Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2018

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2018 [1].

---

William Matthews (priest)

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 18:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the first Catholic priest who was born in British America. He went on to play a pivotal role in the establishment of Catholicism in Washington, D.C., as he created several schools and orphanages, founded several churches, was a well-known pastor of the largest church in the capital, was a president of Georgetown University, and became the vicar general of Philadelphia. I created this article and have worked to promote it to GA status. It now contains (in my humble opinion) mostly everything about the subject that is both known from history and encyclopedic in nature. The article failed the previous FA nomination due to the unknown copyright status of the infobