it is published in: the original manga and the Adolescence of Utena manga were respectively published in Ciao and Bessatsu Shōjo Comic Special, which are shōjo magazines, while After the Revolution was published in Flowers, which is a josei magazine. Obviously not a perfect 1:1 comparison since I imagine more people are familiar with sports than they are with manga, but in-context it's a bit of a WP:NOTBLUE situation in that the demographic categories of these manga magazines are unambiguous and self-evident in the same way you wouldn't need a cite to verify that Sports Illustrated is a sports magazine. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the explanation, and I agree with you completely on this. I made this comment prior to reading the article as a whole, and once I got the the parts on the manga's run in magazines, this became clear to me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies again if this is really obvious. I just have a quick clarification question about the "Plot" section. Is this story set in the "real world" (for lack of better words) or is it set in some sort of fantasy world or alternative place? I was just curious because when I read the beginning of the "Plot" section and got to the part on "a traveling prince", I felt uncertain about where this story was set, both in terms of time and place.
    • It definitely leans more towards "fantasy world or alternative place". To go back to the Twin Peaks analogy, both Ohtori Academy and the town of Twin Peaks are clearly surreal and supernatural settings, but the exact nature of that surreality is never quite explicated, and isn't really the point of the story in the first place. Part of my concern writing the plot summary was that I didn't want to be too prescriptive in summarizing a story that hangs much of its narrative on allegory and symbolism, which understandably might inhibit the clarity of the summary, but I think is necessary to avoid foisting a POV onto a piece of media that by design is abstract and subjective. Morgan695 (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree, but I will not push this further and I will respect whatever direction a consensus goes on the matter. I do not see defining the setting of a story (even in a more allegorical narrative) as pushing a POV. I just think that it would provide readers, particularly unfamiliar ones like myself, with a fuller and more complete summary, especially since this story is set in a more world more outside of the norm.
      • If citations do describe the setting, I would not see any issue with explicitly saying that it is taking place is some sort of fantasy world. I think even answering basic questions on where Ohtori Academy is located would be something. To go with your Twin Peaks example, the article clearly locates it in a state (Washington), while I am guessing that Ohtori Academy is in Japan, but having that clarified would be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "engaged" put in quotation marks in the plot summary?
  • It has been a while since I have studied Japanese (even though I keep saying I'll return to it) so sorry again if this is obvious or it is not phrased entirely correctly. When Utena Tenjou and Anthy Himemiya are discussed, their first names are used, but for Souji Mikage, the plot summary uses Mikage instead of Souji. I would be consistent with one way or the other.
    • This is a case where WP:COMMONNAME conflicts with consistency; Souji Mikage is referred to more or less exclusively as "Mikage" and never as "Souji" within the text of the work itself. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense. It is best to go with the names that are primarily uses in the work itself as those would be the names primarily used in discussions on the work (whether in official coverage or by fans). Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link here (stabs Utena through the back) seems unnecessary in my opinion. It is an easily understood concept to a majority if not all readers, plus it just redirects to the general betrayal article anyway which further reduces its purpose.
  • I do not think bildungsroman needs to be capitalized.
  • I am uncertain of this use of "while" in this part (while director Kunihiko Ikuhara stated that he developed the cast of Utena using the self-described principle of "never give a character only one personality"). The word "while" is often used to suggest a contrast, and it just appears that Yōji Enokido and Kunihiko Ikuhara are discussing separate points on character development so a different word choice would be better in my opinion.
  • Anime should be linked in the "Characters" section as it is the first time it is brought up in the article. If it is linked later in the article, it should be unlinked.
  • To tie into the above point, I am confused by the linking in the article. There are instances where items are linked repeatedly, such as with manga. Is there a reason for this choice?
    • Can you cite specific instances? "Manga" should be linked once in the body and then never again (which should be corrected now), but there were some cases where I re-linked to subjects where they are discussed substantially in the section; e.g. I re-link to J. A. Seazer under "Soundtrack and music" because that section substantially discusses his contribution to the series, and the first mention of him in the article body is just an incidental reference. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are up to the "Development" section. I will continue my review once my above comments have been addressed. I hope this is helpful. I know absolutely nothing about this and have not seen or read anything outside of this article so I am enjoying going through it. But, to continue off a point I have made above, I find myself struggling to picture this story as I am not sure the time and place it is set in. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Responded to your comments with the exception of the note about the setting. I'm looking into improving it now, but the setting of the series is somewhat intentionally confounding; while Ohtori Academy resembles a contemporary Japanese boarding school, the series' focus on concepts like dueling tournaments, travelling princes, and chivalric romance certainly evokes an image of the European middle ages. (Or so goes my favorite J. A. Seazer song from the series, at least.) But your point is well-made, and I think the section can be clearer without being prescriptive about the allegorical material of the series. Morgan695 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and for responding to my points. That sounds fair to me. When I read the article, I got the impression that the setting was more on the vague side so the article does represent that well at least in my opinion. From the sounds of it, it seems like the story sets up the boarding school as its own little world so keeping the focus on the school may be best. I did a very brief Google search and saw a mention of a "Houou City", but I could only find that in a Wiki so I am doubtful of it. Thank you for again for understanding and apologies again for being a pain about this. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about the note for the quote "a romantic action show". The note specifies the genre is tied to romance fiction and romanticism, but this seems obvious to me in the prose alone. Would the reader confuse this with something else to the point that a note like this is necessary?
  • For this part, (the 1973 film adaptation of The Three Musketeers), I think it would be best to tweak the linking slightly to the 1973 film adaptation of The Three Musketeers. I recommend this to better match the links with the prose.
  • I have a comment for this part, (with Saito advocating for the original romantic concept for the series over Ikuhara's new, more esoteric vision). I would avoid using the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as it is a note that I have seen rather repeatedly in multiple FAC reviews. I do not have strong opinions about it, but it seems to be something that is best avoided in FA writing. Another example of this is (with Ikuhara and Mitsumune participating on some choruses). Feel free to disagree by the way on this point.
    • I'll leave it for now, and see if it comes up in the comments of other editors. Morgan695 (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. As I have said above, I do not not have strong feelings about this. I have seen someone explain why this kind of structure is not an example of great writing, but I honestly cannot remember their rationale for it and if I was not already aware of this from prior FACs, it is not something that I would really point out or find particularly notable. Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Style" subsection, there is a sentence with four citations, and I was wondering if it would be possible to bundle them to avoid potential claims of citational overkill?
  • This is more of a clarification question. Were there any reviews for some of these adaptations such as the stage ones, the light novels, or the video game? It is obviously important to be mindful of the article's length, and I already think that the discussion around these adaptations are very well-handled. I still wanted to ask anyway.
  • This part, (As a bishōjo, Kotani argues), seems off as it could be read that Kotani is being described as a bishōjo.
  • I am uncertain about this sentence: (New York listed the car transformation scene in Adolescence of Utena on its list of "The 100 Sequences That Shaped Animation" in 2022.) It is so tied to the film that I think it would be best left to that article, and I am not sure if it really fits here. I only point this out because this is the first time the car transformation scene is mentioned in this article (unless I missed a prior mention), but it gets much more focus in the film article.
  • Titles such as Revolutionary Girl Utena should be italicized in the citation tiles to meet WP:CONFORMTITLE.

This should be the full extent of my review. Just to be clear, I am focusing primarily on the prose. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC as always. As always you have done excellent work here and my quotes above are mostly nitpicks. Aoba47 (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses and for your patience with my review. I will revisit the article tomorrow to read through everything again. I doubt I will find anything to add here, but again, I just want to make sure I am as thorough as possible as a reviewer. Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If you would prefer that I collapse my comments or move them to the talk page, feel free to let me know. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from PanagiotisZois

Man, I haven't seen Utena in almost 10 years. It actually was the 4th anime I consciously watched, once I realized what anime even were. I loved reading through the article and learning more about the series, and it's definitely made me want to rewatch it. Anyway, for now, I can only offer a source review, primarily in terms of formatting and whatnot. I understand that the FAC guidelines require sources to be reliable and high-quality. Personally, I found all sources to be reliable and relatively high-quality. I might leave this part however to more experienced editors, in case we disagree on what constitutes as "high-quality". Aside from that, here are my comments. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments on formatting from PanagiotisZois
  • With most sources that originate from books, including #1, you have the book cited in the "Bibliography" section and use the {sfn} template. However, with source #2 which also is a book, you don't list that in the appropriate section, or which page describes Utena as "surrealist".
I only have access to the ePub version of Anime Impact, which does not have page numbers. I've noted that it's the eBook edition, moved the citation to Bibliography, and indicated that the "Revolutionary Girl Utena" section of the book is where the relevant info is being pulled from. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "Revolutionary Girl Utena: 20th Anniversary Ultra Edition", is it possible to specify each time you cite the source, which page you're referring to? Pages 76–105 is a quite significant page number. If for whatever reason this is impossible - maybe you don't have direct access to it - I guess it can be left as is.
Yes, this is a source where I only have access to the raw text of the section (which is not denoted with page numbers) and not the actual book itself. Not ideal, but hopefully not dealbreaking for a source review. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • With source #4, link the Newtype magazine.
Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding source #42, don't forget to link Anime News Network. Also, don't use allcaps.
    • Also in sources #58-59, #74, #76-77, #79-80, #82-84, #87-88.
Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning source #56, link CBR.
    • Also in #114.
Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source #64 should probably be in the "Bibliography" section.
Done. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In sources #72 & 72, there's no need to have "Box" all in uppercase.
Done. Morgan695 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In source #75, link CPM.
Done. Morgan695 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In source #78, link ICv2. Only the v is lowercase.
Done. Morgan695 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Most comments have been addressed. Regarding the first two points, I would say that the lack of page numbers can be excused. Based on this, the article passes the source review where it concerns formatting and consistency. I will look about checking to see whether the things being stated in the article are actually present within the sources at another time. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments on reliability from PanagiotisZois

Regarding the bibliography, most sources appear to be from journals that are peer-reviewed, or anime-related magazines that have existed for decades, or books from reputable publishers / authors. However, I do have some statements to be made here. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the online sources, I'm aware that ANN is recognized as kind of an expert on anime-related stuff, and I've seen articles from there be used in various other anime/manga-related pages that are featured articles. Same goes for websites like CBR. However:

  • What makes Pen-Online, Paste magazine, Collider, or SlashFilm high-quality, reliable sources?
    • Pen [ja] is a Japanese lifestyle magazine that has been published since 1997, and is published by the same company that publishes that Japanese editions of Madame Figaro and Newsweek. Paste is a long-running American arts and culture magazine that I believe regarded fairly uncontroversially as reliable. Collider and SlashFilm seem to trend towards looser enthusiast-style coverage, but I think are situationally reliable in the incidental context in which they're being used in the article. Morgan695 (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Taking the above into account, as well as the statements the sources support, I'd say the article also passes the source review in terms of reliability & quality. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tintor2

  • Sorry for not commenting but I hope this review becomes active enough. Everything looks good but I'd suggest removing the quote boxes as the material chosen might come across a biased. Had a similar issue the To Your Eternity review as well as some Resident Evil.
I'll leave them for now and see if they come up as a point of contestation from other reviewers. I could see an argument for having a quote under "Reception and influence" being a POV issue, but I think the other quotes are fairly uncontroversial and add context to their sections. Morgan695 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot section could explain what parts of each paragraph are the three arcs if they are worth mentioning.
I think I'll keep it as-is to avoid the overuse of subheads.. Morgan695 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The releases section should used before any other adaptation since it's the primary media (Right?)
Done. Morgan695 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes and analysis could be moved to production or reception if they are backed up by the anime stuff or third party sources.
I think that would just end up bloating those two sections; best to keep them in their own section (as has been done for The Heart of Thomas, Kaze to Ki no Uta, Banana Fish, etc). Morgan695 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: Hi, response above.

Support by Tintor2 (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda concerned about "()" being accepted as part of the prose though.

Image review from voorts (pass)

Fair use rationales look good and the other images are public domain. The series logo is trademarked, but the image itself is marked as noncopyrightable. The images are illustrative of the article's content and the captions look good. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Link20XX

Coord note / spotcheck

Hi Morgan, generally we waive spotchecks of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing when nominators already have spotchecked FAs under their belt but as this would be your first solo effort I'm undertaking such a check...

  • FN23: Okay.
  • FN25a/b/d/e: Okay.
  • FN25c: Couldn't see where the film is clearly referenced in this fashion, have I missed something?
    • That's me putting Ikuhara's comment that he "wanted to make it more naughty than the TV series" in Wikipedia language. I'm fine to either add the direct quote from Ikuhara or remove the prose entirely.
      • I get your point but I think you could do without the entire sentence.
        • Removed.
  • FN53: Source supports Adolescence of Utena being referred to by fans as The End of Utena, but can't see anything suggesting "affectionately".
    • I guess that's maybe a bit of my own editorialization, but my rationale to keep the qualifier would be to clarify that the nickname isn't used disparagingly. I don't feel strongly enough about including it if doing so would inhibit an FA pass, though.
      • I don't doubt it is an affectionate appellation but we need to stick to what the source clearly supports; for someone unfamiliar with the subject it wouldn't read disparagingly if we simply lost "affectionately". Can you recall other instances of such minor editorialising in the article?
        • Removed.
        • And to my knowledge re: editorialising, no; the two sections you identified were pulled from the article on Adolescence of Utena, where I had access to fewer sources than I did for this article.
  • FN111: Link didn't work for me.
    • Looks like it's a dead link, but the Archive link included in the source seems to be operating.
      • My bad, I overlooked the archived link -- okay.
  • FN114b: Okay.
  • FN116: Okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Hi, reply above. And I actually have done a solo FAC, so I don't know if that changes anything w/r/t the need for a spotcheck. Morgan695 (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Morgan, what I meant was a solo FA that had had a spotcheck (I know at least one of your joint FACs passed a spotcheck). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Hi, reply above. Morgan695 (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just acknowledging, will get to it shortly, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay tks Morgan, that satisfies my concerns. To maintain a safe distance though I'm going to recuse myself from closing and let one of my fellow coords judge if this is ready to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 August 2023 [3].

Nuremberg trials

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 07:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the withdrawn FAC last year, I expanded the article with more information on the origins of crimes against humanity, the American, French, and British prosecution efforts, and the defense section. I incorporated new sources and also looked at Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg (1977), but I did not see anything worth adding from that book. I'd like to thank everyone who commented on the article, particularly Brigade Piron and Ealdgyth. (t · c) buidhe 07:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

  • Are the countries listed in the Origin section's first sentence in a specific order?
    • Yes, chronological and also that used in the cited source.
  • "On 1 November 1943, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and United States issued the Moscow Declaration to "give full warning [...] justice may be done" - It is a bit unclear who this quote came from. Is it written in the Declaration itself?
    • Yes, clarified.
  • "The British government, in light of the failure of trials after World War I, disinclined to endorse retroactive criminality, and unconvinced of the benefits of lengthy proceedings, still preferred the summary execution of Nazi leaders" - A long sentence, might benefit from a split
    • Rewrote
  • "Germany surrendered unconditionally" could be piped to German Instrument of Surrender instead of the redirect German surrender
    • Done
  • There seem to be over 700 usages of the word "the" in the article currently, so you could consider cutting some down. e.g. "Jackson's focus was on the aggressive war charge, which he described as the root of the crimes against humanity and of war crimes"
    • I rephrased this sentence but am having a hard time wrapping my head around overuse of the word "the" as I'd never heard of it as an issue before. I read over parts of the article but am unable to identify cases of "the" that are detrimental.
My review is very general due to my unfamiliarity with the subject matter. This is a very important topic of course and the article is engaging and well-researched in my opinion.--NØ 16:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling

Support by Borsoka

  • Between 1939 and 1945, Nazi Germany waged war across Europe, invading Czechoslovakia,... Can the German occupation of Czechoslovakia be described as a war? Even if it can, it was not part of WWII (which is linked).
    • Rephrased. The point here is not that the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1939 was part of WWII but it was an act of aggression according to the prosecution, although the tribunal also accepted the argument that the annexation of Austria was "a premeditated aggressive step" despite "the strong desire expressed in many quarters for the union of Austria and Germany"—which was deemed "immaterial". (Sayapin pp. 151–152). I am not sure that the annexation of Austria can be designated an invasion, so I did not list it.
  • My concern is that the link still suggests that the invasion of Czechoslovakia was part of WWII.
  • Removed from the list as the exact membership is not so important here.
  • ...the systematic murder of millions of Jews... I miss a reference to other groups.
    • The Jews are especially relevant considering the Joint Declaration by Members of the United Nations which Hirsch mentions on the cited pages. I am not sure that others are relevant to mention specifically. From the Soviet perspective what mattered was not the individual groups of victims (especially given their "do not divide the dead" approach) but the war devastation and losing a lot of population. Western Allies encountered a mass of former KZ prisoners and they also did not have a good understanding of Nazi persecutions of specific groups of people.
  • I think the emphasis on Jews in the article's context should be explained.
  • Rewrite to show an evidenced link with the trial that does not exist in the case of other groups. Sellars writes, From the outset, the Allies had justified the prosecution of the leaders of the Axis powers on the grounds that the conflict had been unique in the annals of warfare because of its totality and barbarity. This argument rested primarily upon a singular event: the Holocaust. Although the judges at Nuremberg declared crimes against peace to be the ‘supreme international crime’,28 it was in fact the existence of the death camps that formed the moral core of the Allies’ case against the Nazi leaders.
  • ...1⁄7th... Why not one seventh?
    • Fixed
  • ...the German–Soviet pact... Link the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
    • Done
  • ... eight governments-in-exile... Perhaps a very short explanation between dashes?
    • Done
  • ...Axis crimes... So far the article only referred to Nazi Germany's aggression. Why is Axis not linked?
    • Corrected to "German" after checking the source
  • ...war crimes... The term is only linked in the lead.
    • Fixed
  • ...without Soviet participation... Why?
    • According to Hirsch, the reason they did not was because in exchange for recognizing the participation of British Dominions, the Soviets wanted each of the Soviet republics to be admitted individually, including countries such as Lithuania that the Western powers did not recognize as part of the Soviet Union. (p. 30). This seems too tangential to include
  • According to the corresponding article, China also signed the Moscow Declaration.
    • According to the official text, the Statement of Atrocities referred to here was joined by USSR, UK, US but not China (as Heller states).
  • ...Allies' intent... Allies is not linked yet. Did it declare of the Allies' intent or the intent of the signing powers?
    • "the aforesaid three Allied Powers, speaking in the interests of the 32 United Nations", so I've revised to signatories
  • ... those high-ranking Nazis who had committed crimes in several countries... Perhaps it indicates the limits of my English, but for me the sentence suggests that those Nazis who committed crimes in only one of the occupied countries were not intended to be persecuted.
    • Clarified
  • Nuremberg Charter is linked twice (once as London Conference)
    • I think these conference is separately notable from the final document that was approved, so I prefer to leave in the extra redirect.
  • Nineteen states ratified the charter... Could they be listed in a footnote?
    • I'm actually not convinced that this detail is relevant to include since Gemahlich does not actually list them and I cannot find references to ratification by other states in Hirsch, Priemel, Heller, Sellars, and other sources I checked. Their role in the trial seems to have been nil so I've removed it.
  • Murray Bernays, a War Department lawyer, proposed the conspiracy charge. For me, this statement comes out of the blue. What is conspiracy charge? Why is his proposal relevant?
    • Removed
  • Briefly introduce Hartley Shawcross, Auguste Champetier de Ribes and Robert Falco.
    • done
  • Consider linking indictment.
    • Done
  • ...the three official languages of the tribunal... Could they be listed?
    • I thought it was obvious, now spelled out
  • ...the German–Soviet pact... Link the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
    • Done
  • Institutional rivalries hampered the search. Some context? My concern is that this sentence is too general, it could be mentioned in any context where at least two institutions are to cooperate.
    • I could just remove this sentence.

I will continue the review in one or two days. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jackson is first mentioned in section "Legal basis" but he is introduced and linked in section "Judges and procedures".
    • Revised
  • ...even resorting to implausible lies Could you mention some examples?
    • Douglas says that this tactic was used when denying knowledge of the final solution, for example Kaltenbrunner claimed that he thought Sonderbehandlung referred to prisoners getting privileged conditions. He lied so much that a prosecutor asked him, "Is it not a fact that you are simply lying?" Arthur Seyss-Inquart claimed that he sent people to Auschwitz but it was not bad there because there was an orchestra.
  • ...expecting that the German people would favorably regard his loyalty to Hitler after his death I assume this is a PoV not a fact.
    • I've tried to word this better but maybe I should just take it out.
  • ...far more than any other group Could it be linked to an article?
    • I don't know
  • ...Despite the lingering doubts of some of the judges Could you mention some examples?
    • It's not stated in the sources and perhaps not known which judges had doubts about the retroactivity of the crimes against peace charge.
  • In France, some verdicts were met with outrage from the media and especially from organizations for deportees and resistance fighters, as they were perceived as too lenient. Could you mention some examples?
    • Done
  • Two pictures depict aggression against the USSR (File:RIAN archive 2251 Destroyed Stalingrad does not give up.jpg; File:Men with an unidentified unit execute a group of Soviet civilians kneeling by the side of a mass grave.jpg). I suggest that the first picture be replaced with a picture about the Destruction of Warsaw.

I will continue the review tommorrow or on Monday. After re-reading the article I concluded that it meets all FA criteria, so I support its promotion. Thank you for this thoroughly researched and well written article. Borsoka (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from UndercoverClassicist

A really important article and, I appreciate, not an easy one to write or get right. I'm not an expert in the subject matter, and thse comments come with a context of a great deal of admiration for the article and the work done on it so far. The writing is extremely impressive.

    • I realise I haven't really wrapped this one up: I am certainly leaning support on the basis of what I can assess, particularly the quality of the writing and explanation, which are really top-notch. I am a little hesitant to vote that way for comprehensiveness concerns: while I understand the rationale for a relatively short bibliography, there are also risks to that approach; similarly, while I think the ongoing moves to branch out some more expansive material (like the list of witnesses) into sub-articles are good, I think they also indicate that there's a slightly unresolved tension between brevity and comprehensiveness here. I'd be more comfortable voting support if another editor more knowledgeable about the subject matter were to chime in (and I recognise Buidhe's considerable expertise here): for the moment, I'll hold off until more content-focused reviews come in, but I'm happy to review that if there's a risk of the nomination being archived for lack of support. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • German aggression was accompanied by immense brutality in occupied areas and the systematic murder of millions of Jews in the Holocaust: I'm with User:Borsoka that it feels odd to implicitly exclude e.g. the disabled, LGBT people and Romani people from the "systematic murder" category. I appreciate that including them in the Holocaust is a very thorny topic, and that brevity is important here, but could we have something like German aggression was accompanied by immense brutality in occupied areas, including the systematic murder of millions of Jews in the Holocaust and that of millions of people from other groups the Nazis termed "subhuman"?
    • See the edit made to this paragraph
      • Happy with this: now threads the needle nicely.
  • Why one seventh but two-thirds? Personally, I'd hyphenate throughout.
    • Done
  • representatives of nine governments-in-exile from German-occupied Europe issued a declaration on Punishment for War Crimes: not sure the capitalisation works here (as it's only correct for the title of the declaration, not the concept of the same name): either make Punishment for War Crimes a title and capitalise, so a declaration, Punishment for War Crimes, which... or make it a description, as here, and decapitalise. The link can stay either way.
    • Done
  • and bogged down in the scope of its mandate: became bogged down, surely?
    • Done
  • The Soviet Union wanted to hold a show trial similar to the 1930s Moscow trials, in order to demonstrate the Nazi leaders' guilt and build a case for war reparations to rebuild the Soviet economy, which had been devastated by the war.: I worry that this might be heading slightly towards an NPOV problem: did the Soviets openly want an unfair trial, or did they argue that a short, fairly perfunctory operation would be sufficient to establish the Nazis' guilt? Similarly, I imagine both sides would have called their proposal "fair". Appreciate the need for brevity here, but it might help to be a little more specific on the concrete differences of rules and procedure that each side wanted.
    • On this point: this review of Hirsch gives the opposite impression: that the British and Americans were the ones originally pushing for extra-legal punishment, while it was Stalin's influence that ensured a courtroom trial was held at all.
    • That is accurate. The Soviet Union wanted a trial in which the defense would not be given the chance to make a case, thus not a fair trial by Western standards. The trial would be held for propaganda purposes, not with the aim of securing a fair outcome. The UK especially was wary of the prospect of war crimes trials, as stated in the article, thus favoring summary execution of Nazi leaders. Indeed Hirsch argues that the trial may not have been held at all if the Soviet Union hadn't pushed for it (although this is not a claim made in the article).
      • Understood: I think the recent edits are a big improvement. I would still replace "fair trial" with a more neutral term to explain what would be fair(er) about it (for instance, including that point about the defence not being allowed to speak in the Soviets' definition of a "trial"). After all, whether the Nuremberg trials were fair was (and perhaps still is) something of a bone of contention, and the US's stipulations were certainly not all about ensuring fairness. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully you are happy with the revised wording now. (t · c) buidhe 22:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the United States' new president: is it worth explaining briefly why he was new?
  • negotiated the exact form that the trial would take: "exact" could be omitted as needless here.
    • Done
  • upended the traditional view of international law by holding individuals, rather than states, responsible for breaches of international law: will defer to the sources here, but is that quite correct as stated? For instance, the Leipzig war crimes trials of 1921 prosecuted individuals for war crimes under international law, such as sinking hospital ships on the high seas. The implication I read from the sentence as written in the article is that previously, a state would be put on trial rather than an individual, but that wasn't always true. From what I can tell, the difference is that the court itself was international, as opposed to justice being done under the law of one of the involved nations.
    • The Leipzig trials were held by Germany under classical jurisdictional rules which include the provision that states have jurisdiction over their own citizens and can prosecute alleged crimes committed beyond their internationally recognized borders (extraterritorial jurisdiction is not the same as universal jurisdiction). There was a concept of war crime as a criminal violation of the laws of war, but it was effectual in Leipzig because of German ratification of various treaties such as the Hague and Geneva conventions that called for prosecution of violators. It is not the case that states were subject to criminal responsibility, but the principle of state responsibility was used in litigation when states sued each other at the Permanent Court of International Justice.
    • What was different at Nuremberg was trying individuals for violations of international law, such as the acts of aggression and systematic crimes against humanity. They were not tried according to German military law (as at the Leipzig trials) but a separate legal code. The previous legal immunity for acts of sovereign states, and superior orders as a defense, were abolished in the case of international crimes. This was "the true beginning of international criminal law" according to Sayapin. It's possible that the article could do a better job of explaining this for a reader who might not know much about legal systems. (t · c) buidhe 22:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense: I agree it could (and should) be explained more clearly in the article. The implication I get from the second paragraph of "legal basis" is that the idea of trying an individual for war crimes was novel. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British proposal to define crimes against humanity as widespread and systematic attacks on civilians was accepted: this sentence is a little ambiguous: did the British propose "widespread and systematic attacks on civilians" as a definition of war crimes (so The British proposal to define crimes against humanity as "widespread and systematic attacks on civilians" was accepted?
    • Technically, the wording of "Widespread and systematic" postdates Nuremberg; it actually is the wording used in the Rome Statute. I've added in a direct quote from the charter.
  • The final version of the charter limited the jurisdiction over crimes against humanity to those committed as part of a war of aggression: this one took me a minute to parse: "limited the tribunal's jurisdiction"?
    • Done
  • Each state appointed a prosecution team and two judges, one being an alternate: alternate might be a touch WP:JARGONy: do we mean something like a prosecution team, a main judge and an alternate in case [what, exactly?]
    • The difference was that the alternate was not allowed to vote on the final verdict unless the main judge was incapacitated. All the sources use "alternate", which I don't really see as jargon.
  • As the numerically strongest delegation: why not "largest"?
    • Done
  • The American intelligence agency Office of Strategic Services also assisted the prosecutors: it's usually referred to as the OSS, so suggest The Office of Strategic Services, an American intelligence agency, also...
  • The Soviet personnel's lack of knowledge of English: "personnel's" like this reads unidiomatically to me: style guides often advise avoiding the possessive of indeclinable nouns, because we end up with this awkwardness where it's inflected as if singular but semantically plural. Suggest either The Soviet delegation's or the influence of the Soviet personnel was limited by their....

I'm down to the top of "Indictment" at the moment: more later. Again, my hat off to you for this vital but demanding piece of work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • The British worked on putting together the aggressive war charge: suggest hyphenation: aggressive-war charge per MOS:HYPHEN, since it's the war that was aggressive, not the charge. We'd do the same for e.g. short-story writers even when we wouldn't write "A Sound of Thunder is a short-story". The same has been done for "crimes-against-peace charges" further down.
    • Rephrased
      • the French and Soviet delegations were assigned the task of covering crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on the Western Front and the Eastern Front, respectively: now a little unclear: did the French get crimes against humanity and the Soviets get war crimes on the Western and Eastern front? It sounds more like we mean that both delegations were to investigate crimes against humanity and war crimes; the French would have responsibility for those committed on the Western Front, and the Soviets for those committed on the Eastern Front. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed
  • It was also a way to indirectly charge crimes committed before the beginning of World War II, which the charter placed outside the court's jurisdiction: slight grammatical ambiguity here as to what, exactly, was outside the court's jurisdiction (was it World War II, its beginning, or crimes committed before its beginning)? Suggest "crimes committed before the beginning of World War II [or a specific date, since when WWII began is not a straightforward question], which were placed outside the court's jurisdiction"
    • The Nuremberg charter neither gives a date range for its applicability, nor does it strictly speaking limit its jurisdiction to the war itself. However, because the enumerated charges were crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity only when there was a nexus with the preceding crimes effectively its jurisdiction was limited accordingly.
      • Gotcha: I think "crimes committed before the beginning of World War II,[EFN if felt helpful] which were placed outside the court's jurisdiction" is clearer then: it's the crimes, not the war or its beginning, that were outside jurisdiction. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conspiracy charges were especially central to the cases against propagandists and industrialists; the former were charged with providing the ideological justification for war and other crimes, while the latter were accused of enabling the war with the economic mobilization necessary for the German war effort: lots of war here, and it's better to use a colon to link sentences where the second explains the first. Suggest Conspiracy charges were central to the cases against propagandists and industrialists: the former were charged with providing the ideological justification for war and other crimes, while the latter were accused of enabling Germany's war by facilitating its economic mobilization.
  • the three official languages of the tribunal—English, French, and Russian—as well as German: was German not an official language of the tribunal?
    • That's correct, but all proceedings and documents were required to be translated into the defendant's language. See Nuremberg charter Article 25.
  • difficulty in recruiting interpreters should be difficulty of in this context, I think.
    • Done
  • Jackson also rewrote the indictment with the intent of keeping the proceedings under American control by separating out an overall conspiracy charge from the other three charges: I don't understand how separating this charge would keep the proceedings under American control.
    • Rewrote
  • Lodging a mild protest against "committed suicide", though I understand that it's permitted by the MoS.
  • The final list was based on one drawn up by the British Foreign Office in 1944 and haphazardly added to: do we know who added to it? Was it just the British?
  • Observers of the trial found the defendants mediocre and contemptible.: can this be nuanced a little: all of them (on both counts)? What does Priemel base this statement on?
    • This was the general impression, based on Priemel's reading of caricatures and private papers among other sources
  • Jackson demanded changes and expansion of the defendants list: we wouldn't say changes of the defendants list, so "changes to and expansion of" would work, or else "Jackson demanded that the list of defendants be changed and expanded as late as October."
    • Reworded
  • tried in absentia: italicise in absentia, as is normal in HQRS?
    • Done
  • What exactly does headlined the trial mean?
    • Reworded
  • they prioritized the Wehrmacht's reputation over the lives of the generals on trial: I'd suggest that this might be better placed where it would have some tangible consequences: did any of the lawyers throw their defendants under the bus, so to speak? Also, a question mark on the term Wehrmacht, firstly for accuracy (not everyone on trial was military or a part of that organisation, so do we mean "German national honor" or something similar?). Secondly and more vaguely, there's a tendency in Anglophone scholarship to use German-language terms (Wehrmacht, Panzer, Reich, Luftwaffe...) for Nazi institutions where we'd translate the equivalent term in other languages (it's always French tanks, never French chars, or the Japanese Empire, or the Italian Army...), which can have the consequence of giving them a sort of exotic gloss. I'm not saying that it's doing that here, but I'd always think hard about whether translating is a better option, given that not doing so can put us in some unsavoury company. More prosaically, if Wehrmacht is staying, it should be wl'd (only) on first mention.
    • Priemel does say that the lawyers seemed to be in general agreement that the Wehrmacht’s reputation mattered a great deal more than Keitel’s and Jodl’s lives but on reflection I've removed it as the article already has enough other coverage about defense of the Wehrmacht's reputation.
  • The American and British prosecutors focused on documentary evidence and affidavits rather than testimony from survivors, as the latter was considered less reliable and more liable to accusations of bias, but at the expense of reducing public interest in the proceedings: a run-on sentence which becomes ungrammatical: "at the expense of..." grammatically modifies "focused" but describes a consequence of downplaying survivor testimony. Suggest The American and British prosecutors focused on documentary evidence and affidavits rather than testimony from survivors, as the latter was considered less reliable and more liable to accusations of bias, a strategy which reduced public interest in the proceedings., or else split the sentence after "testimony from survivors" and say something like "This strategy increased the credibility of their case, since survivor testimony was considered less reliable and more vulnerable to accusations of bias, but reduced public interest in the proceedings."
    • Done
  • After the American prosecution flooded the trial with untranslated evidence: a nice metaphor, but would suggest rephrasing into more literal language for accessibility. Did the judge want the evidence read in translation into the record?
    • Reworded
  • both substantive and conspiracy charges: perhaps a legalism, but are conspiracy charges not substantitive?
    • Reworded
  • forcefully countered this strawman: a very internet-native turn of phrase. Suggest "and made forceful arguments against the notion". Has Priemel explicitly said that the idea that Nuremberg wanted to create collective blame (a la Versailles) was false? If so, we could more neutrally add "which Priemel has described as "utterly bananas", or a similar phrase.
    • I am not sure that this is an "internet-native turn of phrase"; references to strawman arguments have been common since around 1960 per the NGRAMS results and it doesn't seem like unencyclopedic language to me. I have mulled it over and cannot think of another way to concisely convey the same information in different words. Priemel makes it clear that the prosecution did not seek to present the entire German nation as guilty as the defense claimed.
      • Perhaps something like Defense lawyers often made forceful but false arguments that the prosecution was trying to promote German collective guilt, though the defendants disavowed this assertion.? Not a huge problem, but I really can't imagine seeing that phrase in a printed academic work of history. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jackson's focus was on the aggressive war charge and the crimes against peace charge: see comments on hyphenation above.
    • Reworded
  • American prosecutors were not any more effective: "no more effective"?
    • Done
  • documentary evidence on the conspiracy: of the conspiracy, surely?
    • Reworded
  • a "saturation point of horror": per WP:NONFREE, this quotation needs to be attributed: we've got two sources cited in the sentence, but it isn't clear which one the quotation is from. Ideally we'd have "reached what Soandso has called...".
    • Reworded
  • Italicise Einsatzgruppen as in the eponymous article?
    • Done
  • Unlike Jackson, he attempted: suggest "Shawcross attempted", as the last person mentioned is Lauterpacht.
    • Done
  • the complicity of the Foreign Office, the German Army, and the navy.: as there is a British Foreign Office, suggest "the German Foreign Office, army and navy.".
    • Done
  • Sonderweg is linked for a second time under "French prosecution".
    • Fixed
  • I'd briefly explain the technical term mens rea, as it's quite important to understanding the sentence it's in.
    • Done
  • instead focused on forced labor, economic plunder, massacres, and Germanization.: this reads a little like arson, murder and jaywalking: is there a better way to phrase "Germanization" (Cultural genocide?) to get across the seriousness of it to the French prosecutors?
    • If it sounds like arson murder and jaywalking that is the same impression that the judges must have gotten, because many of the French prosecutors' charges seemed much less serious than the crimes presented by the other delegations, particularly the Soviet Union.
      • Perhaps the order needs some thought, then: massacres certainly don't seem trivial, and going straight from there to Germanization creates a jarring effect that I'm not sure would have been in the original prosecution, or the sources. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewrote (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The focus on economic exploitation was in part in order to substantiate reparations claims: "in part in order" is a little inelegant: "partly in order"?
    • Done
  • Unlike the British and American prosecution strategy: are we presenting these as a single, unified strategy? If not, suggest strategies and, later, cases.
    • Done
  • calling eleven witnesses: were these themselves victims?
  • The only part of the French charges that were accepted: prune to "the only part of the French charges accepted"?
    • Done
  • The next week, the Soviet prosecution suddenly produced former field marshal Friedrich von Paulus,: suddenly could be read as a little sensationalising: had they not revealed that they would be calling him in advance?
    • There was no advance announcement, it was a surprise when he showed up.
      • I think it would strike a better tone to state the first part of that: perhaps "...von Paulus, who had not been disclosed as among their witnesses", or similar. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, there doesn't seem to have been any requirement to announce witnesses in advance (although the defense complained about it). The Americans also called surprise witnesses according to Hirsch, but it was Paulus' appearance that caused the most surprise, the court had to be adjourned temporarily. However, I'm not sure how relevant this is to the overall legacy of the trials, so I removed the word "suddenly". (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • at times they blurred the fate of Jews with other Soviet nationalities: it was the two fates, not the fate and the nationalities, that were blurred: so, "they blurred the fate of Jews with that of..."
    • Done
  • casting the entire proceedings into question: either "casting doubt on the entire proceedings" or "calling the entire proceedings into question".
    • Done
  • poet Abraham Sutzkever, who eloquently described: I'm sure he was eloquent, but is it encyclopaedic to say so in Wikipedia's voice, rather than that of a secondary source?
    • Removed as unnecessary
  • None of the defendants tried to assert that the Nazis' crimes had not occurred.: I understand the importance of saying in this article that the defendants accepted the reality of the Holocaust, but I'm not sure that the link quite works here, since more than just the Holocaust was in contention.
    • The only relevant article I can find to link is the Holocaust denial article, but I could unlink it if you don't find the link helpful.
      • I think the link might be a little misleading: it implies that we're talking strictly about the Holocaust here, but we're not: we're also talking about waging wars of aggression, massacring PoWs, and so on. How about "None of the defendants tried to assert that any alleged Nazi crimes, including the Holocaust, had not occurred..." UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed link (t · c) buidhe 00:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • arguing that because Germany was a civilized country few Germans could have supported Hitler: we've got a parenthetical clause in here: either comma it off ("arguing that, because Germany was a civilised country, few...") or rearrange ("arguing that few Germans could have supported Hitler, because Germany...")
    • Done
  • Many of the defense lawyers prioritized the reputation of the Wehrmacht above the defense of their clients.: this is repeated from earlier: is that intentional? As before, I think it would be useful to say something concrete about how this made a difference, if indeed it did.
    • Removed, see above
  • Other absent and dead men including Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, Adolf Eichmann, and Bormann were also blamed: again, comma off the clause "including Himmler... and Bormann".
    • Done
  • To counter claims of conservative defendants having enabled: suggest better as "claims that conservative defendants had enabled..."
    • Done
  • expecting that the German people would favorably regard his loyalty to Hitler after his death: Hitler's or Goering's?
    • Reworded

Stopping for a bit, halfway through "Defense". An extremely complex subject navigated extremely skilfully. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • a tu quoque defense: as with mens rea further up, I'd explain this: it isn't ideal for non-Latin-speaking readers (apparently we have some of those!) to have to click a link to understand the sentence.
    • Done
  • and their lawyers argued that this invasion was undertaken to prevent a British invasion;: it only becomes clear from the wikilink that this is a British invasion of Norway (rather than, say, of Germany). Suggest a rephrase to something like "this invasion was undertaken to frustrate a British plans to invade the same country".
    • Done
  • effectively incriminated the defendants: effectively can mean either "to great effect" or "more-or-less"; I don't think the ambiguity works in our favour here.
    • Reworded. The point is that defense lawyers called witnesses who actually/inadvertently bolstered the prosecution case.
  • Midway through the trial, Winston Churchill's Iron Curtain speech denouncing the Soviet threat delighted the defense: suggest Winston Churchill's Iron Curtain speech denouncing the Soviet threat, made in the United States midway through the trial, delighted the defense}}: current phrasing could be read as implying that Churchill delivered it at Nuremberg.
    • I ended up removing the sentence because I'm not sure it's essential to include.
      • Hm: there is a definite thread in this article about how the trials go from being a (fairly) all-Allied affair and basically situated in WWII, to an early-Cold-War face-off between the Western Allies and the Soviets: I think the Iron Curtain speech is important to that narrative. At the risk of beating a worn-out drum, this is another point that makes me suggest that the IMT needs its own article to allow sufficient comprehensivity. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The United States ... tried its best to shut the Soviets out of the proceedings: this is a little vague and could do with some concrete substantiation. Given that the statement is almost at the end of the trial, I'm not really clear on how it intersects with what went before: is this a general feature of the whole proceedings or did it emerge during the defence portion?
    • It seems like during the defense the US and British prosecutors split up most of the cross-examinations between themselves, but did allow French and Soviet prosecutors to intervene, so I removed it.
  • In the context of the brewing Cold War, the trial became a means of condemning not only Germany but also the Soviet Union: likewise, I think this could do with some explanation or expansion to ensure that the article is comprehensive.
    • The main examples are already given, namely Seidl's shenanigans and the Western judges letting the defense use the trial as a platform to criticize the Soviet Union.
  • A master of self-promotion, Speer managed to give the impression of apologizing, although without assuming personal guilt or naming any victims other than the German people: I'm not sure "a master of self-promotion" is quite encyclopaedic in Wikipedia's voice, and although should be followed here by a finite verb: although he did not assume... or name...
    • If anyone can be described as a master of self promotion in wikivoice it would be Speer. Nevertheless, removed and reworded.
  • because war in general is evil: not sure about the read of this one: how about "stating that war was evil in itself, and "to initiate..."
    • The actual words were "War is essentially an evil thing"
      • Yes: it just reads a bit Sunday-School to state that so baldly in Wikipedia's voice, rather than that of the tribunal. I like the solution of making it a direct quotation: still suggest linking malum in se on "essentially an evil thing", which also helps to disambiguate "essentially" as meaning "in its essence" rather than "more or less". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Used quote instead. (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The judges did not attempt to define aggression: italicise aggression per MOS:WORDSASWORDS?
    • Reworded
  • The judgment found that there was a premeditated conspiracy : sequence of tenses (the conspiracy was done by the time of the judgement): "the judgement found that there had been..." More optionally, consider "Austria had been a victim..." later.
    • Done
      • We still have The judges ruled that there was a premeditated conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, which implies that the conspiracy was still ongoing when the judgement was made ("John said that there was a cat behind that tree" means that the cat was still there when he spoke; "John said that there had been a cat behind that tree" means that it's gone.) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Soviet judges preferred a broad interpretation: I'm not sure what exactly a 'broad interpretation' would be in this context.
    • Reworded
  • The war crimes and crimes against humanity charges held up the best, with only two defendants who were charged being acquitted on those charges: a little confusing in the phrasing: suggest "the war crimes and crimes against humanity charges held up the best, with only two defendants charged on those grounds being acquitted", or "the war crimes and crimes against humanity charges held up the best; only two defendants charged on those grounds were acquitted."
    • Done
  • The judges interpreted crimes against humanity narrowly: this seems to mean something closer to "the judges interpreted their jurisdiction over crimes against humanity narrowly".
    • Done
  • as disproving its criminality: perhaps clearer "as asserting its innocence"?
  • It's taken me until about this point to realise that some of the people we talked about earlier - the industrialists, and possibly the propagandists - weren't actually on trial. It certainly seemed from the "Defendants" section that Krupp would be part of the legal proceeding that was described afterwards, but now it turns out that he was part of a different trial. More generally, I'm still a little confused as to how the IMT and the NMT fit together, and the extent to which each "counts" as "The Nuremberg Trials".
    • Both industrialists and propagandists were charged at the IMT; although a greater number of industrialists were charged at the NMT. As stated in the article, Gustav Krupp was charged at IMT but not tried because of his poor health. Prosecutors had actually meant to charge his son Alfried Krupp but the error wasn't caught in time. Combining the IMT and NMT makes sense from a US and German perspective but less so from the other countries' perspective. When I started working on this article, I wanted it to cover the IMT exclusively. But now I realize that there are prominent works such as Priemel and Weinke that do deal jointly with the IMT and NMT as "Nuremberg trials", which justifies the article organization. (t · c) buidhe 01:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case law of the trials fleshed out the skeleton provided by the Nuremberg charter: I would generally shy away from metaphors like this in encyclopaedic writing, as above: they trade precision and accessibility for literary flair, when we generally want to do the opposite.
    • Reworded
  • resistance fighters: wikilink to French resistance?
    • It would be a duplicate link as the French resistance is wikilinked earlier in the article
  • Many Germans at the time of the trials focused on finding food and shelter; few followed the trial closely: this could do with fleshing out a little more. Presumably, the basic point is that most Germans were in too miserable a physical condition to care much about a trial?
    • Rewrote, a more recent source presents evidence that a majority of Germans actually did follow the trial despite their circumstances.
  • Many Germans considered the trials illegitimate victor's justice and the imposition of collective guilt: an imposition, surely?
    • Done
      • Is it worth pointing out that "collective guilt" had an emotive legacy in Germany: did the German press draw a link to Versailles, for example? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Priemel mentions that the defense lawyers tried to mention Versailles, but the judges wouldn't let them pontificate about it. I'm not sure about the public in general, but I'm not sure it would be WP:DUE since most results for searches of Nuremberg trials Versailles focus on aspects of the treaty that could be seen as a legal precedent. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The German churches, both Catholic and Protestant, were vociferous proponents of amnesty, which had cross-party support in West Germany, which was established in 1949: the double relative clause is awkward (and vociferous is a loaded word: close to line of WP:NPOV). Suggest "The German churches, both Catholic and Protestant, were determined proponents of amnesty. The idea also gained cross-party support in West Germany, which was established in 1949."
    • Done
  • By then, the Americans were hoping to use the offer of pardon to convicted war criminals in order to bind West Germany to the Western Bloc.: who exactly was receiving (and so in a position to accept or decline) the offer: the criminals themselves or the West German state? Not sure "in order to" works here: you use something to do something.
    • Reworded
  • High Commissioner John J. McCloy: High Commissioner of what, exactly?
  • The last prisoner was released in 1958: would be worth saying who this was. Also worth being extra-clear that this is specifically the last prisoner sentenced by the NMT, as we find out soon after that IMT prisoners were still behind bars.
    • Reworded
  • The International Military Tribunal, and the drafters of its charter, invented international criminal law essentially from nothing: I think this has to be framed as a secondary source's judgement: international criminal law definitely existed before 1945.
    • I have changed "invented" to "developed".
    Changed to relying on a quote from reliable source as you suggested. (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the two decades after the trial, opinions were predominantly negative: opinions of what, exactly?
    • Reworded
  • The charge of crimes against humanity, the charge of conspiracy, and imposing criminal penalties on individuals for breaches of international law were also novel but attracted little criticism: difficult to follow with the long final list item: suggest "Other novel concepts, such as the charge of crimes against humanity, the charge of conspiracy, and the imposition [don't mix gerunds and participles] of criminal penalties on individuals for breaches of international law, attracted little criticism}}
    • Reworded
  • Some defenders of the trial argued that the legal principle of nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law) was not binding in international proceedings: could this be expanded slightly to make the implications explicit: were some defenders acknowledging that no law prohibited what the defendants had done, but arguing that they could legitimately be tried for it anyway? IF so, how about adding "...was not binding in international proceedings, and so the defendants could be tried under natural law" (or whatever justification they came up with).
  • The trials were the first use of simultaneous interpretation: since simultaneous interpretation only technically involves the interpreter not waiting for the speaker to finish, should this be something more like "the first use ... in a major criminal proceeding" or "the first documented use"?
  • For comprehensiveness, it would be good to have a link to the legacy of the trials (specifically, the precedent of "crimes against humanity" and universal jurisdiction therefor) in France (see and Google-translate French Wikipedia) and for Eichmann in Jerusalem.
    • The legal legacy of the trials is more closely connected to the ICC, ICTR, ICTY (all mentioned) than the Eichmann trial, which was based on a law only partly inspired by Nuremberg (other countries like France also adopted crimes against humanity into their domestic law, but I think it is more relevant to crimes against humanity than this article). Universal jurisdiction is unrelated to the justification for prosecution at Nuremberg.
  • There's a lot of material in the Russian FA that I don't see here, for example:
    • On the accommodation of defendants, soldiers and lawyers during the trial, and the (extensive) security operation around this.
    • The substance of the final statements made by the defendants, only briefly alluded to here.
    • A short section on how the simultaneous translation worked, which is notable as this is part (admittedly, one smallish part among many) of the trials' legacy.

A more general comment on sourcing: we have an article, Nuremberg Trials bibliography, which is roughly four or five times the length of this article's bibliography. I notice in particular a lot of reliance on Hirsch and Priemel, who together seem to account for a substantial majority of the citations. Given the contentious and sensitive nature of the subject matter, I think it would be useful to weave in a greater range of authorities, even if that would simply involve swapping a citation from one source for another that says the same thing, to ensure that the article reflects and can be seen to reflect the scholarly consensus. The French article has a lot of bibliography not used here, as does the Russian FA (not just books in Russian); I notice in particular that there's only one book in German: again, there's a lot of works cited heavily on German Wikipedia that don't appear here.

OK, that's me. I know there's a lot here: please take that as a measure of the article's scale and importance rather than its quality. Overall, most of the above is polish for the prose or questions for clarity: if there are any question-marks, they are over whether the article is fully comprehensive on this huge subject, and how thoroughly it has been able to integrate and reflect the volume of scholarship on it. Again, it's a hugely impressive piece of work, and it's important that Wikipedia does this one well, so thank you for taking it on in such a way. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current article length is nearly 7,000 words. At this point if I were adding significant new content I would also be looking to see if I could reduce the article length elsewhere. I'm certainly willing to consider if there are overlooked aspects but the length also should be kept under control.
  • I know there are different approaches to citing sources. I used to use a more "kitchen sink" approach but now my opinion is that the best way is to start with the most high-quality, well-regarded and recent overviews of the stated topic (in this case certainly Hirsch and Priemel), filling out any gaps with other sources. This approach leads to a smaller bibliography and I don't really believe in citing other sources simply for the benefit of having a larger bibliography. (t · c) buidhe 18:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

  • 3 of the sources are in French and 3 are in German. Can you make the case for completeness grounds with such a limited use of non-English sources?
  • Tusa & Tusa 2010 and Musa 2016 come from smaller publishers. Of the millions of words that have been written about the trials, are these two sources the best option?

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tusa & Tusa and Musa were both added as a result of Brigade Piron's concerns about covering the British contribution. I would be ok removing Tusa & Tusa as it is the oldest and weakest source cited but I wouldn't call Brill a "small publisher". (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate that there's conflicting concerns here, and something of a difference of philosophy. Personally, I would be much more comfortable erring on the side of including more sources: this is a much-studied topic, and I'd see it as a corollary of WP:DUEWEIGHT (specifically, the stipulation that articles need to reflect the balance of HQRSs) that we're going to have some big articles where the subject matter doesn't split well but has a huge historiography. On the approach to sources, again, there's pros and cons, but secondary sources and monographs always embody a particular author's interpretations: how does a reader of this article, or we as a scholarly community assessing it, know what's the communis opinio versus what's Hirsch's own pet theory? This is particularly true when we're implicitly assuming or stating that you can get practically everything you need to get in the historiography of this topic from English-language sources, and I'd be amazed if that were the case given how differently these trials were viewed in (particularly) France, the Soviet Union and Germany. At the moment, this is more a hypothetical concern, since I can't point to much specific that I know hasn't been included (though I do think the closing statements are significant and should be in this article), but others who know the field better may be able to pronounce with more confidence in either direction. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist, note that WP:NONENG - which is policy - states "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance." So each non-English language source used will need a justification as to what it brings to the article which no English language source could. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point: I'm somewhat taking as read that the scholarship in other languages looks different to that in English. It's almost universally the case that scholars from different countries will have different theoretical paradigms, perspectives, interests and so on in a given topic: if a certain perspective is well-represented in (say) German scholarship but not in English, then some of that German scholarship needs to be included for the article to be truly comprehensive. As I read WP:NONENG, the only rationale for systematically not including non-English sources would be that there's nothing in them which can't also be found in Anglophone ones. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


      • Further to this: from reading some of the comments below, it seems that we've got here an article originally intended to be on the IMT, which has now (sensibly) expanded to include the NMT. We're also now brushing up against problems where we can't really be comprehensive on the IMT without introducing page length concerns (which, in my view, are far less of a concern that comprehensiveness, but that's perhaps a philosophical difference). Given that, I think there's a very strong argument for hiving off the IMT, like the NMT, into its own article, and using this one to summarise the process as whole: which could include, as User:Piotrus states below, why Nuremberg was chosen as a site, and some more detail, as discussed above, as to the precise place of the trials vis-a-vis the understanding of international law that came before and after them. In turn, the split would then allow more detailed coverage of the IMT itself in the corresponding article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Piotrus

1. This is possibly out of FA scope, but it is a bit jarring to me: interwiki problems. This may also be within FA scope as it may concern article's scope or name. On English Wikipedia, International Military Tribunal (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1667613) does not have an article, it redirects to Nuremberg trials, a term used to cover 1945-1946 trials. Then we have an article on Subsequent Nuremberg trials for American-presided trials for 1946–1949. Assuming we are happy with the name and scope of our articles, should we crate an article about the IMT? And I do find it a bit confusing that the concept of "Nuremberg trials" on English Wikipedia is limited to the IMT only, with the other trials split of the to "subsequent" article. Is this really how historiography defines the topics? For the record, pl: Procesy norymberskie (lit. Nuremberg trials) links to IMT, and our Nuremberg trials article does not have interwikis to pl or de wikis at all (since those go to the IMT one). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. My second comment is about comprehensivness. Polish Wikiepdia article has a section 'Poland and the IMT' (pl:Międzynarodowy_Trybunał_Wojskowy_w_Norymberdze#Udział_Polski). It contains some information that seems relevant, yet that is not present in our article. For example, only one of two Polish witnesses is mentioned (I added a link to his pl wiki article - this raises the minor technical question of whether FAC require checking if red links have articles on other wikis and using some form of {{ill}}? There are few other red links in this article which I did not check against Wikidata). Seweryna Szmaglewska is not mentioned. The article doesn't discuss the controversy related to limiting the IMT to only Big Four (Poland, for example, was not indepdently represented). See for example [5] ("The thesis also reviews Poland's participation in Nuremberg trial, Poland's omission in the indictment..."). See also, for example, [6] (article is in Polish, my translation from open mirror): Even before the end of the war, the Allies decided that only representatives of the great powers would sit in the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. Poland, through its representatives, unsuccessfully demanded that it be granted special status due to the ravages wrought by the Nazis. Poland's complaint that the official indictment of Hans Frank did not take due account of the suffering of the Polish nation went unnoticed. Eventually, thanks to Soviet support, the Polish delegation was accredited and brought its own indictment, but its role was limited to providing evidence to the Tribunal; in addition, she gained access to the relevant documentation and the right to interrogate persons suspected of crimes committed on Polish soil. The Polish government, which sought formal recognition and wanted to counteract what it saw as the downplaying of Poland's suffering in the international arena, and wanting to achieve its goals in domestic policy, decided to establish its own tribunal and give it appropriate publicity (Supreme National Tribunal). Our article does not even mention the SNT. I think the article needs to discuss the Polish dimension in a dedicated paragraph in order to be comprehensive --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the thing. Poland did not participate in the trial, there was no Polish dimension. Overviews of the subject don't cover this aspect significantly; for example, in Priemel there are 12 mentions of "Poland" in comparison to 54 for "France". I believe it makes more sense to write about what actually happened, not what might have happened. Not every witness is mentioned because there is finite space in the article. Most of the 37 prosecution witnesses and 89 defense witnesses are not mentioned, including none of the eleven French witnesses. (t · c) buidhe 04:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering WP:NOTPAPER, and the fact that this stuff is covered in some academic sources, I think you've just helped to further illustrate the problem of this article not being comprehensive (a concern that seems to have been raised by others above). The French section seems too short anyway in my view, but that aside, it is ~200 words long, so a ~40 words mention of the Polish dimension (which, yes, is a thing, per soruces cited) would not be too much. And the article is not too long, a rough word count suggests it is only 80% the size of our article on The Holocaust, for example. The French article on fr:Procès_de_Nuremberg is more than twice the size our English article, and covers more aspects (for example it has a section dedicated to why Nuremberg was chosen as the site of the trials, something our article does not seem to touch upon). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with adding a mention about Poland (or possibly Czechoslovakia and other countries) trying to get a role in the proceedings but not being accepted; what I disagree with is adding an entire paragraph. As for comprehensiveness / length, I think there is room for some expansion but at the same time there is so much written about these trials that I want to keep in mind balance, summary style, and conciseness. There is no reason that Poland and the International Military Tribunal couldn't be created if it is a notable topic. (So is the Office of Strategic Services and the International Military Tribunal which gets 1 short sentence in the article at present). (t · c) buidhe 06:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few sentences are required to address the case of Poland. Now, I don't think it would be bad if that single paragraph discussed not just Poland but also some other countries in similar situation. Perhaps that would be a reasonable way to deal with that. A separate issue concerns other aspects of comprehensivness, from location to the mention of Seweryna Szmaglewska (her testimony is mentioned in a number of works, ex. here, here or here (this is another work that discusses the "Polish dimension" of the trial in at least several paragraphs). I am not sure if we should mention all witnesses, but I think her name should be somewhere in the article, her testimony is seen as relevant by a number of scholars writing about the trial. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the comprehensivness issues are addressed. (The naming issue is complex and I am not saying other wikis do it better, and fixing interwikis is outside of the FA's scope). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that I actually did add the content you asked for, imo disproportionate to Poland 's actual influence on the trial or lack thereof? (t · c) buidhe 08:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, since you did not ping me or comment in this thread since 12 days ago. The Polish participation aspect is now mentioned in one-and-a-half sentence, which I guess meets the vare minimum. But what about other issues mentioned? Seweryna Szmaglewska, choice of Nuremberg, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After checking various sources, I don't see them giving more weight to Szmaglewska than to other Soviet witnesses who testified about crimes that they had experienced. I'm not sure what you mean by "choice of Nuremberg", but the decision to hold the trial in Nuremberg is briefly discussed in the "Legal basis" section. (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do think this illustrates how our article is not comprehensive. We should discuss the " other Soviet witnesses" and non-Soviet ones too. Right now the article's coverage of this is random. The French section, for example, says "Eleven witnesses, including victims of Nazi persecution, were called; resistance fighter and Auschwitz survivor Marie Claude Vaillant-Couturier testified about crimes she had witnessed." Why is Vaillant-Couturier singled out for a mention? That sentence does not even impart the reader with any useful information (it should clarify she testified on what she had seen during the three years she spent in Auschwitz). Why is she mentioned but not Leo van der Essen, Hans Cappelen or others? Soviet section mentions witnesses Samuel Rajzman and Abraham Sutzkever, but not Nikolai Lomakin, Joseph Orbeli, Erich Buschenhagen, Friedrich von Paulus, etc. This seems very abitrary. PS. I do appreciate the creation of List of witnesses to the International Military Tribunal, with the very useful column on "Testified about". I do think, however, that all of that information should be included in our article, in the prose format - and the fact that the list of witnesses is still incomplete is a testament to the fact that our article is likewise incomplete, and until this is addressed, it is not ready for a Featured status. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a drive-in query because I do not fully understand Piotrus' concerns. Do you suggest that 1. all witnesses should be mentioned; or 2. each reference to a wittness should be explained; or 3. specifically Szmaglewska should be mentioned in addition to other witnesses already listed in the article? Borsoka (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that naming all the witnesses would give undue weight to the role of witnesses in the trial, compared to prosecutors, defense lawyers, defendants, documentary evidence, etc. (t · c) buidhe 19:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with you, but I'd like to understand Piotrius' proposal. Borsoka (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 is not necessary, but I would not oppose it. 2 is certainly needed. 3 - probably. To build on 1 and 3, I think we should mention more than a few witnesses, from my reading of the sources some where quite important. As for due weight, my point is that right now there is no explanation why the few witnesses we mention in the article are featured, and not the others; and again, my reading does not suggest that the ones we mentioned are the ones who are seen as "the most important". Instead, the fact that we mention very few witnesses, seemingly chosen at random, illustrates the haphazard nature of this article, or perhaps better put, its lack of comprehensivness. I think the article needs more content; barring consensus in sources saying that "among witnesses at Nuremberg, X, Y and Z are considered the most influential", a good rule of thumb would be too ensure it mentions all currently blue-linked witnesses (and yes, also prosecutors, defense lawyers, and defendants; in fact, if the latter are not all mentioned, I'd be shocked - how can we have an article about a trial that does not even list all defendants??). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the defendants, judges, and chief prosecutors of the IMT are mentioned. But there were a number of assistant prosecutors (some of whom are named) and others who helped with the proceedings; the various delegations to Nuremberg, as stated in the article, numbered around 1,000 people. I don't see how it is possible to mention everyone who participated in the proceedings or had any non-trivial role in the formation of the trial, yet still end up with something resembling an encyclopedia article. (For example Hirsch's book is over 400 pages and she does not mention all the prosecution witnesses). Thus, I have tried to mention those whose role is considered most historically significant, as indicated by being given weight in reliable sources, although it is always possible I'm mistaken about which ones to mention. (t · c) buidhe 05:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave the straw man arguments aside, please. I am not asking you to mention 1,000 minor people. I am saying that this article should mention more than few witnesses - there were less than a hundred. They seem much more important than some assistant prosecutors. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From your comment it was not clear to me which individuals involved in the trial you wanted mentioned. However, there were actually 120 witnesses at the trial and mentioning them all—certainly if you expect not just a list, but an explanation of each person's testimony—would give undue weight to the witness aspect. (t · c) buidhe 14:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And mentioning just a few, picked arbitrarily, gives them too little weight. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand we all agree that all wittnesses should not be listed. How do you think those who are mentioned in the article should be selected? Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I explained this in my comment above, signed at the moment "12:55 pm, Yesterday (UTC+9)". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you refer to your following comment ([7]), specifically to your suggestion about "barring consensus in sources saying that 'among witnesses at Nuremberg, X, Y and Z are considered the most influential', a good rule of thumb would be too ensure it mentions all currently blue-linked witnesses". I am not sure that a reference to all currently blue-linked witnesses from the List of witnesses to the International Military Tribunal would be in line with WP rules, because WP does not regard itself a reliable source. Why should we accept the present state of the list to edit an other article? Neither am I sure that reliable sources dedicated to the Nuremberg trials often contain statements about the witnesses' importance. Could you refer to scholars who mention, for example, Seweryna Szmaglewska as one of the most influential witnesses? Borsoka (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[8], for example, calls her book (I plan on stub it shortly) "a major piece of evidence at Nuremberg" ([9] here's another ref that confirms her book was part of evidence at trials). This work, following a sentence "Named and described are the most important participants of the trial", names Szmuglewska (the only witness named in the work's abstract). In either case, it is the nom's responsibility to tell us why the witnesses they mention are important. I'll let the nom first tell us why Rajzman and Vaillant-Couturier deserve a mention, compared to Szmuglewska and others I mentioned (for the record, based on my readings, I certainly think Rajzman should be mentioned - but the article doesn't tell us why at present). Otherwise I stand by my view that the examples in the current article represent random cherry-picking and lack of comprehensivness. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. I think now I understand your proposal. It looks reasonable although I do not know how it could be implemented consequently. Nevertheless, I still think that the article meets FA criteria. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajzman and Sutzkever were the only survivors of the main atrocity on trial to testify at it, as noted by Priemel. That is the reason they are mentioned, and it is already obvious from the article text. I hope you appreciate that master's theses are not generally reliable sources and they probably are not helpful in determining which witnesses are most significant. I am not sure a book titled Never Forget Your Name: The Children of Auschwitz is a great source for that either, since by the nature of the book it would seem to focus on one particular aspect of the trial insofar as it is relevant to the stated topic. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seweryna Szmaglewska was the only survivor of Auschwitz-Birkenau and the death march among the witnessess, for this fact alone she deserve a mention. Also it's weird to mention Rajzman but to omit Szmaglewska, since they both were Polish, testified together, and their testifies are complementary. Marcelus (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, however; Marie-Claude Vaillant-Couturier also testified. (t · c) buidhe 14:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously going to judge a book by its... title? It's a reliable work. Academic reviews: one, two, three,... newspaper: one, two, three, and there are many more. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article on the IMT

Since this has been suggested above, I'm going to leave this here: only 411 words—under 10 percent of the article's non-lead content—are not about the IMT, so even if this article scope was limited to the IMT and moved accordingly, which I don't really oppose, it would not give much additional space for expansion. (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMT =/= the trial. Although they are closely related, sure (this tribunal held only a single trial, right?). At minimum, we should wikidata-link the redirect (International Military Tribunal to Q1667613). Analyzing how the information is split in those other wikis may give us more idea on how to divide the content. Anyway, I think this term might be a disambig to the Nurember trials (International Military Tribunal)/Nurember trials (1945–1946) and Subsequent Nuremberg trials/Nurember trials (1946–1949)/Nurember trials (U.S. military courts) (and I am still waiting for a discussion regarding whether the term 'subsequent', and the split we have, is common in literature?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that, in practice, one can cover the IMT separately from the trial held before it. As far as I can tell, sources don't make that distinction. It also doesn't seem right to talk about "Nuremberg trials" when just the first trial is meant.
You can find sources just about the IMT (i.e. Hirsch, Mouralis) just the NMT (Heller) or both (Priemel, Weinke). There has been dispute over the title of the subsequent Nuremberg trials article, I am one of those who supported the official name, "Nuremberg Military Tribunals". (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a move to NMT if you were to start another discussion (and if you do, please ping me). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

  • The Oxford comma is not used consistently
    • Fixed the two missing commas I could find
  • Kim Christian Priemel is linked in his second mention rather than his first.
    • Fixed
  • "the latter to make the many charts" --> Should that be "lattermost"?
    • Changed to "last"
      • D'oh
  • ", but reduced public interest in the proceedings" is a dependent clause and doesn't need that comma.
    • The comma here is to set off , since survivor testimony was considered less reliable and more vulnerable to accusations of bias,
  • "German Foreign Office, army, and navy" -- Why is "Foreign Office" capitalized and not the rest.
    • I don't know if there's a good solution here since "Foreign Office" (actually Reich Foreign Office) is the official name, whereas army and navy are not (usually if it's in English and capitalized it's Kriegsmarine and Heer, but I'd rather not introduce the audience to unfamiliar words if I can avoid it). The foreign office does not look right without capitals (although that might be the way to go), but neither does Army, and Navy.
  • "The next week, the Soviet prosecution suddenly produced former field marshal Friedrich von Paulus, captured after the Battle of Stalingrad, as a witness and questioned him about the preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union" -- I might use dashes instead of commas. The sentence briefly confused me.
    • Done
  • I might word "and the Soviet contribution to victory" as "and Soviet contributions to victory" but that is just me
    • Done
  • "discriminatory laws" --> why not just say "Jim Crow laws"
    • Reworded based on checking sources again.
  • "United States admiral Chester Nimitz" --> Should "admiral" be capitalized
    • Done

This is a topic that definitely deserves feature quality. Nice work. ~ HAL333 21:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. ~ HAL333 15:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tytire

  • The presentation of the section "Legal basis" could be clearer. The uninformed reader may expect a (brief) presentation of this sequence: (1) what was the applicable legal basis / framework at the time; (2) what were the different expectations / references (the text now refers to "acrimonious disputes over fundamental matters" which cannot be understood from the text); (3) how did they get to the charter? - Most of the info is there but the logical sequence is not so clear.
  • Contemporary reactions: the opening sentence "The IMT judges proved their independence from the governments that appointed them, etc.)" : whose assessment is this? this needs to be qualified, whether Priemel's assessment (not contemporary) or otherwise. Again, the uniformed reader is left wondering how we went from this unreserved appreciation to "During the two decades after the war, opinions of the trial were predominantly negative...".Tytire (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments.

  • I have retitled "Legal basis" to "Nuremberg charter" and rewrote to clarify what some of the disputes were and how they were resolved. As for the pre-existing law, there wasn't much—this is covered in the "origins" section.
  • I removed this sentence since unfortunately, the source is not entirely clear whose assessment it is. I'm not sure there is a contradiction though, the sources mention appreciation of the procedural and evidentiary aspects of the trial along with criticism of its lack of legal basis or "retroactivity, selectivity, and jurisdiction" as Sellars puts it. (t · c) buidhe 01:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better to me now, thanks. Tytire (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Brigade Piron

I think the recent changes to the article have been a big improvement and would be willing to support. My only (very small) reservation is the first paragraph of the "Legacy" section which seems to be missing a sentence about the changes in perception after the initially negative response. Thanks. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I am working on it. (t · c) buidhe 17:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, hopefully, I believe the more positive evaluation is related to the additional developments in international criminal law and tendency of drawing a straight line from Nuremberg to the Hague (as Priemel puts it) but I can't find sources that say it explicitly. (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Buidhe:. I'm happy to add my support. I would say, though, that this discussions does not appear to have transcluded correctly to talk:Nuremberg trials. Can we get an admin involved to fix this? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FACs are not supposed to be transcluded to the article talk page. (t · c) buidhe 14:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe:, one final concern - which body is meant by "Polish government"? The Polish government in exile in London, or the Communist government of People's Poland? I think this is reasonable to clarify because the former did still have some international recognition until the 1950s. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done (t · c) buidhe 14:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

While I am here, a few comments. No major concerns.

  • Does Kirsten Sellars really rate a red link?
    • There are several reviews of her books, so a clear WP:NAUTHOR pass. I realize there are different philosophies with red links, but I generally support their existence whenever a notable topic does not have an article.
  • And the link to "Poland and the International Military Tribunal" in the Judges and prosecutors section?
    • It is a notable topic also.
  • Why is Rudolf Hess's surname spelt with an eszett (Rudolf Heß) in "Contemporary reactions"?
    • Fixed
  • "this was narrowed to six: the Reich Cabinet, the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, the Gestapo, the SA, the SS and the SD, and the General Staff and High Command of the German military (Wehrmacht)." That makes eight. Re-phrase to make this clear, perhaps with the aid of semi-colons.
    • The commas divide the six organizations as defined in the indictment. I could replace the commas with semicolons but I'm not sure that would make it more clear
  • "Law No. 10 issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, United States forces had arrested almost 100,000 Germans as war criminals" That is incorrect. Law No. 10 was issued by the Allied Control Council, not the US Joint Chiefs of Staff [10]
    • Fixed
  • "Admiral Chester Nimitz" should be "Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz"
    • Done
  • Duplicate links: "war crimes", "Einsatzgruppen", "anti-partisan warfare", "German invasion of Norway", "Foreign Office", "Expulsion of Germans"
    • I think most of these should be kept per the recent policy change on duplicate links.
  • The United States not only does not recognise the ICC, but authorises military action in retaliation for the arrest of a US citizen.
  • Typo: "mustache"
    • Fixed

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Lots of images, although not always made best use of those available. Each image needs to be properly licenced in both the country of origin and the United States. The latter has less freedom than most other countries.

All image have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Will look in more detail later today. First question:

  • Sources used look excellent, with one possible exception: What makes Tusa & Tusa, The Nuremberg Trial, published by Skyhorse Publishing, who according to their article also publish conspiracy theories, a high quality reliable source?

More in a few hours! —Kusma (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I added that source in response to feedback to beef up the British prosecution section, but since then I found other sources to cover it, and I think I could remove the Tusa & Tusa source. (t · c) buidhe 14:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think removing that would be an improvement. —Kusma (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mouralis 2016: there is a PDF with page numbers, so you don't need to cite things like "Mouralis 2016, 3"; if you do it like this, say what the "3" stands for.
  • Same for Gemählich. In the online version, the paragraphs are numbered but we don't have pages; in the PDF, we have page numbers but not paragraph numbers.
  • If you link directly to other Wikipedias for authorlinks, you should also include fr:Guillaume Mouralis.

With the possible exception of Tusa & Tusa, everything is high-quality, recent scholarly sourcing. The formatting is also excellent, with just the query about page numbers versus "locations". —Kusma (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review.
Removed Tusa & Tusa.
The bare numbers are the paragraph numbering as that's the only one you can access without downloading a pdf which all readers may not be able to do. I am not sure how to indicate it if you feel it is necessary or beneficial to do so.
Linked fr:Guillaume Mouralis. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great if you can go without Tusa & Tusa. I haven't done spot checks for your replacement, but I did a few yesterday and was fully satisfied with respect to both source to text integrity and paraphrasing.
For the other query (Mouralis 2016 and Gemählich), we are close to hair-splitting territory, but here goes. You are currently citing Moralis 2016 as
  • "Le procès de Nuremberg: retour sur soixante-dix ans de recherche" [The Nuremberg trial: a look back at seventy years of research]. Critique Internationale (in French). 73 (4): 159.
So formally you are citing a traditional paper based journal that has page numbers and does not have these paragraph numbers, which are incomprehensible to people using the paper version or the PDF. The paragraph numbers are only on the website [11], so if you use the paragraph numbers, shouldn't you cite the web version instead of the paper version? (I would strongly prefer to cite the paper version). A compromise suggestion that keeps full verifiability for the paper version and has ease of access would be to use {{sfn|Mouralis|2016|page=[https://www.cairn.info/revue-critique-internationale-2016-4-page-159.htm?contenu=article#pa3 160]}}, linking directly to the paragraph on the web version but giving the page number for people using the paper-based journal. —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit puzzled since for me it would make sense to use cite journal for an academic journal that had no print edition or page numbers. The links already go to the web version, which is cited. I could remove the page numbers from the bibliography entry, but I'm not sure that would be an improvement. (t · c) buidhe 17:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the situation at hand, we have a classic journal with page numbering here. If you really don't want to add page numbers to the sfn (I still can't see any reason not to do that, but maybe you can explain) you need to explain what the loc you give means, in a way that is comprehensible to users of the paper edition. —Kusma (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe and Kusma: is there more to come on this source review, or has it stalled here? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what to say because I already explained the rationale for not using the page numbers. (t · c) buidhe 13:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks buidhe. That makes sense to me, and you are only required to provide a citation to the version of a source which you actually use; not to any other versions that may exist. Kusma, is there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: As I said, if you do not use the page numbers, you should explain what the uncommented numbers you use ("Gemählich 2019, 19.") mean. A reader of the PDF (a rather natural thing to download for a user following the citation) will find the numbers totally incomprehensible. A reader of the online version probably can make an educated guess that these are the paragraph numbers. Spelling this out, for example saying |loc=paragraph 4 or using page numbers or using page numbers together with a link to the paragraph (or page numbers together with paragraph numbers that make it clear the numbering is not relative to the page) would all solve the issue.
@Gog the Mild: Other than this formatting issue affecting something like 15 out of the 282 footnotes, the source review would be an easy pass: the sources given are top class and the rest of the formatting is excellent. —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added paragraph as requested (t · c) buidhe 19:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better, but you could improve by using plural "paragraphs" where that is correct. "paragraph fn 82" is also suboptimal. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, that's what I deserve for doing search & replace on my phone lol. (t · c) buidhe 02:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy now, the source review is now a pass with flying colours. —Kusma (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I note the oppose from Piotr, and the various comments since, in particular Borsoka's. There seems to me to have been sufficient scrutiny of this article, especially since Piotr's oppose, without other reviewers also opposing, for me to consider that there is a consensus to promote, notwithstanding the actionable oppose.

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 August 2023 [12].

Frank McGee (ice hockey)

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A second attempt here. The previous nomination was withdrawn to work on prose, and after work by the WP:GOCE, I hope it's good to go now. I'm going to ping both @ChrisTheDude and Gog the Mild: as they were good enough to go through the first nomination, and if they're willing I would appreciate a second look from them. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • What value is the health form image believed to provide? It's not particularly legible at this size
It confirms details relating to his enlistment, but based on your note about legibility and uncertainty to copyright status (from below) I've removed it.
  • Don't use fixed px size
Fixed
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done
  • File:Silver7.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
1961, so I removed that tag
Since this is hosted on Commons, it does still need a tag for country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is fixed, but please let me know if I'm missing something. Image licensing tags always confuse me. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain, so based on this and above it's removed.
That should clear up all concerns here, thanks for reviewing everything. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Chris

  • "After his hockey career ended, McGee worked with the Department of Indian Affairs" - unless this is standard Canadian English, I would change it to "worked for" or "worked in", as current wording makes it sound like he didn't actually work for the dept but just collaborated with them
  • "McGee had a passion for sports; he participated in ice hockey, rugby football, lacrosse, and rowing.[8] McGee played" => "McGee had a passion for sports; he participated in ice hockey, rugby football, lacrosse, and rowing.[8] He played" (avoid starting two consecutive sentences with his name)
  • Link ice hockey on first use in body
  • "McGee's rise in the civil service was aided in part due to" => "McGee's rise in the civil service was aided in part by"
  • "However, he excelled on the ice" => "He excelled on the ice, however"
  • "for lead goalscorer for most during the challenge games" => "for lead goalscorer during the challenge games"
  • "McGee's brother Jim died in a horse-riding accident" - no need to relink Jim
  • Think that's it from me! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks for taking a second look. Addressed everything up here, but if you see anything more just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777

I'll leave comments in a week or so. Intend to support. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sportsfan77777. I hate to seem to harass you, but this one is going to be timing out vey soon unless it gets some further attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said when I would do the review. You've got a problem with that? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Add a footnote to briefly explain what a rover is.
Done
  • a lieutenant in the Canadian Army ===>>> and later became a lieutenant in the Canadian Army.
Done

Personal life

Done
  • Should "clerk" be capitalized?
The article for the position doesn't capitalize it, so I'll follow that lead.
  • "a role considered to be the top civil servant position" <<<=== perhaps just "the top civil servant position". I assume it's not ambiguous (?), and removing "considered" would make it seem more official and important (it is official and important, right?)
Agreed, and done
  • briefly explain what "Father of Confederation" means
Done
  • instead of "and was assassinated", "which led to his assassination" (otherwise, it seems ambiguous)
The circumstances of his assassination aren't directly tied to his role in Confederation, though it is related. I've moved that note to a separate clause though, which should help I think.
  • McGee was one of nine children born to John Joseph McGee and Elizabeth Helen McGee (née Crotty). <<<=== Suggest making this the second sentence of the first paragraph (and starting with "He was"). The main issue is introducing his father twice.
Done
  • Suggest reducing the number of paragraphs from four to two (perhaps combine the first three, or combine the first two and the last two). It doesn't seem like they would be too long if combined, and they're kind of short as is.
Done
  • his father, a clerk of the Privy Council, ===>>> rephrase to "his father as a clerk of the Privy Council," to avoid sounding like you're introducing him again
Done

Hockey career

  • McGee was the youngest member of the team and was 5 ft 6 in (1.68 m) tall, small for hockey players of the era <<<=== For better flow, suggest "and at a height of just 5 ft 6 in (1.68 m) was small for hockey players of the era"
Done
  • "and was considered to have an ideal body type" ===>>> "which was considered to be an ideal body type" (to avoid an extra "and")
Done
  • "second overall in the league." ===>>> suggest "second in the league behind Russell Bowie". (unclear what "overall" adds to the sentence?)
Done
  • Before the last sentence of that paragraph, make a note that they won the right to play for the Stanley Cup (how? and against who?)
I tried to clear this up, let me know if it makes sense.
  • You need to say that the team won the Stanley Cup too.
Done
  • After a brief retirement from the sport, <<<=== remind the reader that this is related to his job. As is, it sounds like it's related to his family wanting him to retire because of the potential danger.
Done
  • "in the league, with 17 goals each" ===>>> just "in the league with 17 goals"
Done
  • Suggest combining the 1904-05 season paragraph with the next paragraph on the challenge games from that season
Done
  • Stanley Cup hockey game ===>>> Stanley Cup game ("hockey" isn't necessary as a qualifier)
Done
  • "with Ottawa's 23 goals setting a record" ===>>> "and Ottawa's 23 goals also set a record"
Done
  • "it was learned that McGee" <<<=== learned by who? McGee or everyone else?
Changed to disclosed

Legacy

  • described McGee ===>>> "described him as" (one too many "McGee"s)
Done
  • both league and challenge ===>>> including both league and challenge
Done
  • ever scored in a single Cup challenge match <<<=== suggest "game". "match" sounds like "series"
Done
  • same comment on the next sentence
Done

First World War

  • Okay.

Career statistics

  • Suggest writing out "St-Cup totals" as "Stanley Cup totals"
This is a convention of the tables used, and I find it's abbreviation isn't too much of an issue, honestly.

References

  • In "Frank McGee Biography", "biography" shouldn't be capitalized. It should also be something more like "Frank McGee biography, HHoF".
Done
  • "Bibliography" isn't the right way to title the section because it's confusing as to whether it refers to the sources (which it does) or McGee's own works (which it isn't). Suggest calling it "Sources".
Done

Looks good, nothing major. The biggest comment is probably the context on the Stanley Cup. It's a short article, so I didn't expect too many issues. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I've addressed everything here, but if you have anything else please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few more small comments:

  • In the lead, "Government" in "Government of Canada" probably shouldn't be capitalized.
Changed
  • On "A well-known player of his era, and known as a prolific scorer" <<<=== suggest something other than "well-known" so that "known" doesn't appear twice, or just combine to "A well-known player of his era for his prolific scoring"
Changed
  • On the "despite risking total blindness" comment brought up by SchroCat, perhaps it is not total blindness he is risking specifically, but rather he would have a greater risk for any kind of hockey injury because he is already blind in one eye.
I changed it to "one good eye". What do you and @SchroCat: think of that? Open to further suggestions of course. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, regardless. Excellent work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I really do appreciate it. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

More than four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting that a different FAC coordinator handle this nomination and Gog cease all involvement. Gog recused coordinator duties to review on the previous nomination and now they're harassing me as a coordinator. Complete hypocrisy of "recusing". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan77777, I don't think this is harassment, nor does recusing on one FAC mean a co-ord has to recuse on all subsequent ones. And I advise against accusing any of the co-ords of hypocrisy when they're just doing their job. - SchroCat (talk)
Sportsfan77777, please read WP:AGF and WP:NOPA. I carry out this role as a volunteer, for "fun", and do not appreciate that sort of attack. If you are unhappy with anything I do, you can let me know without calling me a hypocrite. For my information, if I am considering archiving one of your FAC nominations in the future, would you prefer that I simply do so, without giving you and any prospective reviewers a few days' notice? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I don't mean to suggest you are a hypocrite. The process is at fault for allowing this kind of "un-recusing". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of giving notice. You shouldn't be trying to archive the nomination at all. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan77777, the FAC instructions are very brief, but a key part is that starting "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators ..." One of the less pleasant parts of my role as a coordinator is having to make those judgements, it is not something I enjoy. If you feel strongly, perhaps you could start a discussion on the FAC talk page? I would shed few tears if the requirement were removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, nominations that have been around several weeks and don't appear to be heading for consensus to promote are archived as matter of course to help ensure the list doesn't get too long and unwieldy. There is no shame in this for the nominator, and there's no limit to how many times an article may be re-nominated at FAC if it doesn't achieve consensus to promote the first time round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) While this is my nomination, I didn't want to comment here, but feel I should make a few quick remarks: I appreciate any and all reviews, and also am familiar enough with the FAC process to not be worried if a nomination is archived due to lack of action. While I of course would not want that, I do understand it happens. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Lead
  • "A legendary player of his era": legendary is a MOS:PEACOCK term that shouldn't be there
Changed to "well-known"
Personal life
  • "awarded the Military Cross for his efforts": "for his efforts" seems a bit weak (and what else was it going to be awarded for?) Just delete the last three words.
Done
  • "quitting" isn't encyclopaedic: "giving up" would be less jarring
Done
Hockey career
  • "1899–1900 season. During that season": two "seasons" in quick succession jars a bit. "During that period" or "At that time" would work better
Doen
  • "However": delete. It's not great at the start of a sentence in most cases, particularly here
Done
  • "was known to be strong and muscular, and which was considered to be an ideal body type for the sport": I'm struggling with "and which was": it's grammatically poor and makes no sense.
Deleted the "and", which should help clarify things.
  • "with Ottawa's 23 goals also set a record": again, grammatically wrong
Should have been "setting a record" as per comments from earlier in the review, but wasn't properly adjusted. This is fixed now.
  • "1906 season, but returned to the team midway through the season.[37] Appearing in seven of the ten regular season": I think some variety in terminology would be best here
I've changed up two of the "season" uses here, so it should be a little better.
  • "Historian Paul Kitchen": you've already introduced and full named him above. You can just call him "Kitchen" here
Done
Legacy
  • "Only Russell Bowie": making a comparison to someone many people won't have heard of isn't the best way to demonstrate his ability.
I clarified it's only one other player now.
  • "14 goals against Dawson City, he holds": hopefully you'll take out the Bowie reference in the preceding sentence, because "he holds" could be misconstrued as meaning Bowie, not McGee
Changed "he" to "McGee" so it should be clear.
First World War
  • 'with either eye."[2]': should be 'with either eye".[2]', per WP:LQ

""Fixed

Notes
  • "and all players would then skate to the other end": All players? Including the goaltender?
Would "opposing players" work here?
Yep., much better. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refs
  • "Ref 42 is "Frank McGee biography, Hockey Hall of Fame"; Ref 47 is "Francis 'Frank' McGee": it would probably benefit from being consistent by making it "Francis 'Frank' McGee, Ottawa Sports Hall of Fame"
Done

I hope these help. I'm close to opposing on this at the moment, but we'll see what happens with these comments and another readthrough. - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've addressed what you noted here, and if you have more please let me know. Hopefully can swing your opinion here. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "(also known as the Silver Seven)": Not sure we need that in the lead. It's not a repeated term in the lead and this is an article about McGee, not the club. Having said that, you don't make the same connection in the rest of the article, the next references in the text are "ending the Silver Seven's three-year reign" and the picture caption. Best to include the nickname further up in the body – probably on the first mention of the club.
I added a mention there. The team is far more well-known as "Silver Seven" so it would be good to keep that there.
  • "two years of play due to the injury" -- > "two years of play because of the injury" (you have "due to" repeated in close succession)
Done
Personal life
  • "McGee was one of nine": -- > "He was one..." (named in the previous sentence)
Done
  • "Elizabeth Helen McGee (née Crotty)": -- > "Elizabeth Helen (née Crotty)"
Done
Hockey career
  • "despite risking total blindness": was this a common occurrence of the time? I'm presuming they played without the protection common today, but it still comes across slightly oddly.
I wouldn't say it was common, but injuries to the face did happen. The concern was that he was already blind in one eye, which happened directly from the sport, so the chances of it happening again were not impossible. Not sure how to convey that here, but if you have any thought I'm happy to incorporate it.
It's difficult to know what to say (if anything), as I don't know what the sources say. If it's possible, something like "despite risking blindness from an injury to his other eye". I know it may sound like stating the obvious, but at the moment it reads like playing hockey causes blindness. - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have Jenish available on hand (though can have it ready in 24-48 hours if need be), but the McKinley ref (#17) says: "...putting his remaining eye at considerable risk, given the propensity for stick-swinging melees in the early sport, he came back to play hockey." Kaiser matias (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1903, McGee decided to return": there are four uses of "McGee" in this paragraph: you only need the first and last
Fixed
  • "but it was noteworthy that McGee only scored one goal in that game": -- >"but it was noteworthy that and McGee only scored one goal in that game"
Fixed

"After the first game, the Nuggets' manager": -- > "After the game, the Nuggets' manager"

Fixed
First World War
  • "known how McGee was allowed": Change McGee to "he"
Fixed
  • "McGee was initially assigned": there are three uses of "McGee" in this paragraph: you only need the first
Fixed
  • "McGee was later": again, just "he" will suffice
Fixed

Reading much better now, and I think this extra polish will help. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all these addressed, with one note for you above there. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, I definitely think the article is in better shape for it. And I agree, a very interesting figure, for more than one reason. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

Booking a slot. My friend and colleague SchroCat has drawn this review to my attention and I'll be adding my two penn'orth shortly. Tim riley talk 16:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only one suggested tweak from me: in "He was given the option to transfer to a less-active post" I don't think we want the hyphen. Otherwise the prose is clear and pleasing to read, the sourcing looks wide and thorough, the text seems comprehensive and impartial, and the illustrations are, I'd guess, as good as possible given the period. I'm happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 17:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks for reviewing, and hyphen removed. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from UC

Saving a space, though it might be next week before I can properly get to this. On a quick read, I've got a few fairly minor points I'd like to see addressed, but it's certainly almost at the line for me. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bit quicker than I thought. Nothing too difficult here, I hope. A tightly-written piece of work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, a fairly straightforward support from me. What's left is far too minor to affect the passage of what I believe to be an excellent article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note a: as someone with no knowledge of ice hockey, I think I'm the target audience for this explanation, but it's quite a long way over my head. In particular, I'm not sure what would often play on both ends of the ice means.
It refers to doing both offence and defence. I've updated the wording to explicitly use those terms for clarity.
  • the top civil servant position reads as a little vague and informal: "the head of the Canadian Civil Service"; "Canada's most senior civil servant" or similar?
Done
  • Which football did McGee play for Ottowa?
Rugby football, as noted before, and now noted here.
Generally called Rugby in the UK; is that term used in Canada, and if so, should we simply say that at least on second mention plus? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • disputes among top-level hockey in Canada: not sure this works with a singular abstract noun: top-level hockey teams or hockey players?
I've added the qualifier "teams"
  • appointed Temporary Lieutenant: as this title isn't in apposition with his name, should be lc (and probably "appointed as a...", "...to the post of..." or similar).
The source (Reddick) writes it with upper-case ("...he was appointed Temporary Lieutenant, 21st Battalion."). I'm not familiar enough with Canadian military ranks to say whether that was a mistake or not.
  • when the armoured car he was driving was blown into a ditch by a shell explosion. he was sent back to England on December: either capitalise he or replace the full stop with a colon.
Fixed
  • He was given the option to transfer to a less active post in Le Havre: do we know what sort of job this was: staff work, managing logistics...?
Yes, clerical. This has been noted.
  • Hyphenate less-active as a compound modifier. I realise that I'm dissenting from User:Tim riley here: our MOS (MOS:HYPHEN) makes an exception for regularly formed comparatives ending in -ly, but this isn't one of those.
I'll split the difference and remove the phrasing with the above-noted "clerical".
  • McGee was killed in action on September 16, 1916, near Courcelette, France; his body was never recovered. An artillery shell landed on or beside him and he was killed instantly. : suggest moving this bit around to be chronological: McGee was killed in action on September 16, 1916, near Courcelette, France. An artillery shell landed on or beside him and he was killed instantly; his body was never recovered.
Done
  • Harper 2013: we wouldn't normally capitalise the midstream in title case.
Done
  • D'Arcy 1992: we would normally capitalise its.
Done
  • Clarke 2011: capitalise McGee per our usage.
Before I do so, I'll note that this was a typo included in the original article.
  • Ottawans in casualties, Lt. Frank McGee's Death Was Officially Announced Saturday: capitalise casualties.
Done
  • Lieut. Frank McGee Heroic Unto Death: Former Ottawa Hockey Idol inspired His Men Killed At Coucellete: capitalise inspired but decap unto and at.
  • John Jos. McGee Died Last Night At Age 81 Years: decap at
Done
  • Frank McGee biography,: capitalise biography
Done
  • Houston 1992: we should be consistent here on whether newspaper titles use sentence or title case (rather than simply following what the original publication did: many will have used all-caps, which we certainly shouldn't!)
What do you suggest modifying here? The heading as it stands is what the article has, but happy to adjust to fit MOS.
Thanks for your review, I believe everything here is addressed, with two comments on titles noted above. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a few matters above: our MOS (MOS:CONFORM) would have us change punctuation, capitalisation and any other features that don't affect the meaning or reading aloud of a quotation to fit Wikipedia's MOS. If it's really important to give it exactly as written (for instance, if the capitalisation of Mcgee was somehow important), use {{sic}}UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, that really helps. And thanks for supporting as well. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Reviewing this version, spot-check only upon request. Is Hockey Hall of Fame Book of Players a commonly cited source? Do "Free Kicks", The Globe, Toronto, Ontario, September 12, 1900, "Lieut. Frank McGee Heroic unto Death: Former Ottawa Hockey Idol Inspired His Men Killed at Coucellete", The Globe, Toronto, Ontario, November 11, 1916, "Ottawans in Casualties, Lt. Frank McGee's Death Was Officially Announced Saturday", Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, Ontario, September 25, 1916 and "John Jos. McGee Died Last Night At Age 81 Years", Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, Ontario, April 11, 1927, "Sad Death of Ottawa's Captain", The Globe, Toronto, Ontario, May 15, 1904 have a byline?

Thanks for the review. The Hockey Hall of Fame Book of Players is authorized by the Hall of Fame itself, and would be reliable. For the newspaper articles you mention, no bylines are provided. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. With the caveats regarding not knowing most sources and no spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2023 [13].

Florence Petty

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Petty was an interesting individual who spent her time trying to improve the lot of others through food, which is a noble aim in life, as far as I’m concerned! A great PR saw comments from HAL333, Mike Christie and Tim riley, which were all extremely useful. Any further comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, User:HAL333, they were much appreciated. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

There is going to be murder done if you persist – every damn' time! – in using the American "on So-and-So Street" rather than the English "in So-and-So Street" (in the caption of the second picture in this case). Otherwise, I'm entirely happy with the article. Curiously, although at PR I could see – though I didn't agree – why you were concerned that the article was on the short side, on rereading for FAC I had no such thought. It seems to me that you have said all that needs saying about this quietly splendid person. The article strikes me as meeting all the FA criteria: evidently comprehensive, balanced, a good read, admirably referenced and as well illustrated as I imagine is possible. Entirely happy to support. – Tim riley talk 20:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. I like to kee you on your ties with the “on”: I shall try and make it a permanent fixture! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mike Christie

I reviewed at PR with an eye to FAC and can't find anything more to kvetch about. Will plan on doing the source review shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

The only comment I have is that when I dug up the Times "News in brief" citation, it doesn't really have a title -- I can see that "News in brief" is the sort of thing it is, but it might be better to just say "Untitled". That's not enough to hold up a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Mike, for your comments at PR and above, and your source review. I’ve swapped to the “Untitled” suggestion. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Thanks Wehwalt. As always, your comments are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Golden

Fascinating article about a fascinating person. I only have two minor concerns:

  • Both the pamphlet and book contain practical information on how to make and use a haybox. - This sentence seemed odd to me when I read it. What is the significance of a haybox, and why is it relevant to Petty?
  • although her students nicknamed her "The Pudding Lady" because in an attempt to get the women in the habit of cooking regularly using familiar and inexpensive ingredients: for the first three months of her demonstrations they made suet puddings—plain, sweet and meat—until the women began to show pride in their ability to cook. - I had a hard time understanding this sentence, probably because of the colon and the lack of commas. I would add a comma after "because" and replace the colon with a comma. — Golden call me maybe? 10:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Golden: that's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I'm happy to support. — Golden call me maybe? 11:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Golden - that's very good of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from UC

Commenting as requested. Certainly the sort of article we could do with more of, and evidently impeccably researched. My main overall observation is the length of the article: I appreciate that relatively little has been written on Petty herself, but I think we could fill out those lacunae with some more general context about the world she lived in and how her work fitted into a broader social and historical picture. Some more specific suggestions below, along with the usual nit-picks. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd put a bit into the lead, if we can, about Petty's status, reception etc: bluntly, tell the reader why they should be interested in her. More generally, I think the lead is a little parsimonious about what from the article it includes: there's definitely room to expand a little to make sure that the key information is covered.
I really like the new lead - nice work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • north London or North London? My very subjective opinion from experience and a quick Google is that the second is marginally more common, and avoids the observation that Somers Town is, by any reasonable geometrical measure (which I appreciate Londoners don't go in for), more or less in the centre of London. Otherwise, perhaps worth a link to clarify that 'north London' means more than just 'the northern bit of London'?
  • Suggest a brief gloss or explanation as to what a haybox is, and perhaps some indication of why we're singling out this detail: it would seem odd to say "both the pamphlet and the cookbook include a recipe for cheese on toast", but presumably there's something about hayboxes that makes them significant?
  • economical ingredients and cooking methods: might be worth a slight rephrase to be clear that both the ingredients and the methods were economical.
  • On Vector 2022, I see a small MOS:SANDWICH between the first two images.
  • commonly known as the Mothers' and Babies' Welcome: consider italicising per MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Not sure about this, but I think the The was part of the common name (people called it The Mothers'... and so should be capitalised here.
  • in the deprived area of Somers Town, north west London: it was socially deprived in the lead, which I think is better; if nothing else, it's odd to be more specific in the lead than the body. Could we have some contextual information as to how deprived it was: in particular, do we know anything about childhood malnutrition there, or in poorer areas of Britain more generally at the time? There's a comment in a moment about infant mortality: again, can we add any context to that, perhaps drawing on works outside Petty's strict biography? In terms of background: was she the first person to do something like this? There's definitely a broader 'trend' for this kind of missionary-like social work between the late Victorian period and the early C20th that I think could be explored a little.
  • She described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods": assuming this was indeed a description, rather than a formal job title, it should be lc per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
  • A couple of sources say that was how "she defined herself"; one says "she was employed as", so I've split the difference. I think the capitals fit best here, rather than lower case. - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to kick up a major fuss here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • She described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods", although her students nicknamed her "The Pudding Lady" because, in an attempt to get the women in the habit of cooking regularly using familiar and inexpensive ingredients, for the first three months of her demonstrations they made suet puddings—plain, sweet and meat—until the women began to show pride in their ability to cook: quite a beefy sentence. At the moment, the 'main' clause functionally is not the main clause grammatically: suggest flipping the "although" and writing "Although she described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods", her students..." to put the weight on the substantial bit.
  • Blake Perkins, Petty's biographer in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, observes that her case notes for the women she was instructing are "matter-of-fact but also sympathetic rather than clinical: observes, to me, implies a statement of indisputable fact, which doesn't sit well with this inherently subjective judgement. What are these case notes, exactly? I'm not clear whether this is a sort of course report or if Petty was more some kind of social worker assigned to these women: for whose consumption was she writing?
  • In 1910 the St Pancras School for Mothers published an account of its work in The Pudding Lady: A New Departure in Social Work: it took me a moment to remember that this was the Mothers' and Babies' Welcome: I'd suggest being consistent about what we call it in the article. I'd also give a little more context as to what The Pudding Lady was: is it a mass-marker book, a pamphlet for a specific audience, a radio broadcast... We say that it's an account of its work (that is, of the SPSfM): is that accurate, or is it really an account of her work?
published an account of Petty's work. .. examining her work and the impact she had: slightly tautological now. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-tweaked: how does that look? - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the secretary of the National Food Reform Association (NFRA): can we introduce what this was, and possibly link it?
  • Now introduced, but there doesn't seem to be anything to link to. I'm not sure about a redlink - I'll do some digging to see if there is anything notable about them. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think note 14 should come before the dash.
  • a series of "demonstration-lectures": quote marks sit oddly here. Presumably, they're there because someone called them this: could we say who?
  • Briefly introduce Lady Meyer (it sounds like there's a philanthropic edge here as well?)
  • on wartime cookery: can we contextualise a little and explain what made wartime cooking different from regular cooking?
  • Is there something to be said about the specific types of food that were hit? From memory, for example, Danish bacon was a particular problem, but potatoes were encouraged because they were widely grown domestically (certainly during the next war, they had the slogan "remember spuds don't come in ships!"). We mention later that "some foods" were rationed; it might be helpful to be a little more specific on which ones were hit the hardest. From the existence of the thesis cited in the bibliography, there might be more to say to put Petty into the context of the broader food-economy movement here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • goods such as mild and potatoes: should that be milk?
  • The Board of Trade estimated the cost of living for the working class increased to 45 per cent between 1914 and 1916: increased by, surely?
  • It's a little odd to mix % and per cent in close proximity.
  • I think I'm slightly missing something on hayboxes: yes, the haybox itself doesn't use any fire, but you do have to heat the food up with something first.
  • which could also be used for doing the laundry, cleaning tins and saucepans, and keeping butter cool in hot weather: I sort of get the last one, but how do you use a haybox to clean your saucepans?
  • By the time The Pudding Lady's Recipe Book was published, Petty had become a qualified sanitary inspector: I assume this was 1917, but we only actually said that it was written in that year: it's entirely possible that there was a gap.
  • By the time The Pudding Lady's Recipe Book was published in 1920 We've talked about editions in 1917 and 1918, so should this be republished? As phrased, this sounds like it should be the first publication of the book. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the war Petty continued lecturing on and writing about cookery: suggest after the war, as the first think we mention is three years after the Armistice.
  • in 1923 she wrote the paper "The Cook as Empire Builder" for the Journal of the Royal Sanitary Institute: quite the title: what did she say about cooks as empire builders? How did it go down? Was it unusual for a working-class woman to be publishing in what seems to be quite a respectable learned journal?
  • She says virtually nothing about empire building - it was an odd title to choose! The only reference to it is based on a something done in Essex. Petty writes: "The Chairman of one of the Essex Medical Inspection Sub-Committees wrote, "Such work as this is done for the Empire.""
    There's no information on how the article went down (no third party references to it, no commentary in subsequent issues, etc). Looking back over some previous issues, the journal had several previous female writers (I've found them back to 1911 issues). - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm conscious that this is the era of the WSPU and so on: can anything be said about women's participation in the academic press more generally? Again, this would likely be from a source other than a direct biography of Petty. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's getting a bit too far from the heart of things. As I said, the journal had a number of women contributors dating back to at least 1910, which was over a decade before Petty. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • She spoke on the "Household Talk" series of programmes: fairly obvious from the title, but suggest a little context as to e.g. format, subject matter, listenership... As with the paper above: how big a deal was this?
  • Making the most of a Minimum Wage: should be Making the Most of a Minimum Wage, I think.
  • It reads a little oddly to mix (OK, self-explanatory) titles with simple descriptions, and it isn't always grammatical ("a programme on the topic of dinners for a Week on a minimum wage"). Suggest She presented talks titled "Making the Most of a Minimum Wage" and "Dinners for a Week on a Minimum Wage", as well as others on the subjects of...)
  • At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, this is a short article. That's not a major problem in itself, but means that for comprehensiveness we should make sure that every opportunity to give detail and - importantly - context is taken.
  • She lived in Montrose until her early 30s when she moved to Swanley, Kent: any idea of why, or what she did there?
  • Petty wrote on cookery, with works aimed at those also involved in social work, and with a cookery book: I'm not sure that the withs here are quite grammatical. Suggest "producing works... work, and a cookery book", "authoring works..." or similar.
I'm not sure the comma before the and is grammatical, as she produced that book too. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very optional, but as we now have X... and Y... and Z..., consider publishing works aimed at those also involved in social work, including a cookery book (yes, that brings the comma back from the dead...) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of primary sources in the bibliography: it might be worth separating these out (or, if you prefer, separating out secondary sources as "Biographies of Petty" or similar. Mindful of WP:PRIMARY, I think it's good to do as much as we can not to dress up the mutton of primary sources as secondary-source lamb.
It's still not totally clear which sources are being treated as primary and which as secondary. Bibliographical formatting is very much a matter of nominator's preference, but it does read a little oddly to lump Roland 2008 and Davin 1978, for example, into a section of basically-primary journal articles. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd rather leave them as they are now, separated into the normal categories. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When in Rome... UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • By writing an article on someone, we're taking as read that they're notable in the sense that they've had some kind of impact (if nothing else, in other people's writing) beyond the simple facts of their life. I'd like to see some kind of "Legacy" section here: were her contributions to food education recognised (or not) in her lifetime or beyond? Was she criticised for her public prominence? Did her work lay the groundwork for any future initiatives, programmes or people? Has anyone written about how she didn't get the recognition she deserved?
  • Nope - unfortunately! The closest thing to it is at the end of the DNB article, which says "No newspaper of record appears to have published her obituary. Most of her recipes use a handful of inexpensive items and rely on simple procedure. In this they prefigure Second World War efforts by the Ministry of Food to convince the populace that substitution of cheaper for familiar ingredients was worthy and even enjoyable." The 'pre-figuring' is a long way from any form of legacy, so I'm not sure we can make the connection too much. No-one else really covered her life or legacy, unfortunately (or, at least, not as far as I have been able to find). - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had the Ministry of Food in mind when I wrote this: personally, I'd definitely bring it in to contextualise where she fits into the broader history of British food-based social relief. Even if she wasn't a direct (or acknowledged) inspiration for what came later, it's helpful for readers to be able to see that she and her work didn't exist in a vacuum, but are part of a longer story. I'd definitely put in the comment about her obit not appearing in any newspaper, as we can cite that to a secondary source: there's a definite "unsung hero" vibe to this article and it's good that we can make that more than an implication. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something of her legacy at the end. There isn't anything I could find that made a more concrete connection between her work (or that of the The Mothers' and Babies' Welcome) with the Second World War Ministry of Food approach. - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Nice work: clearly took a lot of archival digging, and the article wears that research lightly indeed. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still have the Lead and haybox to do, plus a couple of other smaller points, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

Placeholder for now. JennyOz (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, so sorry for delay! I have a few suggestions and questions...

All very much worth waiting for! - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • move good article template above EngvarB

lede

  • women to get them in the habit - get? to encourage?
  • allowing her to use their own limited equipment and utensils - to demonstrate how to use their own...
  • Because she taught the women how to make suet puddings - insert 'firstly' before "how"?
  • where heated food is place in an insulated box - tense placed
  • Her approach to teaching nutritious but cheap food - you can't teach food (or is that an Engvar thing?) - food cooking/cookery? teaching and promoting

life

  • Somers Town had high levels of poverty - why plural? does that mean pockets of ie in some areas a high level?
    • You've got me thinking about this. I take "a high level" as a singular (possibly consistent) level, but "high levels of" as multitude of levels that vary, but all are high, and it's the second one I'm after. (I may be wrong to make the difference along those lines, but that's my feeling on it). - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chalton Street - worth a link?
  • Among other activities, The Mothers' and Babies' Welcome provided cookery lessons for mothers, but realised that this was of limited success as many of the women lacked the basic equipment or utensils needed. - in their homes, at home
  • women's own homes, using only their own equipment and utensils - demonstrating how they could use their existing
  • Although she described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods", her students nicknamed her "The Pudding Lady" because... - there is no "despite of" in this to warrant "although"? It's not like the students would have otherwise called her "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods". Petty described herself as a "Lecturer and Demonstrator in Health Foods. Her students nicknamed...
  • Westminster Health Society - is London Early Years Foundation "Founded in 1903 as the City of Westminster Health Society primarily"
  • the cost of food rose by 61 per cent the same time - at the same time or during?
  • Petty wrote at least one pamphlet for - link pamphlet? lest readers think leaflet?
  • cooking process is finished; because the cooking is finished by the latent heat - 2x cooking and 2x finished - maybe swap first to 'where the cooking continues'?
  • 300 recipes on a variety of basic foods - Engvar? recipes on? based on or 'using'
  • The food chemist Katherine Bitting described it as - Petty's book
  • the book sold 20,000 copies.[38] The book was reprinted - It was reprinted?
  • Journal of the Royal Sanitary Institute - that institute became the Royal Society for Public Health. And the ibox on Perspectives in Public Health says (one of) its former name was "(1894-1955): Royal Sanitary Institute. Journal (United Kingdom) (0370-7334)"
    • I'm not a fan of wikilinking only part of a title (I think there may be something in the MOS about it, but I may be misremembering that), and Journal of the Royal Sanitary Institute is the journal's full name. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • began presenting talks on the radio on 2LO station for the BBC - "on the radio on" maybe tweak? eg began presenting radio talks on the BBC's 2LO station
  • Also "began presenting talks on the ... and spoke on the "Household Talk" series" Did she give talks and separately spoke on the HT series? If not, remove "and" and change spoke to speaking?
  • spoke on the "Household Talk" series v the Household Talks programmes - different formatting intentional? ie italics and plural
  • The historian Julie–Marie Strange - has authorlink but no link in prose intentional? And change dash in name to hyphen?

Works

  • Chapters "Cookery and Vitamines" [sic] and - The e was included in original spelling (per Vitamin#"Vitamine" to vitamin) and was just being dropped in 1920s. I know use of sic can be broader but most commonly it suggests an error. It depends on your purpose I s'pose. If your intention is to stop other editors from "correcting" it, you could swap to a hidden {{not a typo|original spelling}} template. If your intention is something else ... ignore me:)

Sources

Cats to consider

  • Category:British nutritionists
  • Category:Environmental health practitioners (because Sanitary inspector redirects to Environmental health officer which has "Some past titles for this role include inspector of nuisances, sanitarian, and sanitary inspector.")
  • Category:British women radio presenters or
  • Category:Scottish women radio presenters
  • Category:English health and wellness writers
    • I went for British, rather than English, but just a wider field
  • Category:Food activists
  • Category:British health activists
  • Category:British nutritionists

Misc

  • any way to break up article? I have nothing to suggest
    • It's a tricky one. There is no 'natural' break point - her career just rumbled on without a particular event marking a point we could use, so anything would have to be arbitrary. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • no mention of any personal life, presume she did not marry nor have children. Do we usually say "nothing is known about..." or just stay silent?
    • I think we leave it blank on the off-chance someone else finds something. There's only the information that she lived with her sister which is what we've got there. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • add pic of a haybox? None at Commons usable? The last one of a woman constructing her own is from First World War period though German (by Marie Goslich)
  • I had a quick look in Trove (a large number of contributions to Aust newspapers in that time was from British correspondents).
    One piece on age staging young children's recipes but nothing usable here.
    Another piece, again not usable, but it might explain angry warring WP editors ...indigestion! "good cooking and a knowledge of dietetics made for greater happiness in the world, and would probably lead to peace knowing as one did, the close connection between indigestion and bad temper, individual and national."
    I loved reading that last article - it made me chuckle! - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all that is comprehensible! I enjoyed reading about Floss. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image licencing and use seem OK to me but I can't find the licence for File:Mothers and Babies welcome, Bunting, A school for mothers Wellcome L0007064.jpg. I would use consistent capitalization for ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Alt text tweaked and the URL updated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this doesn't seem to be a compatible licence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book is possibly in copyright: the images aren’t. There isn’t a record of the photographer, so according to this, it’s out of copyright. - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the image needs to have its licence template changed to {{PD-UK-unknown}} then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Cheers Jo-Jo Eumerus, now swapped. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 August 2023 [14].

Daytona USA

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix talk 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are if you've ever been to an arcade or a bowling alley, or anywhere that has arcade games, you've seen one of these machines. Daytona USA is iconic and anecdotally considered one of the best-selling and greatest arcade games of all time, so much so that it's still reasonably common to see around today. Its success was a good way to kick off the run of what was arguably Sega's most successful arcade system board, the Model 2 — a board so advanced for its time that its graphics were built by US military contractor GE Aerospace, which later became part of Lockheed Martin.

It's been three years since I last brought an article to FAC. This has been an article I've worked on and off since about 2019, and it's taken me waiting to find sources to flesh out what I felt was missing to ensure this article was covered in depth and could be considered complete. I'm taking a deep breath and a leap of faith on this one as I've only written one FAC on an actual video game and that was one that had been canceled, so this feels like new ground to me. But, it feels as ready as I can possibly make it. I thank all reviewers in advance for their feedback. Red Phoenix talk 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Daytona_USA_arcade_flyer.jpg: source link is dead, needs a more expansive FUR
  • File:Daytona_USA_screenshot.png needs a more expansive FUR
  • File:Daytona_Twin.jpg: what's the status of the work pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: The image is uploaded as CC-BY-SA 4.0, though if you're inquiring whether or not it truly is, I found it difficult to determine whether an arcade cabinet displaying a game running on it could be copyrighted or not. The best I could figure out is that while the game displayed would likely fall under copyright, the cabinet itself would not (though it contains trademarks). The best I could find on the subject was here - the game would be a work of authorship, but its method of operation is not protected by copyright, and the arcade cabinet would be the game's method of operation. If the screen in the picture is the issue, I can pull up File:Two-seater IMG 0174 (19411605993).jpg, crop it down to remove excess, and utilize it, as it does not have a lit screen. Please do let me know your thoughts. Red Phoenix talk 01:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

  • "Inspired by the popularity of the NASCAR motor racing series in the US, players ...": needs rephrasing; as written the first clause modifies "players".
  • The use of "release" as an intransitive verb ("The first game released on ...") is a fairly recent usage and I don't think has general acceptance yet, though I gather it's common in video game journalism. I would suggest making it transitive throughout.
    • It is quite common in video game journalism, yes. I'd like to push back on this a bit in that when I checked over Wikipedia:Featured articles#Video gaming, every article I looked at had this same usage of "released" or "was released" -- I would therefore make the case that it has been accepted as language meeting the FA standards. If you still disagree, I would either ask for a third opinion or how you might go about rephrasing these uses. Red Phoenix talk 01:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sympathetic to the idea of subject-specific language; I write articles on magazines and occasionally someone wil change wording that is standard in the industry but not common outside it. But "was released" is uncontroversial -- that's just the passive form of the transitive verb; other than the common dislike of passive voice, I don't think anyone could object to that. You've changed the only instance that I thought was a problem ("The first game released on the Sega Model 2" -> It was the first game to be released on the Sega Model 2") so I've struck this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first game released on the Sega Model 2 arcade system board, a prototype debuted at Tokyo's Amusement Machine Show in August 1993 and was location tested in Japan the same month, before the complete game released in March 1994." This is a bit confusing because it's out of chronological order. Can we avoid saying the game (was) released both at the start and the end of the sentence? I think there's a distinction being made between the two releases -- one refers to the arcade hardware, the other to the "complete game", but the distinction isn't very clear.
    • Actually, I went ahead and cleared out the whole prototype bit because I don't think it's necessary for the lead. If I remember right, this may have been a remnant from an editor pushing to state the game came out in 1993 on the basis of the prototype, and that editor has been subsequently blocked as a sock. That there was a prototype I think is appropriate for the body but not necessarily for the lead.
  • "after a meeting of the heads of Sega's regional offices for a game to debut the Model 2 hardware": I think this would be better with a verb instead of just "for"; e.g. "a meeting [...] to decide on a game".
    • Rephrased, using your wording.
  • Do the sources say why Namco's Ridge Racer was in Sega's sights? Was it the dominant racing game of the time?
  • "The game's camera system presents four different view perspectives from which the game can be played, similar to Virtua Racing, and also includes the ability to view behind the car." I think technically this should be "similarly to", but that feels a bit clumsy. How about "As in Virtua Racing, the game's camera system presents four different view perspectives from which the game can be played, and also includes the ability to view behind the car."
    • Used your wording.
  • "The arcade version offers multiplayer and up to eight players can compete depending on the number of cabinets linked together." Suggest "The arcade version allows up to eight players to compete with each other, depending on the number of cabinets linked together".
    • Used your wording.
  • Possibly not an issue for this article, but you mention "deluxe cabinets"; I had a look in the article on the Model 2 and it doesn't mention such a thing. Were these Model 2 cabinets or a later cabinet?
    • Let me clarify some confusion here for you: the Model 2 is an arcade system board, not an arcade cabinet. Think of the arcade system board as the computer, and it's the most important part of the arcade cabinet, which also includes the game's controls, screen, decoration, seats (if applicable, but especially in racing games), etc. So certain games will have different types of cabinets such as uprights, sit-downs, or deluxe cabinets, but that's unique to each game and not to each arcade system board. Red Phoenix talk 01:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, thanks for the clarification. I had another look at the paragraph and I don't think any change is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The person given direct responsibility for the project was AM2 director Toshihiro Nagoshi,[1] with himself and Suzuki serving as producers." Suggest "AM2 director Toshihiro Nagoshi was given direct responsibility for the project, with Nagoshi and Suzuki serving as producers."
    • Used your wording.
  • "Nagoshi was aware of the number of racing arcade games already on the market and decided he wanted to take his game in a different direction." It's not the number, surely? Presumably the intended meaning is that he was familiar with the contents, or the approach taken, or the design of, the many games on the market.
    • Removed "number" - I think the point of emphasis in the source was that there were many racing video games out there in 1993, but I don't think any meaning is lost removing it.
  • "and recalled how it was a new experience for him": suggest "and later recalled that it was a new experience for him".
    • Used your wording.
  • "Nagoshi's team selected different ways to research for the project." I don't have access to the source, but I would guess that the three sentences that follow this are examples of these different approaches. I think it would be more concise (and would avoid implying that these three are the entire team) to cut this sentence and instead make the point in the transition between the sentences. For example, "As research for the project, Nagoshi read books and watched videos on NASCAR, although he found it difficult to convey the emotions of the sport to his staff in Japan. In contrast, game planner Makoto Osaki said he purchased a sports car and watched the NASCAR film Days of Thunder more than 100 times. Programmer Daichi Katagiri was an avid player of arcade racing games at the time and leaned on that experience."
    • You are correct in that was what the source was doing. Used your wording, minus "In contrast" as I don't really feel like it's a contradiction as much as it is just a different approach.
  • "Suzuki also reached out to Sega designer Jeffery Buchanan, who suggested placing interesting features in various locations. Some of these features included a dinosaur fossil and a clipper." Suggest "Suzuki also reached out to Sega designer Jeffery Buchanan, who suggested placing interesting features, such as a dinosaur fossil and a clipper ship, at various locations within the game."
    • Used your wording.
  • "Mitsuyoshi said this was the only way to include vocals, due to technical limitations of the Model 2." Do we need to attribute this to Mitsuyoshi inline? That implies others might not agree; is there any reason to doubt him?
    • Removed attribution to Mitsubishi on this line specifically.
  • Can we say how the hidden track "Pounding Pavement" was accessed?
    • Done, but I'll be honest, my reservation about explaining this was avoiding WP:GAMECRUFT. I'll let you decide if the addition is appropriate or not.
      I wouldn't argue too much if someone else wanted to remove it, but given that you've mentioned the fact that the track was hidden, I think it's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is location testing? Putting one or two machines in an arcade and monitoring them?
    • Explained this out a bit; more like a small, highly limited release to see how it did in sales before doing a full launch.
  • "It was a Western launch game for Saturn": what does this mean?
  • "In Japan, two separate Windows releases were done in September and December 1996, with the first released version supporting different graphics cards such as Leadtek's WinFast GD400." Seems an odd way to say this -- normally one says the second instance of something is different to the first, not the other way round. Does "different" here mean different to the second version, or something else?
  • Which Windows version was released in Europe and the US?
    • Difficult to say whether or not it even was one of the versions released in Japan, as that doesn't exist in any source. It's worth noting the game is the same content-wise, so it's only a matter of technical requirements, and to dig through all of that to determine based on the requirements would be WP:OR. As such, I think it's fine to just call it the "Windows version".
      That's fair, but how about making it "A Windows version" rather than "The Windows version"? The reason I asked was because "The" made me think we were being specific, and since two Windows versions had been listed it was ambiguous, but since as you say it could have been a third version, using "A Windows version" would avoid the issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. Done. Red Phoenix talk 01:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to no longer having the rights": suggest "as Sega no longer owned the rights", or "as Sega's license had expired".
    • Used your wording.
  • "In a 2002 report, Sega said it was one of the most successful arcade games of all time." You might consider cutting this -- as it's sourced to Sega it's not particularly valuable, and there are plenty of other sources given that say the same thing so we don't need to hear Sega agreeing.
    • I'm okay cutting this if needed, but let me justify it a bit: everyone else is going off of anecdotal evidence and that it's said it's that successful. Although we don't have numbers, surely Sega would know absolutely how many they sold and how that compares in the industry? If you don't agree, that's fine; it's a cut I would be okay with.
      I see your point. Does the source have additional information about why Sega said this -- e.g. did they say something like "It's one of the top X games we've ever made, based on units sold"? They're a reliable source for the relative popularity of their own games, and since they're a major player in the industry that implies a game that's successful in the industry. If there's no additional context like that, then on balance I think I'd cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer appears to be no, so removed. Red Phoenix talk 01:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of instances of A said B in the reception section. For example, the second paragraph of the "Arcade" subsection has four sources cited, one after the other, starting with Rik Skews. Can we combine some of these sentences so that they collect similar statements together? For example, almost everyone quoted in this paragraph praised the graphics; could we make a statement about the reception of the graphics, instead of a series of indirect and direct quotes that mention them? There's a little bit of the same problem further down the section.
    • I took a shot at reworking the paragraphs in this section; let me know what you think. This is an area I struggle with, so I'm open to feedback.
  • I don't think you have to name every single source inline, either; that's what citations are for. If a reviewer has particular cachet, you might want to name them inline, but does the reader care that it was Skews and Straus and LaMancha writing for those publications? Or even which publications the opinions you cite appeared in?
    • Does the reader care? No. But as I've always understood it one should identify the writer if the publication does, because it's their words and opinions and not actually that of the publication - and if a publication doesn't list a writer, then it's more of the publication's voice. That being said, your last line confuses me a bit in that how would you attribute in a paragraph who said what?
      I'm supporting below, since I don't think this is a key point, and because I think there may even be a guideline somewhere that says that one should attribute inline. Also I understand that when you use a quote, it's often better to attribute inline. But I think the reader is usually going to care that, for example, the graphics were praised and the soundtrack was not, or vice versa, but not that publications X, Y and Z praised the graphics and writers A, B, and C disliked the soundtrack, so sometimes it makes sense to use quotes without attribution. For example, you could do this with part of the "Arcade" second paragraph: "It was very well received on its North American debut at ACME 1994, with some reviewers considering it the game of the show, though one commented on the expensive cabinet price. The gameplay, sound, damage physics, and "state-of-the-art" graphics were praised, and Daytona USA was described as the best arcade game one reviewer had played in years, while another reviewer asserted that "the stakes in the arcade wars have been raised again". I'm not suggesting you make this change, just that this seems easier to read to me, and doesn't lose any information, since with citations in the right place the reader can find Rik Skews' name if they want it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similar to the arcade version, the Saturn version was compared to Ridge Racer's PlayStation conversion." I'm not sure what the first clause is intended to convey -- that the game was similar?
    • It was intended to connect to the arcade section where the arcade game was compared to Ridge Racer. Rephrased.

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the reception section I have either addressed or left feedback to each comment. I'll work on reception in the next couple of days and get back with you. Red Phoenix talk 03:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes and a couple of replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie All addressed and ready for a second pass, if this doesn't get archived first. Red Phoenix talk 02:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The remaining unstruck comment doesn't affect my support; I think this article complies with the accepted approach to attributing reviews. Other than that this seems to me a well-researched and well-written account. Red Phoenix, if this does get archived, let me know when you re-nominate so I can comment/support again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from ProtoDrake

  • Support: This seems a perfectly sound article to be an FA. If the article still gets closed due to lack of activity, I'll be okay to give a fresh support at a second nomination. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for 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 will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must've been gone from here too long; could've sworn six weeks was about the standard to let a FAC run. In any regard, I'm unfortunately not surprised as even among video game editors, arcade games are a niche in part because it's a format of gaming that's been dying a slow death since the 2000s. Red Phoenix talk 02:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I’ve left a request for more feedback at WT:VG to hopefully bring additional reviewers within the next few days. Red Phoenix talk 12:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RP, a very rough and ready rule of thumb is that if a nomination has not gained two general supports within three weeks, or at least shown signs of shortly getting there, then the coordinators will be watching it and it is unlikely to make it to four weeks unless the situation improves. The divide for "Older articles" is set at three weeks to help everyone keep an eye on this. Sometimes simply having a warning like this posted will prompt reviewers to come forward, or those who have commented to expedite their support/oppose decision making. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SnowFire

Overall, looks good to me. Not really my area of expertise, but I'll give it a shot.

  • Is mentioning "realism" really lede-worthy? Assuming this is referring to the GamePro review, it's one line of a very short and insubstantial review that mentions the word "realism", yes, but as part of a sentence that says "Daytona takes an actiony game and a realish game and makes a combination that's great!" That's not 100% the same thing as praising realism. This is a game where (assuming I'm not confusing it with a different sit-down arcade game) you can drive around the track backwards and do head-on collisions with the other racers and be totally 100% fine. If a lot of other reviews other than GamePro brought it up, maybe, but otherwise, I'd rephrase it.
    • I'll strike - there are more reviews that do discuss realism, but I wouldn't say it's a significant enough quantity - especially in comparison to its primary competition, Ridge Racer. Changed to "gameplay", which does have stronger feedback. Red Phoenix talk 01:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, was using satellite photography & photographs really lede-worthy as well? This is totally optional, I know there are differences of opinion here. But this just doesn't seem that important. Satellite photography wasn't restricted to super-spies in the 1990s, it was reasonably accessible - "the developers checked Google Maps to get a sense of the terrain" for a 2023 game wouldn't be that interesting, so I don't see why the 1992-94 equivalent would be so much more interesting.
    • Reworded - it was more or less a reasonable attempt to discuss development a little more in the lead; the new wording doesn't fully drop the concept but reduces the focus a bit. Red Phoenix talk 01:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the first lap of each race measures the skill of the player and adjust the difficulty of opponents accordingly" - Shouldn't this be "adjusts" to match?
  • "Visually, the game runs at 60 frames per second " - I don't have access to the source, but just to verify, the source is attributing the "smooth appearance" at least partially to the 60fps? Because that's a bit surprising to me, I'd think that older graphics wouldn't be particularly improved by 30fps vs. 60fps. It's a pretty subtle difference even with post-2010 graphics IMO, but if the source does say this, it's fine.
  • "For the Saturn version, the vocals and instruments were rerecorded with real instruments" - is this really in the Gamasutra / GameDev cite? That interview talks about the original work and the 15th anniversary edition, but I'm not seeing a lot about the Saturn version in that source. Maybe ref order got swapped around? Or am I just missing it? (Also, on behalf of music majors into electronic music, I dunno about referring to electronica as "false" instruments... but the phrasing in the source should be honored, whatever that source is.)
  • Is there a better way to phrase "The Xbox 360 version was made compatible with Xbox One on March 21, 2017"? That sounds like the day that Sega engineers got it to boot, or fixed the last bug, when it really means "was released to the public in a buyable state." While on that note, I don't see a date in the given reference. The article was from March 21, sure (or possibly just updated on that date?), but it just says that it's coming to the XBox One. Is there a better reference out there? If not, I'd say that just saying "2017" is about the most that can be taken from the article (assuming it really was published in March 2017).
    • The title of the article said it was happening "today". That being said, it does sound awkward and it's not truly a release date since it is just compatibility with another system of the same release, so removed and simply noted it was made compatible. Red Phoenix talk 01:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Mike Christie brought it up, I'll just echo my endorsement of calling out the authors directly to properly attribute opinions that the article currently does. No, most readers won't care, but it's the accurate and proper thing to do, so no changes needed here.
  • The Air Hendrix review appears cut off - it ends on a semicolon now. Checking the history, I see it didn't always - will leave it up to the nominator whether to replace with a period or to restore the older sentence structure.
  • Is there possibly a better quote to use from the Eurogamer Martin Robinson review that called it "a fitting epitaph to the genre?" Because speaking from 2023 rather than 2011, this is totally bananas, and might mislead casual readers into thinking that racing games are dead. Mario Kart 8 has sold 53 million units and routinely was a top 10 seller even in years after its release.
    • Done - I'm pretty sure Robinson was referring to arcade racers, not "racing games". That being said, there was a better quote about how the 360/PS3 version is a tribute to the original, so I tucked that in instead. Red Phoenix talk 01:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The star {{rating}} template in video game reviews has been deprecated per Template:Video_game_reviews#Guidelines. I'd suggest replacing without a good reason to prefer it here.
  • While on that note... the number of reviews included in the template might be a tad excessive? This may be a larger topic than just this article, but the question of comprehensiveness vs. tl;dr has come up before. The template documentation technically says "Only include reviews if they are cited within the text" but this advice is frequently ignored, and sometimes for good reason (e.g. including Famitsu is good for an international perspective, even if not directly discussed). That said, there are a few reviews that might be better shuffled off to a talk page "holding pen" just in the name of shortening the template, e.g. Game Informer / GameFan / GamesMaster don't appear to be used outside it.
    • I trimmed out AllGame as it's more noteworthy for its database than its reviews. On the rest - yes, international perspective is part of it (i.e. Gamest in Japan, Player One in France, Sega Magazin in Germany), and some of it is scores for the Arcade version, as not all video game magazines during that time (or now, for that matter), scored arcade video games even if they'd cover it. I don't see harm in it personally, but do let me know if you want me to strike more reviews from the box. Red Phoenix talk 02:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recognize that the rest of the world doesn't exactly match the Wikipedia article's "definition" of best games, but I'd use some caution with the more narrowly tailored lists as examples of "best games of all time." Best computer games, sure, whatever, but "best coin-operated games" and "best arcade games" feel like they might be better served as a new sentence. Additionally, I'm not sure how much hype a mention in the Guinness Book of World Records Gamer Edition is. I suppose it probably sold better than many "serious" gaming books, but being a heavily young kid based target market kind of reduces the potency of the endorsement.
    • Done - including striking the Guinness Book.

SnowFire (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: Thank you for your feedback. I've acted upon it and responses are above; comments should be resolved unless you have more for me. Red Phoenix talk 02:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. On the Eurogamer article, fair point that the title says "today", but it still says "updated March 17, 2017" (rather than "published"). Checking the Wayback Machine, I don't see it on a March 18 snapshot of Eurogamer's front page, so either it was some quiet update to an old story, or it wasn't significant enough to hit the main page? But that seems doubtful, game magazines aren't so flush with content they can afford not to highlight their latest articles. I suppose you could email Eurogamer or the article's author for information on when it went up if you wanted to nail down the date more precisely, but I doubt people are THAT interested in the date on the citation.
    • TOTALLY OPTIONAL: This isn't a huge deal, but it was a little surprising to land on French / German Wikipedia for some of the reviewer links in the reviews table on the magazine you mentioned. If you have time to kill at some later point, maybe translate the articles over to English Wikipedia so they can be normal blue links? Alternatively, you could use {{ill}} so that it's less surprising, although maybe it would be distracting in a table. This is up to you, avoiding red links isn't a FA criterion, but might be a nice short project.
    • Support. SnowFire (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Reviewing [this version], spot-check only upon request. I don't know most sources and am assuming that stuff mentioned as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources can be relied on - are Jalopnik, Game Machine, Games World, RePlay reliable sources? Does Edge not have bylines? I note that many sources don't have any author information, is this normal? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, and thanks for reviewing. To answer your questions:
  • Jalopnik is published by G/O Media, the same publisher as reliable source Kotaku except Jalopnik is focused on car topics. This article was published before the July concerns over AI-written content at G/O and should be reliable, but if you disagree, this is all also covered in the Horowitz book used extensively as a source in this encyclopedia article. I’ve doubled the cite as insurance.
  • Game Machine is a Japanese arcade industry publication for arcade operators in Japan, published in magazine format until 2002, see here for a translation on the Japanese Wikipedia article.
  • Games World is published by Paragon Publishing, which published a number of video game magazines. I updated the links to link to Paragon, since Games World doesn’t reflect the magazine itself, but the linked TV show was the inspiration for the magazine.
  • RePlay, along with Play Meter, are/were the two foremost arcade industry publications in the United States for arcade operators. At some point I may have to write the article on RePlay.
  • On author information… yeah, in older video game magazines it’s shockingly common that articles in the magazines didn’t credit who wrote what, and that includes reviews. Edge is perhaps the worst offender, but Computer and Video Games isn’t much better. Others certainly did do a better job. I was very diligent to ensure that every time an author was listed that they were credited and only excluded that when one was not. I also do not believe a credit to “Staff” is warranted, as that’s pretty much the same assumption as when an article is uncredited to a person.
Red Phoenix talk 20:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. With the caveats regarding not knowing most sources and no spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your review! Red Phoenix talk 20:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: This has been open for two months and we finally have completed source and image reviews to go along with three supports. Anything else needed for this article’s candidacy to be completed? Red Phoenix talk 20:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a quick read-through and see if anything stands out to me. Hog Farm Talk 23:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 5 August 2023 [15].

Boukephala and Nikaia

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the adventures of Genghis Khan, we move to the life of another Asiatic conqueror, Alexander the Great. Two cities, founded either side of the river where he took one of his most famous victories—one named for the battle, the other for his horse. Alexander died only a couple of years afterwards but the Alexandrias live long in the memory of men. I took the main topic article to FL status in February, after taking the related city of Ai-Khanoum to FA last November. This particular article was reviewed at GA level by Mike Christie in late April. I now set it before you and hope you enjoy. This submission will be used for WikiCup points. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 21:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

Comments
  • "The cities, two of many founded by the Macedonian king, were founded shortly after" -- to avoid repetition, could you change the second "founded" to "established" or something similar?
  • Done
  • I'm confused by the use of italics in "Nikaia"...
  • So am I, actually. Removed.
  • "in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea and on the Tabula Peutingeriana" - I might try to concisely mention that these are written works. I was initally confused.
  • Done.
  • "The cities' location is unknown" --> "The cities' locations are unknown" unless we have a Dallas/Fort Worth situation
  • Well, we sort of do, but changed anyway for clarity.
  • "Alexander the Great, king of Macedon, had invaded the Achaemenid Empire in 334 BC" -- Is the "had" needed?
  • Removed
  • "to confront Bessus, who had declared himself Artaxerxes V, and soon defeated his enemy's forces" -- I would clarify who "defeated his enemy's forces"
  • Clarified.
  • "a task he had performed previously at Arigaion" -- "previously" is redundant
  • Removed.
  • "a gymnastic and horse contest" - Was this a single, combined event or two separate ones?
  • Single, hence the singular "contest"
  • "N. G. L. Hammond theorises" -- Hammond is dead, so I would make that past tense.
  • Ditto Albert Brian Bosworth, Arrian. You do it right with A. K. Narain and Tarn.
  • Done, with others too.
  • "Arrian separates the clauses detailing the location and naming of the cities, so that although the reader knows that of the two cities, one was founded on the battlefield on the eastern bank of the Hydaspes, one was established on the western bank where Alexander began to cross, one was called Nikaia, and one named Boukephala, it is unclear which name corresponds to which city." Although I understand this sentence, I might reword it. I'm not sure it's grammatical as is.
  • I'm not sure what I would reword it to...
  • Reword "in the area would have helped it to survive" per WP:WOULDCHUCK - maybe "in the area likely helped it survive"
  • Done
  • On a tangential note, the bit about Bucephalus possibly emerging in Hindu and Buddhist traditions is fascinating (and quasi-amusing).
  • Was a surprise for me when I wrote the article!

That's all I got. Short but well done. I like seeing the classics get their share of love. ~ HAL333 01:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HAL333; responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from a455bcd9

  • It may be because I'm colorblind but I'm struggling to read File:AlexanderIndiaMap.jpg (for instance "Eschate"). Without clicking on the map, it's hard to know where these two cities are located. (Compare to Carthage, Nineveh, Ugarit, or Palmyra [FA]) Also, the map shows "Bucephala" and "Nicaea", terms that appear nowhere in the article. Besides, the legend mentions "Alexandria Boukephala and Alexandria Nikaia", names that appear neither on the map nor in the article. (The article only says: "Ancient sources are generally consistent in the naming of the cities. Boukephala is less frequently named "Boukephalia", or "Alexandria Boukephalos" in the Byzantine period."). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second that as well. If you end up moving the mosaic back down, you might want to consider making it into a horizontal double image template along one of Bucephalus (maybe the classis mosaic of him and Alexander). Although feel free to disregard the latter - I'll (eventually) support regardless. ~ HAL333 17:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Unlimitedlead

Comments
  • "...mentioned by Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy, it appears in..." The comma would also make sense as a semicolon.
  • I think I prefer it this way.
  • Adding reign templates for the rulers mentioned in the article would be prudent, giving the reader a stronger grasp on the article's chronology.
  • Added for Alexander and Darius. As the reigns of Menander and Porus are sort of unknown, I think that's good enough?
  • "...who had declared himself Artaxerxes V..." Artaxerxes V of what place?
  • Persia, I guess, but he didn't really get around to defining specifics. Added nonetheless.
  • Why is Hydaspes not linked in the body?
  • I did through Jhelum (I didn't particularly want two links to the same article four words apart).
  • Are there really only five chronicles of Alexander? The five mentioned all date to antiquity, but besides that, what made these five in particular significant?
  • Why are there scare quotes around "a gymnastic and horse contest"? Is this a quotation from someone?
  • Arrian. Attributed.
  • Done
  • "...so that although the reader knows that of the two cities, one was founded on the battlefield on the eastern bank of the Hydaspes, one was established on the western bank where Alexander began to cross, one was called Nikaia, and one named Boukephala, it is unclear which name corresponds to which city..." I do not understand what this is saying.
  • Neither do historians ;) simplified.
  • Introduce Bucephalus.
  • This paragraph does not make it clear that Boukephala was named after Bucephalus, methinks.
  • That is very true, don't know how I missed that. Fixed that and his introduction.
  • Done.
  • "exact location of Boukephala and Nikaia was already a matter of dispute in antiquity. The same is true today."[20] : The comma should be outside the quotation mark.
  • Stein "concluded it was impossible to indicate the site of Nikaia."[24]: The comma should be outside the quotation mark.
  • Assuming you mean period, done both.
  • "Although the Buddha connected these cities to the mythical king Mahāsammata, it is possible that they were in reality the cities of Boukephala and Nikaia" : What is the reasoning for this?
  • Eggermont doesn't provide his reasoning in usable detail, but I would think that "two cities across river, one named after horse" is probably the long and the short of it.

That is all from me at this time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from UndercoverClassicist

A few comments, mostly on MOS, grammar and clarity:

Comments
  • The article makes quite a lot of use of elegant variation "two cities founded by Alexander the Great .... two of many founded by the Macedonian king. This isn't great for encyclopaedic writing and can be unclear, particularly to those with less subject knowledge or a weaker grasp of English.
  • Removed that instance, let me know if there's anything else you find troublesome.
  • There's now a small MOS:SANDWICH between the battle map and the infobox on my display. Moving the map to the right (better for accessibility anyway) would fix.
  • "spring 326 BC": MOS:SEASON advises against using seasons to indicate parts of the year, as they're not the same across the world.
  • "Built on the battlefield": suggest a rephrase here, as "on the battlefield" has a common metaphorical meaning of "during the battle". Grammatically, I'm not sure this clause quite fits with the sentence that follows. Suggest "The city on the eastern bank, where the fighting of the battle took place, was most likely called Nikaia ("city of victory")...". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't quite make it clear that the city was located on the site of the battlefield, merely that the fighting and the city were both on the eastern bank. I've added "the site of" to the article—see what you think.
  • "...Alexander's famous horse...": suggest omitting "famous" as WP:PUFFERY.
  • Done.
  • "Supervised during construction by Craterus...": would rephrase (generally, I don't think these kind of fronted clauses work too well): presumably it was the construction itself that Craterus supervised, rather than the cities themselves.
  • Good catch. Separated the clauses.
  • "mentioned by Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy, it appears in the Periplus Maris Erythraei manuscript and on the Tabula Peutingeriana map": I'd give a (rough) timeframe for these, as they're quite far apart.
  • I mean, I can give the Periplus as 1st-century AD, but I don't feel confident giving even a rough date of composition for the TP (see Tabula Peutingeriana#Archetype).
  • Yes, I appreciate that it's a tricky one, especially as the Tabula isn't itself consistent as to which time period it depicts. We could call it the Roman T.P. map, or give the terminus post quem ("the T.P., a Roman map made sometime after the turn of the 1st century AD"). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cities' location are unknown": grammar wonky here: either the city's location is or the cities' locations are.
  • Wonkier than Willy Wonka. Fixed.
  • Suggest saying which country Jalalpur and Mong are in, per WP:POPE.
  • Added in first sentence.
  • I'm not sure I like "city of victory" as a straightforward gloss for Nikaia: I'd err on the side of saying that the name is from nike (victory).
  • Done, I think
  • Is the word Persian consciously avoided in relation to the Achaemenids? It's the name by which most people would know that state and its (dominant) people.
  • Not consciously.
  • "Within a few years he defeated the Achaemenid armies, first at Issus...": Issus was the first time he defeated Darius, but not Darius' armies.
  • "Within a few years he defeated the Achaemenid armies, first at Issus and then at Gaugamela, while his enemy Darius III was murdered in 330 BC by Bessus,": the phrasing here implies that Darius was murdered while Alexander was fighting at Issus and Gaugamela.
  • Rephrased paragraph.
  • Suggest giving a bit more of a clue as to where the various places mentioned from the Persian empire are. A map would be extremely helpful.
  • See a455bcd9's comments above. I'm trying to get it to work.
I see the rather nice one of India in the infobox. Is there a broader one of the Persian Empire/Alexander's Empire in the pipeline? Given how many of the various places mentioned here are location-unknown, it might not be as game-changing as I thought. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like something like I had at Ai-Khanoum#Site, but either their information/sourcing is dubious or they're not easy to read (see above). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Hydaspes river (the modern-day Jhelum River)": suggest making the capitalisation consistent here.
  • Done.
  • "Alexander, forced to return a few months later after his troops had mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern-day Beas River), ordered them to help repair damage caused by the monsoon": because the troops are only mentioned in a parenthetical clause, them seems to refer to the builders, which I don't think is intended. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the title "Alexander's chroniclers" for the five historians. Alexander did bring chroniclers with him; we just don't have their accounts. There were also a great deal more ancient historians who wrote about Alexander; the only thing that these five have in common is their (somewhat coincidental) survival. Suggest "all five surviving ancient accounts of Alexander's life" or similar.
  • I agree with the sentiment, but the primary WP:RS used in the article are rather unsentimental. Fraser outright uses the phrase "Alexander-historians" in the first sentence of the book, while Cohen refers to the five as "the major narrative accounts of Alexander's life".
  • I'd go closer to Cohen: Alexander's chroniclers, to me, suggests the people who actually travelled with him and wrote the "raw data" of his campaigns. Perhaps "the five major surviving accounts...", unless Cohen has taken a time machine back to Alexandria. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "naming one Nikaia and the other Boukephala": italicise names per MOS:WORDSASWORDS.
  • Done.
  • "a task he had performed at Arigaion.": tell us where and when.
  • Where is unknown, and when is uncertain. Done my best.
  • "Diodorus additionally recorded...": we usually refer to writers in the present tense; the past tense here creates the implication that Diodorus was an exact contemporary.
  • See HAL333's comments above; I prefer your way.
  • "Alexander celebrated his victory and foundations with "a gymnastic and horse contest" near the western city": attribute this quotation.
  • "when Alexander returned a few months later after his troops had mutinied at the Hyphasis (modern-day Beas River), his troops were ordered to help repair damage caused by the monsoon.": the passive voice for the second part reads oddly, as if someone else ordered them. Suggest doing away with the repetition of his troops if possible. It might also help to break down the steps in this narrative, and explain a little about how the mutiny connects to Alexander's return.
  • Introduce N. G. L. Hammond.
  • All done.
  • "According to Arrian, Alexander may have initially established the port at Boukephala, although Curtius Rufus implies otherwise": what does Curtius Rufus imply, exactly?
  • Actually, he states, not implies. Put in article.
  • "Arrian separated the clauses detailing the location and naming of the cities, so that although the reader knows that of the two cities, one was founded on the battlefield on the eastern bank of the Hydaspes, one was established on the western bank where Alexander began to cross, one was called Nikaia, and one named Boukephala, it is unclear which name corresponds to which city.": suggest trimming and clarifying this sentence.
  • Done.
  • "this conclusion is quite tentative due to the grammatical uncertainties": quite can have different meanings depending on your dialect: is this somewhat tentative or extremely tentative?
  • Somewhere in the middle ;)
  • "Arrian also noted...": noted implies an indisputable fact, so doesn't work here when we're dealing with debated information. See also the tenses on these authors.
  • Done
  • " it was probably under the rule of the Mauryan Empire (c. 320–185 BC)": putting this date range (and the later one) in brackets is a little unclear: are those the dates for the empire's "lifespan" or its rule over the city?
  • Clarified.
  • I'd give some idea of the dates behind the scholarly debate as to Boukephala's endurance.
  • Done my best. Let me know if there needs to be more.
  • I'm not sure I was very clear here: I meant for the debate itself, not the ancient history. I've gone and made a bold edit giving more context to the two scholars. I've also swapped them round, as Tarn was much older than Narain; my hunch from their book titles is that we're talking about the 1950s for both, but I don't want to be more specific without evidence. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the presence of a symbol on his coinage which could only have been minted at a Greek city": this sounds odd: there might have been Greek symbols on the coinage, but I don't think non-Greeks are struck down when they attempt to draw them (see the many "Alexander" coins made in the northern Balkans, for a comparison, and the pseudo-Arabic found on early medieval English coins.)
  • It's Tarn, he's given to slightly wacky conclusions. Made it clearer that it's his claim, not a fact.
Well clarified.
  • "Pliny the Elder, who notes that the city was the chief of three controlled by the Asini tribe": notes here gives Pliny a little too much credit for factual accuracy.
  • Very true.
I think records does much the same (that is, implies credence). Ancient ethnography, as a rule, wasn't exactly scrupulous about fact-checking. How about "who names the city as the chief of three controlled by the Asini tribe"? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. done.
  • ".. to the east of Paropamisadae.": where's that?
  • How annoyed will you be if I say we don't really know?
See later on as to how we might communicate that in the phrasing.
  • Cohen's quotation is, I think, better paraphrased: we don't generally want to quote directly unless the specific phrasing is important.
  • Trimmed.
  • "as proposed by Aurel Stein": a rough date here would be helpful.
  • Finally, something I can provide a definite answer to!
  • "A monument ... the building": was the monument definitely a building? We don't generally use that word unless it's got walls and doors, and most monuments don't.
  • It's a building. It's got walls and doors and windows and even a room with computers in it. See the archive link in the source.
  • The 'missing link' Lane Fox provides is that part of the monument is a study centre, and indeed refers to the whole thing as a "centre" ("Built from 1998 to 2011, the “centre” was declared open by ambassadors from the EU: now it is padlocked and festooned in barbed wire. The white paint is peeling off the big Greek pillars on the platform and the study rooms and lone computer have gone mouldy."). I'd use the same terminology. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "located 10km east": "10km east of it" or "10km to the east". Suggest using a convert template here.
  • Done.
  • "Others have suggested that the settlement was located in the vicinity of Sukchainpur.": clarity on the location would help, especially as it's a redlink.
On this: something like "in the vicinity of a city called Sukchainpur" would, I think, do enough to say that we don't know where that city was. Perhaps "Indian city", going only by the name, if you're feeling brave. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the quote on Nikaia: to me, "the village of Sukchainpur" implies that we do know where it was. Perhaps "the now-lost village..." or, as before, "a village called...", both of which imply or state that we don't. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Alexander Cunningham (he's obviously connected with the British survey, but good to know exactly how and when).
  • Dates would be helpful in the Buddhism passage.
  • Also somewhat unknown. Being a semi-mythical prophet who lived 2,500 years ago will do that.
  • Why are long vowels marked for Ādirājya, Bhadrāśva and Vitastā but not elsewhere?
  • Because they're Sanskrit transliterations, and I have no clue whether removing them makes their meaning dramatically different. Any help would be appreciated.
  • "an old Hindu tradition": can we be more specific?
  • Sadly not.
  • "above Jalalpur": suggest rephrasing to be clearer on what "above" means (a compass direction would be better).
  • Source says "on the hill above Jalalpur". Looking at a map, it probably means the high ground to the northwest of the town. However, I'm fairly certain that a recent MOS RfC stated that looking at maps to decide such things is WP:OR.
  • The image [:File:River Jhelum at Jhelum City from Old Railway bridge at Jhelum City.jpg] seems, to my eyes, pretty huge: I see the logic for up-scaling the map and mosaic, where there's a lot of fine detail, but this one compresses the text quite a lot on the Vector 2022 skin. For accessibility, images should be on the right unless there's a good reason otherwise (a consistent left margin is much easier to follow): is there one here?
  • Nope, just looked nice and I don't use Vector 2022; size decreased and moved rightwards.
  • Link to the specific editions of ancient sources used. I would also give the dates of the editions.
  • I've provided links, but I find it weird when ancient sources are given dates like "1919" or "2008", as there's no |translation-date parameter.
  • Yeah, that's true. Could cheat and give the translator's name as e.g. "John Smith (2009)"?
  • Why is Berkeley linked but Oxford not?
  • I think I thought Oxford is more likely to fall under BLUESKY. I remember being chastised for that at Ai-Khanoum.
  • Be consistent on whether publishers and places are given, and on ISBN formatting (dashes or no dashes?). this tool helps to convert between formats.
  • Done. I think I generally go for: locations and publishers with books, publishers only with journals, and no dashes in ISBNS.

Thanks for an extremely keen set of comments, UndercoverClassicist. Responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Comments

Sources are reliable. Links all work.

  • For the ancient texts, I think we should have full citation information for the translations used, for consistency with the modern sources.
  • You're inconsistent about using publisher locations -- they're optional but should be consistent.
  • You give an ISBN for Tarn (1948), so I assume you're using a more recent edition. Suggest using the orig-year parameter.
  • Can you confirm the 1986 Lane Fox edition you're using really has a 978 ISBN? The 13-digit ISBNs weren't introduced until 2007. I know ISBN-10s can be converted, and if that's what you've done that's OK, though personally I think it's a bad idea as a reader might want to use the ISBN to check against a physical copy, which they can't do if the number has been converted. But I see you haven't done that with a couple of other ISBN-10s so I thought I'd check.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll check the ISBNs used when I get home; I use locations for books but not journals; and as for the ancient texts (remember our similar discussion at my last FAC?) I've tried incorporating date information in the link. Is that good enough Mike Christie? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I don't understand your position on these texts -- can you clarify? In my mind the way it works is that you find a copy of e.g. Arrian, either online or on your bookshelves, and cite it; then add the citation information for the book you cited to the list of sources. Why wouldn't you mention that the publisher is Hodder & Stoughton, or that the publisher location is London? I know from citing translations of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that the particular translation one cites can be important, particularly for older translations which may have since been corrected. I've often cited Swanton's 1996 translation, but would be cautious about citing Gibson's 1692 edition -- but either way I'd want the reader to have the citation information for the version I used. What's different here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mostly it's that the online versions I'm citing doesn't have the information (publisher, location) you want. I know they can be considered reliable, because they're from reliable repositories, but I don't have the ability to put anything more from the source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think what's bothering me is that formatting as you have done is neither fish nor fowl. If it's a citation to a book we should have the bibliographic details. If it's a citation to a website we should format it as such, and evaluate reliability on that basis (e.g. is attalus.org a reliable source?). We already have the bibliographic data for Arrian, since the Gutenberg transcription gives all the necessary details. For Plutarch, this page links to a facsimile of the relevant biography (L099). This is a blog but the author is an academic organization. That leaves Justin; I'll see if I can find something online for that with the right details. Or if you happen to have a physical copy of Justin, you could cite that and use the link in the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And here is a link to an online copy of Watson's translation of Justin that has the requisite bibliographic data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I see what you mean. I've done the locations + publisher Mike Christie; better? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but why use the orig-date instead of the year? These editions were really published in those years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Because then the sfns would say "Arrian 1883" or whatever, which just feels wrong. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Jumping in here: in classical scholarship, it's completely unheard of to cite an ancient text by its date of publication (modern or ancient): you invariably use author-title-location (so "Arrian, Anabasis, 1.23") We had this problem with the FAC for Panagiotis Kavvadias, and the solution arrived at there was to use a secondary-source citation for the verification, followed by a primary-source citation for more information: so e.g. "Rosenzweig 2004, p. 56. For Pausanias's description of the route, see Pausanias, Description of Greece 1.27.3." We can of course simply use ref={{harvid|Arrian}} to use SFN without any date at all. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, that standard does make sense to me -- I can see why Arrian 1883 would look wrong to a classicist. I think we need a complete citation for the edition actually consulted, so a citation in the form you describe would work. Any solution that provides a full secondary source citation is fine; e.g. using the existing citation and changing the title to "Arrian: The Anabasis of Alexander" would seem OK, and would remove "Arrian" from the author field, meaning it would be Chinnock (1883). Or would you be OK with something like "Arrian. The Anabasis of Alexander. Translation: Chinnock, Edward James (1883). London: Hodder & Stoughton." with the citations going to "Arrian" with no date? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we including works under "Sources" which are not cited. Surely, if they are are mentioned outside the main article at all - and I see no reason why they should be - it should be under further reading or similar? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe we are, Gog the Mild? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. You are quite right, you don't. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No Harvard errors come up for me, and they're all in citation templates, so I think they're all used. A small observation, though: Lane Fox's FT article (note 22) is cited in full and not in the biblio, but everything else is SFN and bibliography. I know some style guides treat newspapers etc differently, but it reads a little odd when that puts a single citation out on a limb, especially when we have an author and date for it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I regret to say that I am one of those oddities; I prefer to have online/newspaper sources cited inline. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, starting again as the conversation above digressed a bit. If you just add the dates to the translation sources, but don't add them to the citations, I think that takes care of that issue. Other than that it's just the questions about the ISBNs above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I forgot about the ISBNs. I've added the dates. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, I've corrected the ISBNs for Lane Fox and Tarn, and added the reissue date for the latter. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 5 August 2023 [16].

Five pounds (British gold coin)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... another in the sovereign series of British gold coins, this one the largest, in fact one of the largest gold coins actually struck for circulation.Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

  • well-known portrayal of St George and the dragon - "well-known" is iffy...
All right.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the well-known portrayal of St George and the dragon by the Italian sculptor Benedetto Pistrucci, which has traditionally been used" --> to something like "sculptor Benedetto Pistrucci's portrayal of St George and the dragon by the Italian, which has traditionally been used
I did a variation on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The five guinea gold coin started out (in 1668) as a coin worth 100 shillings (5 pounds), and was sometimes called a five-pound coin. This was before the fluctuating value of the guinea settled at twenty-one shillings (in 1717) -- Why put the dates in parentheses?
I've eliminated the parens, which were in the article before I started work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accordingly, Richard Lobel, in his Coincraft's Standard Catalogue of English and UK Coins, there is some case that the five-pound piece issued after the Great Recoinage of 1816 is merely a continuation of the earlier coin, which was last struck in 1753. -- "According to", I assume
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Almost every speaker" -- I might link this for those who aren't familiar with British politics
Link what? What is meant is that every one who addressed the issue in debate favoured the denomination, not multiple speakers of the House of Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. ~ HAL333 16:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comma is needed after "A Guide to English Pattern Coins"
  • Lobel, in describing the 1820 five-pound piece, noted that on a copy of G.F. Crowther's 1887 book, A Guide to English Pattern Coins presented to an unknown person with the publisher's compliments, there is a pencil notation that work on the 1820 piece was completed a few days before George III's death, and after Pistrucci, walking home on the day the king died, heard church bells announcing the demise is a bit longwinded too.
  • sold in 2021 for US$1.44 million (£1.04 million Since this is a British coin, should the pound value be first? Ditto elsewhere.
I'm not certain. The dollar figure is the amount it actually sold for, the other a conversion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • put paid to the preparations seems a tad too idiomatic. How about "ended the preparations"?
  • Edward later requested a set of -- "later" is redundant
I don't think it is. This places it after his kingship.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • gold had vanished from circulation for over 20 years doesn't seem like it's worded right...
Why? Gold ceased to circulate much after the start of the First World War. It did not return, even Churchill's much-vaunted return to the gold standard in 1925 did not involve gold circulating as it had pre-1914.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording suggests that it vanishes from circulation every year after itnroduction. I understand the point of the sentence, but "for over 20 years" implies that it is continuously disappearing, rather than having just become absent over 20 years prior. ~ HAL333 16:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resulting wording would continue to be used on Elizabeth's coinage --> "The resulting wording continued to be used on Elizabeth's coinage"
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • well over face or bullion value --> "well over face and bullion value", right?
No, I think it's better as is. Face value is one thing, and of course by the 1980s a five-sovereign piece in gold is going to run you more than five pounds, the stress is on the fact that the collector's pieces cost more then their bullion value. I could delete "face or" but I'd rather keep it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • very year until and including 1998 -- Is there a more ergonomic way to put this? I like your later "Pieces up to 1984" etc. Ditto for the 2015 line.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might link Royal Arms
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Oxford comma is used in someplaces and not in others...
Can you point to the one providing the inconsistency? It is the style of this article not to use a comma after the penultimate.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow missed this. These are the unwanted uses of the Oxford comma:
  • among Royal Mint officials, prominent numismatists, and other important people
  • a bust of King George by Bertram Mackennal, Pistrucci's reverse, and a legend
  • in 2002 (by Timothy Noad, depicting a crowned shield within a wreath), in 2005 (a more modern interpretation of the George and dragon, also by Noad), and in 2012

That's all I got. Everything else looks good. ~ HAL333 02:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, I've either done as you asked or respond/questioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did the one remaining item from the original list, plus the thing about the gold vanishing from circulation. All done. Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Happy to support another numismatic article. ~ HAL333 21:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commas done now. Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments from CT55555

  1. I think, but I'm not sure, that "Saint George and the dragon" should capitalise Dragon
I've capped
  1. I think, but am also not sure, that Jubilee coinage could do with words around it to explain that the Jubilee coinage was. I assume coin collectors might know this term and other readers might not.
I've cut it for lead purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Also not sure, should the "S" be italic or in inverted commas for "mint mark S"? Same for "an encircled U"
Since these are symbols and not legends, it is the practice in numismatic articles not to italicise them.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I recommend a link to Royal Mint when first used (in lead), likewise for Shilling, Coinage Act,
That's done, but Coinage Act is just a reference to the Coinage Act 1816, which is linked
  1. Unlink second Saint George and the dragon, consider capitalising "dragon"
Capitalized. This article follows a standard practice of linking once in the lead section, then once for the same term in the body of the article.
  1. "the broken spear" implies the reader has been introduced to a broken spear. But I think they have not. So "a broken spear" would read better to me, or earlier introduce a broken spear.
I've introduced by mentioning it's on the coin.
  1. Should "Victoria five-pound coins" be "Queen Victoria five-pound coins"? (I don't know, just a suggestion). Same with all other monarchs, currently it assumes the reader know's Victoria's job title.
It's my thought that this is not a basic-level article and we can assume a certain level of knowledge. Besides, the infobox introduces Victoria as a past British monarch.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Need a full stop after "modern sovereign"
  2. Unlink "death of Elizabeth II" the second times it is used, I think.
See my comment above about linking once in the lead and then again in the body. It is also permissible to link a term once per section if desired (see MOS:DL but we don't go that far.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, lots of very minor comments, no major issues identified. I'm too new to this to offer a support/oppose. CT55555(talk) 15:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eeek, I've just seen that my "unlink the second use of..." themed comments contradict Hal333 above. Sorry. Feel free to disregard those comments. CT55555(talk) 15:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done or responded to at least. Thanks for your helpful comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

Never mind, I see this is already present on the coins themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know most people who are going to read this article know what "numismatic" means, but link it anyway for the rest of us who may encounter it and don't know what it is?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shows Benedetto Pistrucci's St George and the Dragon design" Perhaps give context for why this motive was used? The connection is probably known by most Brits, but not to the rest of us.
I added a sentence on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Una and the Lion are characters in Spenser's The Faerie Queene" Give year it was published? And though perhaps known to all Brits by surname, spell out Edmund Spenser for the rest of us?
First name added. Century works better than year, and I've added that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "removing BRITT OMN (of all the Britains)." Do we know why?
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a version resembling the original" Just resembling, or was the original image used?
It's described by the Royal Mint as Pistrucci's original so I've gone with that.
  • Link "Una and the lion" in the intro?
  • Bullion could probably be linked.
Both of those done. I think that's everything. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice, only thing left is that Benedetto Pistrucci is now linked twice, and I would think George and the dragon should also be linked at first mention instead of what is now second?
I think I've fixed that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

A few minor points, none of them affecting my support:

  • "the Italian sculptor Benedetto Pistrucci's portrayal of St George" – is Pistrucci's nationality relevant here?
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The examples struck in preparation for the coinage of Edward VIII are highly-prized" – I don't think you want the hyphen
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a copy of G.F. Crowther's 1887 book" – I think the MoS bids us put a space between people's initials, so that the author would be G. F. Crowther, rather than G.F. Crowther.
Spaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mintmarked" – the OED makes "mint mark" two words, but then rather sabotages itself by citing uses of "mint mark", "mint-mark" and "mintmark" – so I think any of the three will do fine.
I think "mint mark" is more common, but as a verb, "mintmarked", yea, though I battle my autocorrect that wants to make it two words.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed some debatable capitalisation or lack of it: I might ask why "empress of India" appears cheek by jowl with "Prime Minister" but as I have concluded that attempting to understand capitalisation of job titles is an infallible means of going mad I refrain from further consideration of the matter.

That's my lot. Make of these few inconsequential comments what you will: I am happy to support either way. – Tim riley talk 09:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I've done the specific ones and will continue to look over the capitalization.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. This is another top-notch coin article by our maestro, and be careful not to look too intensely at the capitalisation – we don't want to see you sticking straws in your hair. Tim riley talk 13:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • The first paragraph is 67 words long and comprises two sentences. Both are beautifully written and grammatically flawless, but there are both a bit on the long side and a little convoluted. I think the information could probably be done a bit more smoothly with shorter sentences and less linguistic acrobatics. I won't push the point because nothing is actually wrong with them, but it's worth a thought.
I split the lead sentence. There's a lot of connected material to get through in that first paragraph, I think I'll leave it at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Origins
  • The first paragraph swaps between numbers as figures and numbers as words(it goes five, 100, 5, five, twenty-one, five and two) –these should be made consistent where possible
Done--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there had been no issuance of coins more valuable than a guinea and intended for general circulation": I'm not sure what the "and" is doing there – it confuses rather than clarifies
It's to exclude the pattern two- and five-guineas coined in the 1760s and 1770s. But I suppose the "and" can be cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early issues
  • Worth linking or piping pattern coin – this is the first use since the lead
OK
  • "surrounded by a Garter": 1. Is the capital correct; 2. Maybe worth a slight tweak to have two links for "garter circlet"
Probably simpler to pipe to the Order of the Garter and let the reader make of it what they wish. As for the capitalisation, I believe it necessary to signal to the reader that this is not simply an item of clothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "heroic efforts": I'm not sure there was anything "heroic" about it – maybe reword a shade to make it less peacocky?
I've made it clear that this was the author's perspective and it is not in Wikipedia's voice.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria five-pound coins
  • You have "Queen [[Victoria of the United Kingdom|Victoria]]", when you could (and should) have "[[Queen Victoria]]"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the most famous and attractive": needs to be attributed – it's POV as it stands
Attributed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the reverse shows Queen Victoria": She can just be "Victoria" here
She can be she, actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'mintmarked "S",': Shouldn't' that be ' mint marked "S",'?
In my experience in numismatics, it is more commonly one word than two.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then the four uses of ‘mint mark’ should be made consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've avoided the matter by rephrasing. There is ample authority on both sides on this one and at least we're consistent. Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me – hope they help! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

  • "the Royal Mint struck five-pound coins with a reverse design by Noad showing an interpretation of the Royal Arms." Possibly a bit picky, but the source three times states that the sovereign coin has the arms on the reverse; could you point me to where the design on the reverse of the five pound coin is similarly specified? Thanks.
I thought the mentions in the tables below the text that Noad designed each denomination was sufficient, but to nail it down, I've added a second source that shows and discusses all five coins in the sovereign range.
  • Alt text: "Gold coin showing a knight battling a dragon". "A knight"? Really? How does one tell? Perhaps 'a naked man on horseback'?
You aren't the first to make that criticism but as the man is intended to be a knight and is wearing various bits and pieces of gear, perhaps we should go with the intent?
If several editors have commented, possibly there is a widespread view that "knight" is not appropriate. The first line of [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images[edit source]]] is "Alternative text (or alt text) is text associated with an image that serves the same purpose and conveys the same essential information as the image." I don't see how describing a purported intention is conveying the same information as conveying the same information as looking at the image. Even after being told that "the man is intended to be a knight and is wearing various bits and pieces of gear" I still don't see how he is a knight, and I probably know more about knights and their paraphernalia than the average reader. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant art critics, not editors. I'll change it. Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Alt text, image licencing and usage seem OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 August 2023 [17].

Australiformis

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third featured article nomination for parasitic worms, which were chosen as they are the first animals listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala...). This one appears to be missing critical sections (such as life cycle) but I believe I can claim close to comprehensiveness despite this due to the paucity of sources available. I've done my very best to gather all the information I could from google scholar articles (there is not much out there on these tiny parasitic worms). I had an excellent good article review by Chiswick Chap which reorganized and improved the article considerably. Thanks in advance! Mattximus (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding an image of the actual subject
  • Completely agree. I put in the request for image in the talk page quite some time ago but no bites yet. Any thoughts on how to get this?
  • Suggest adding a range map
  • OK I did my best to create and add a range map, I believe I have correctly attributed it in wikicommons. Please let me know if this was what you were looking for. Mattximus (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, added to both image and wikicommons file source
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Done
  • At the moment the image has a life+70 tag; if that can't be demonstrated, you'll need to swap that out for something else that represents its status in country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

  • Table is missing caption, row scopes, col scopes, row headers per MOS:DTAB
  • Fixed all three
  • Done

Heartfox (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

(Another drive-by comment) Per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, it goes to the lowest rank but no lower than genus. So, a monotypic family would get redirected down to the genus, but a monotypic genus has its species redirected upward to the genus. The only time that's overridden is when there's a common name for the animal - which is the case for platypus, but not for Australiformis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. Thanks for explaining. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

  • A quite technical article. I wonder what could be done to make it a bit more digestible for a general reader … In the lead, what about providing a general sentence to get an idea how acanthocephalans look like in general, before pointing out the diagnostic character of this genus? Furthermore, an image of the worm would certainly help, and if it is only a hand-drawn sketch …
  • Added "Their body consists of a proboscis armed with hooks which it uses to pierce and hold the gut wall of its host, and a long trunk.". I would love an image but I have been unable to locate one. I put a request for an image several months ago but no luck, all I can found is a copyrighted sketch from the original paper. Any ideas?
  • The trunk of the female worm range from – should it be plural ("trunks")?
  • Changed it to "worms" to correct the plural
  • may cause debilitating ulcerative granulomatous gastritis – placing three wiki-links directly next to each other is not ideal according to MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
  • Agree, but I don't know how to rephrase the sentence to make those three words (each of which is technical and requires a blue link) flow any better than right beside each other. Any thoughts?
  • I would solve it by explaining what this string of terms means (which would reduce technical language, too): Like "… ulcerative granulomatous gastritis, a form of gastritis (stomach inflammation) characterised by ulcers and granuloma ([add explanation])." This way, you don't necessarily need any links in the term, but can add the links to the explanation that follows. (Note that my example is probably incorrect; it is just to give you an idea of what I would propose). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an elegant solution. I've switch the wording in the lead to "...may cause debilitating inflammation of the intestines (gastritis) with granulomatous ulcers." and the second instance to your suggestion: "may cause debilitating ulcerative granulomatous gastritis, a form of gastritis (inflammation of the intestines) characterised by ulcers and granuloma (an aggregation of macrophages that forms in response to chronic inflammation)". Does that wording work? Mattximus (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the taxonomy section, I would compare with some other featured animal FAs regarding the structure. These sections usually start with who described the species, and the taxonomic history in chronological order. After reading this section, I still don't know who described the species to start with.
    I have this information laid out quite nicely in note b, should it be moved to the body of the text?
  • Done
  • The morphological traits of a simple, double-walled proboscis receptacle, eight cement glands each with a giant nucleus, a brain at the posterior end of proboscis receptacle, and dorsal and ventral lacunar canals place this genus confidently in the order Moniliformida. – This is too technical, and we can certainly be a bit better with explaining and wording. A bit of introduction on the general anatomy of this class of worms would be helpful. Furthermore, I find the wording a bit confusing; e.g. "A brain", does that mean they have more than one brain?
  • Fixed the brain issue, and defined one of the stranger terms with a definition in brackets, but the sentence needs to be a list as it all relates to the reasoning for the taxonomic placing. The overview of the anatomy is in the section below. Would you prefer description comes before taxonomy?
  • The host of marsupials is also unique to this genus. – I am not a native speaker of English, but "The host of marsupials" seems wrong: marsupials are the host of the worms, not the other way around. In other places in the article, I was confused about the grammar, too.
  • Reworded. Should be good now.
  • with the outer wall smooth lacking spirally arranged muscle fibers – is an "and" missing here?
  • Added an "and" and reworded it to sound a bit better " At the base of the proboscis is a double-walled proboscis receptacle with a smooth outer wall lacking spirally arranged muscle fibers and a large space between the walls"
  • Hmm I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this. I do not thing there should be any additional punctuation, unless you want me to make it two sentences?
  • The trunk is long and is very thin at the anterior end becoming thickest at the posterior end. – again, grammar.
  • Removed the second "is", does that fix it?
I think that the "becoming thickest …" is not well-connected to the previous part of the sentence. Maybe something like this instead: "The trunk is long, very thin at the anterior end, and thickest at the posterior end." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While in this case I think the original wording is better, I will use your wording here.
  • The trunk of the female worm range from 95 millimetres to 197 millimetres – Information in the lead not repeated in the body text.
  • Is this a requirement? I pulled this from the table in the description section as being the only measurement that doesn't cross over into trivial.
  • Is the presence in the table below not considered main text? I can repeat the information from the table in a body text but that defeats the purpose of having a table to reduce clutter of numbers.
  • Wouldn't it be better (and more consistent with other articles) to start the description with something general, and the size?
  • Began with "The worm consists of a proboscis covered in hooks, a proboscis receptacle, and a long trunk.", size is in table on the right, should I repeat some of the highlights here?
  • I will add overall size here as well.
  • The second membrane is very thin and the third membrane is thick. – That the third is thick was already mentioned.
  • I believe the first and third membrane are both thick, so this would not be repetitious if this is what the source intended.
  • The last paragraph of the description feels like a rather random assortment of facts without apparent structure.
  • I added the concept of sexual dimorphism to the beginning of this paragraph to indicate that this paragraph will be about difference in anatomy of the sexes. Does that work?
  • To conclude, I think this article still needs some significant work, especially concerning language, structure, and comprehensibility. But it is a short one, so this should all be doable. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still have concerns about the structure of the "Description" section. Other than these, I am happy with the changes!
  • There is pronounced sexual dimorphism in this species; the females are around twice as long as the males. – I think this should be moved to directly after the second sentence of the "description" section, where the actual lengths are provided.
  • It seems a bit odd to add that statement after listing the size differences, becoming redundant is it not? I rearranged the first two sentences to read as follows: "A. semoni consists of a proboscis covered in hooks, a proboscis receptacle, and a long trunk. There is pronounced sexual dimorphism in this species; the females are around twice as long as the males (up to approximately 20 cm in females and 8 cm in males)." Was this what you were looking for?
  • The outer membrane is often indented and the posterior end which is usually covered in small dots on the outer surface with a knob on the inner surface. – I can't follow the grammar here, there seems to be some verb missing.
  • Fixed! Thanks for the catch, I missed this earlier.
  • Males also have eight oval cement glands – Why "also"? This is confusing. You were previously talking about eggs, and this is now the first information about males. "Also" implies that the previous sentence was about something that males have, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Thebiguglyalien

General:

  • I suggest doing a comma check. I didn't look closely, but it seems like several sentences would benefit from a comma.
  • Added two commas, looking for more.
  • The article is inconsistent between Australiformis and A. semoni. Even though in practice they're the same thing, one should be used consistently when referring to the subject of the article.
  • Fixed this throughout the article

Lead:

  • "Their body consists of" should be "Its body consists of".
  • Done
  • Proboscis is linked twice in the lead but then not again until its fourth appearance in the body.
  • It is now linked once in the lead and once in the first appearance in the body.
  • "The proboscis is armed" – is "armed" the right word? This is in both the lead and the body.
  • It actually is, it's the word used in the literature.
  • "The trunk of the female worms range" – singular/plural between "the trunk" and "range". This sentence also runs on with two "and"s but no commas.
  • Fixed by splitting into two sentences and fixing plural. Second sentence now mentions that there is pronounced sexual dimorphism in lengths.
  • "Infestation by Australiformis may cause debilitating ulcerative granulomatous gastritis" – To whom? It's obvious from the body that it's marsupials, but the lead has less context, and "infection" without context is usually assumed to be infection of humans.
  • Done

Taxonomy:

  • "The morphological traits of a simple, double-walled proboscis receptacle, eight cement glands each with a giant nucleus, a brain at the posterior end of proboscis receptacle, and dorsal and ventral lacunar canals place this genus confidently in the order Moniliformida." – This is a lot to take in. The way I would do this would be starting with info about its classification and then either simplify the reasoning or spread it out over a few sentences. But I'm not a biologist.
  • I agree this is a lot. I changed it a bit, and added a definition for cement glands, but it is still a mouthful. The logic is that it's a list used to define it's taxonomy, so it technically works as one sentence. I can try to break it up if you think this needs to be done.
  • Regarding the previous point, has no genetic testing been done because its classification is so obvious? The article is unclear about this.
  • Not at all, genetic testing is rarely done on these creatures. In fact I don't trust the classification at all without it, but that is original content and I just follow the sources.
  • "The host of marsupials is also unique to this genus" – this seems like a strange way to phrase this.
  • Fixed
  • "The genus is monotypic, the only species, Australiformis semoni (von Linstow, 1898), being necessarily the type species" – This sentence is too choppy.
  • I had worded it differently, however a previous reviewer suggested this new wording.
  • I was going to say that note b should just be prose, but I see that's mentioned above.
  • Done

Description:

  • "The worm consists of a proboscis covered in hooks" – Since this is the start of a new section, "Australiformis" might be preferred over "the worm".
  • Done
  • "The first three or four hooks" – Does it vary? If so, "three to four" might be better, because "three or four" suggests low confidence. If it's more complicated than that, then a general statement like this shouldn't be made.
  • No more detail than was is posted is available, but made the change as you suggested.
  • The article gets a bit bogged down by listing a bunch of lengths all in a row.
  • Agree, I created the table on the right to summarize almost all of the lengths, but left in the hook lengths in paragraph form as another table would be too many tables, I'm absolutely open to suggestions for alternatives.
  • "At the base of the proboscis is a double-walled proboscis receptacle with a smooth outer wall lacking spirally arranged muscle fibers and a large space between the walls." – First. this runs on a bit. It doesn't help that "proboscis" appears twice and "wall" appears three times. Second, what does "lacking spirally arranged muscle fibers" mean? And third, it's unclear whether "lacking" also applies to the large space between the walls.
  • I see what you mean, I could not find better wording but I added some commas to make the subclause clearly apply to the first case on not the second (space between the walls), resolving one of your concerns.
  • Would it be clear to someone with a novice understanding of worm anatomy why body parts are "piercing" each other? Because that sounds incredibly painful.
  • I see what you mean, but this is actually the correct scientific term use in the source
  • "Long and very thin" is imprecise. It should be a measurement, or it should be compared to something.
  • Added measurements of length early in body of text. And "a few mm thick" to width where you noted. Specific measurements in table.
  • The second paragraph of this section don't flow. It reads like a list of miscellaneous facts put into prose.
  • They all relate to the morphology of the trunk.
  • "The outer membrane is thick with the exception of the anterior end where it is thin and often indented and the posterior end which is usually covered in small dots on the outer surface with a knob on the inner surface." This runs on, and it's unclear what a knob is in this context.
  • Split sentence into two shorter sentences. And knob is the only word used to describe this feature in the original text. Admittedly a strange choice of words.

Distribution:

  • Good.

Hosts:

  • The first sentence of this section is quite long. Maybe split it so there's one sentence about the host species and another about the infection method.
  • Good suggestion, added a bit more detail on infection method.
  • Done
  • What's the context for the accidental host? Was it an unlikely event that's incredible because it happened as a fluke? Or is this a normal thing for this sort of worm?
  • Accidental hosts seem to be a common thing among parasitic worms, I think they were just found there and was not part of the reproductive cycle. I've worked on several worm pages and they all have them, though I am no worm expert.
  • I question the need of a gallery, but I'll defer to the nominator's preference and the image reviewer's judgement.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi everyone, I will be getting to all these recommendations next week once my vacation starts. They are excellent recommendations and I will try to implement all of them. Mattximus (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with each section except for "description", which is still bogged down and difficult to read. There's not enough room for a table of hook lengths, but I'm sure a more concise description could be workshopped. You might try condensing it down to something like "the first hook of each row is 40 and 56 μm long, the second is 50 to 60 μm, the third is 42 to 50 μm, and the fourth is 42 to 54 μm." This paragraph is also unclear whether the hooks or the spines are being measured, which should be fixed. The second paragraph of this section could also use some reworking. Right now, there's virtually no flow between most of the sentences. The most obvious case is "No pseudosegmentation is present." as its own sentence, even though it feels like something else is the subject here. If the information is available, then how these parts of the trunk connect and relate to each other would also make this much clearer, but if not, then this can be ignored. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to reword (maybe the last reviewer has a suggestion), but sadly the condensed version is no longer correct (as it is not 40 and 56um, but between those numbers). The hooks and spines is explained in the sentence before quite clearly, not sure if I should repeat twice in two sentences.I did fix the pseudosegmentation to make it part of the first related sentence. The last comment you made unfortunately is out of our control as I've scanned all literature on the subject and what is present here is what is available to cite. Thanks for the comment! Mattximus (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, that was supposed to be "40 to 56 μm" like I wrote with the others. And the prose does specify which hooks are spines, but it's better to use consistent terminology if possible. Would it still be accurate to say "and the remaining hooks" instead of "and the remaining spines"? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh got it, yes I can make that change as you suggested. And we cannot say remaining hooks because the remaining ones are called spines (they don't have a curved end), only the first ones are actual hooks. This is mentioned in the previous sentence. Thanks for your prompt reply! Mattximus (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

Five weeks in and there is a wall of comments but with no declarations of support or opposition it feels more like a PR than a FAC. There still seems a way to go to achieve any consensus to promote; unless discussion moves sharply in that direction over the next two or three days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, unfortunately much of the blame is on me for being away for a few weeks in the middle of this nomination. Over the past few days I have been working on resolving all comments, I believe I've resolved most (but not all). I will try to complete remaining comments over the next few days. Mattximus (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. We will try to stretch things a little. Don't forget to ping each reviewer once you have addressed all of their comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, I should have it all completed by Tuesday. Mattximus (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A further two weeks in and still little sign of a consensus to promote forming. I note unaddressed reviewer comments six days old. Pinging some of the reviewers to date. @Jens Lallensack, FunkMonk, Dudley Miles, and Peter coxhead: Do any of you see yourselves supporting promotion for this article in the near future? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When all my issues are addressed, I'll support. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look, and except for one of my points I needed to follow up on, it looks good. If those minor comments I just added are addressed too, I can support. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus, would it be possible to get Funk and Jens' comments addressed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also will support once my queries are dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it as quickly as possible, I've addressed most, but still working on the remaining comments. Mattximus (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've addressed every single comment on here with a fix or a question. Thanks everyone for the excellent reviews! Please let me know if I missed anything or what I can do next in response to my questions. Mattximus (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, a few of my points don't have answers, yet, so it's hard for me to see if they have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're missing a source review, or did I miss it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

Thank you to all the reviewers and your patience! I've completed or asked a question about all comments from Nikkimaria, Nikkimaria, Heartfox, Jens Lallensack, Thebiguglyalien. Please let me know if you have any more concerns or followups to my questions. To FunkMonk it is ready for your review. Thank you! Mattximus (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll try to get to it today. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Australia is WP:duplinked, but I wonder whether it needs a wikilink at all, as this seems to be discouraged.
  • Fixed, removed first link. Only place it's linked is in the distribution paragraph which makes sense to me.
  • The distribution map should be moved into the taxobox, like in for example tiger.
  • Done
  • Make sure that all synonyms are also redirects, which doesn't seem to be the case yet.
  • Done
  • Link morphological, Moniliformis, Moniliformis, Acanthocephala, Promoniliformis, sexual dimorphism, and other such terms at first mention outside the intro,.
  • Done, I think.
  • The single species should also be listed in the taxobox. See for example dodo.
  • Good idea, however I cannot use that format with the autotaxobox, any ideas how to get around this?
Probably something with the automatic taxobox, pinging Peter coxhead and Jts1882 in case they know. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did my edit do what you wanted? —  Jts1882 | talk  19:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's there, but at for example dodo, it seems each part of the binomial and their authorities have a parameter, and the name is centred, whereas here it's left aligned and with no authority? Is it just a matter of adding in the same parameters, or does something have to be done with the hierarchy too? FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any common names?
  • None reported in the literature
  • "The genus Australiformis Schmidt and Edmonds, 1989 was created for Moniliformis semoni as this species differed from other species in Moniliformis and the other genera of the family Moniliformidae" Unclear from this whether you mean the species was originally assigned to another genus, clarify in-text.
I see this is explained further down, but it's currently confusing, which speaks for arranging the text under taxonomy chronologically, it seems rather random now.
  • "The history of the genus of A. semoni is complex" The latter "of" is unnecessary.
  • Done. Reworded to say "taxonomic history" to make it read better as well.
  • I think it would better to spell out the taxonomic history first in the taxonomy section, and only after that the very heavy morphological diagnosis which is a bit hard to begin an article with, and as this also makes better chronological sense.
Meaning that this part should be moved to last in the taxonomy section: "The morphological traits of a simple, double-walled proboscis receptacle, eight cement glands (which are used to temporarily close the posterior end of the female after copulation) each with a giant nucleus, the brain at the posterior end of proboscis receptacle, and dorsal and ventral lacunar canals place this genus confidently in the order Moniliformida. No genetic testing has been conducted on this species to confirm this classification."
  • "The parasitizing marsupials is also" Missing "of" to make this clearer.
  • Done
  • Any images in the old public domain sources that could be used?
  • None whatsoever. The only image I found was a hand drawn sketch that was under copyright. I would love an image here but I have no idea where to find one, or if one even exists.
Have you been able to find any of the 19th century sources? FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. Unfortunately. I've tried all synonyms as well.
  • State authors and date of the cladogram in-text.
  • Done
  • Why does the cladogram have two citations? If it's a combination of information from different sources, it's verging on WP:original synthesis.
  • Each of the two independent references has the same tree, but each are missing one genus. I see what you mean with original synthesis, but in this case it's pretty cut and dry as they are additive and not interpretive at all. Is this ok? Mattximus (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the footnote is necessary, most taxon articles should have such a footnote then.
  • I see what you mean which is why I relegated it to a footnote, but when I first started working on wikiepdia pages for species I was very confused about this, and would have appreciated the footnote. I think for others like me, there is no harm in this explanatory footnote. But I agree it should not be in main text. Mattximus (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This taxon should be bolded in the cladogram instead of being a selflink.
  • Done
  • Why does it have a question mark in the cladogram? I think this needs prose elaboration, on what grounds the cladogram is constructed, what its closest relatives are, why its placement is uncertain, etc. Are there conflicting trees and so on.
  • Explained question mark and why the placement is uncertain, explained the two genes used in the cladogram construction, there are no conflicting trees (the two trees used here are in 100% agreement, so hopefully this means no synthesis). Closest relative can already be seen from the cladogram no? Mattximus (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Juvenile worms were found in the accidental host brown antechinus (Antechinus stuartii)." What was accidental about it, it's a marsupial too?
  • I had a definition here originally but another reviewer asked me to delete the definition and instead link to accidental host where it is explained. I added back the definition.
  • The links in the measurement table are unnecessary (the terms are already linked in the adjacent prose), and there are a lot of duplinks in it anyway.
  • Done
  • Measurements should have conversion (to US units) templates.
  • It seems strange that it is normal for scientific articles to convert to US units, would it be ok to do this only in the lead instead of the hundred other instances of measurements?
Personally I do it for all measurements. There is something about this at WP:Units. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your review is absolutely incredibly thorough and full of excellent suggestions, and I agree with every single comment you made, but this one is quite challenging. Is it possible to leave this article in SI units, nobody working with these creatures use anything but. Mattximus (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a good deal of technical terms mainly under description that could use some in-text explanation (could be in parenthesis).
  • Added additional explanation in parentheses.
  • How does it enter its host?
  • There is nothing known for this species on how it enters, but for acanthocephala in general it's usually through eating an infested intermediary host. I can safely add the word "eaten" as the entry for this parasite, but cannot give any more details as they do not exist in the literature. Will add "eaten". Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: here is the life cycle of a relate species I can assume is pretty similar to the species in question, but that's just an assumption. Anything I can do with this?
There is no source that gives a general overview of the wider group that could be used for information that is common to them all? FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an excellent book which has a chapter on general reproduction. I can add this soon. Mattximus (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK FunkMonk, I found a good book chapter describing the life cycle including the order to which the species involves and it does indeed have some aspects that are universal. I've summarized it as the first paragraph of the "hosts" section in the article. Was this what you were looking for? Mattximus (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: if this paragraph is considered good, I can add it to my other two featured articles on closely related species Gigantorhynchus and Apororhynchus.
  • "not attached distally to body wall" Missing "the" before body wall?
  • Done
  • "There is pronounced sexual dimorphism in this species; the females are around twice as long as the males." And what are the measurements for each? I see them in the table but overall length is significant enough to be mentioned in the article body.
  • Done
  • I'd expect the text about size dimorphism being at the beginning of the description section with the rest of the measurements, where you already mention the dimorphism in proboscis length.
  • Done
  • "each with single giant nucleus" Missing "a".
  • Done
  • Nothing more on Google Scholar, JSTOR, etc.?
  • No, nothing I can find.
  • "(thorny-headed or spiny-headed parasitic worms)" Give this explanation in the article body as well.
  • Good suggestion, added to opening sentence of taxonomy.
  • You could show an image of a relative (next to the cladogram perhaps) to give the reader some idea of what it may look like.
Moniliformis saudi
The image is a bit close to see the overall shape, how about this?[18] FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution makes it quite hard to see, but the other image you suggested I add on the lifecycle has a drawing that is more clear of this exact species, would that work? Until a real photograph is made of course. Mattximus (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, FunkMonk: I made the changes a while ago but forgot to note them here, I think I've got everything completed now or at least responded to?
  • The new text looks good, and pretty much what I think I and Dudley Miles below requested. There is an issue wit the following sentence, though: "stages beginning when an infective acanthor (development of an egg) that is released from the intestines of the definitive host and then ingested by an arthropod, the intermediate host." I think the "that" is a mistake? FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now think it would make sense to use the life cycle image you showed above in that section, and to copy this text to the articles about related taxa this may also apply to.

Comments by Dudley

  • The lead (and the description) should give the overall length of the worm, and of the trunk of the males.
  • Added the trunk length/width to males, however the overall length of the worm is virtually the same as the trunk length as the proboscis is only a fraction a millimeter long, so it would round to the same length. Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding it hard to explain this, as the proboscis kinda goes in an out of the tip of the trunk so has no fixed length, and even when fully extended only represents a rounding error for length. Mattximus (talk)
  • "The parasitizing marsupials is also a unique trait of this genus among Acanthocephala." "The parasitizing marsupials is"? This is ungrammatical.
  • Done
  • Why is there a question mark against Australiformis semoni in the diagram?
  • All other species on this cladogram have been determined using phylogenetic analysis, the Australiformis semoni position is merely inferred based on morphology, so it's position is questionable. Is there a good place to explain this? As an attempt I added an explanatory sentence in the caption.
  • That works, added your wording.
  • "The proboscis is long and swollen at the anterior end and tapers rapidly to a narrow base" I do not understand this. The female has a truck up to 20 cm long and a proboscis 0.8 by 0.32 mm, so what does it mean to say that the anterior end is long? It also seems odd to describe 50 μm hooks as large.
  • This is a short article and the information on infestation is limited. You say that they use hooks to attach to the intestine, but how do they enter the host? They seem very large to enter as adults, and if as eggs you should say so and how they survive until adulthood? Is there any more information on the effect on the hosts? Is infestation commonly fatal and is it known what proportion of the hosts are infected. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I'm worried about making too many inferences as there is no published information on the life cycle in existence (as far as I can tell). I posted an image of the lifecycle above of a related species, so I can assume it's very similar, but it would just be an assumption. The safest thing to say is the word "eaten" is how it gets in, but even then I'm weary. I've added "eaten" as two reviewers recommended it. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a book chapter that describes the life cycle of the order which Australiformis belongs and I summarized it in the first chapter of the "hosts" section. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific authorities

  • I've corrected the genus and species authorities in the taxobox; the genus authority was showing for the species and the species lacked an authority.
  • I've also corrected the authorities for the synonyms in the taxobox; under the ICZN, only the original namer is shown, in parentheses for transfers. A reference needs to be added for the synonyms; I used AFD to check them.
  • There's inconsistency in the taxobox and in sources between using just "Linstow" and "von Linstow" in the authorities. Choose one for consistency and then use an appropriate source.

Peter coxhead (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

Source review

Since it seems that a source review is still needed, here it is:

  • The genus Australiformis is named after Australia, the locality of the species. – I don't see where this statement is supported in any of the sources that follow after the sentence. You might think it is a "the earth is round" kind of statement that does not require a source to start with, but I am skeptical nonetheless. For example, the dinosaur Australovenator, also found in Australia, was not named after that country; instead the name derives from latin "australis" – "southern". That's why I like to see the source here.
  • This is a very interesting case. When the etymology is obvious, it's almost always implied when it comes to acanthocephalan literature. I've done a few of these pages and only the names that are not obviously derived are cited. This means that there does not exist any reference stating it explicitly, it's just assumed. I'm very confident that no source exists stating it's named after Australia, as it's implicit. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think we should remove this sentence, because it is not covered by a source, and because it is equally possible that it does not refer to Australia but to the Southern Hemisphere in general. But we could wait to see what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if there is no source it shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article, much less an FA. I am surprised that this has not been picked up previously. I would assume that the name comes from southern, as in Australopithecus etc, but we should not be ORing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this is problematic. The book I usually look at for specific bird names only states it means southern[19], and while we can assume it refers to the continent, this can't be stated when it's ambiguous. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 1 should not be in title case (i.e., use normal non-capitalised words as you did for the other sources; "n. Gen., n. Comb." and "Marsupials" should not be capitalised).
  • Done
  • Sometimes, full author names are provided, sometimes the first name is abbreviated. This should be consistent.
  • Is this always the case? Some authors go by their first initial and then second name spelled out and then last name. Some always go as abbreviations in their publications and some use their full name. In each case I reported the format in the literature. It would be OR to look up a name they chose not to put as the author would it not? In my own field you would never use V. S. Ramachandran's full name, or abbreviate Robert Sapolsky. Mattximus (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's usually not the choice of the authors, it's the choice of the journal they are publishing in; each has it's own style. Same for references; when you publish in a journal, the journal decides if the names in the references are to be abbreviated or not. In my own FACs, I was always required to keep this consistent, so I assume this rule is somewhere in the WP:MOS. As I do a source review, I am required to check the article for compliance with the WP:MOS, even if I personally don't really care about this issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The easiest fix would be to simply abbreviate all the names, this is what I usually do, since it is not always possible to find the full name of every author. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • The first description of Linstow mentiones a figure plate; if the species is illustrated there, that figure could be included into this article because it would probably be in the public domain already.
  • , brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa). – not a source comment, but this should include an "and" to conclude the ennumeration, right?
  • Done, good catch!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/August_2023&oldid=1170118659"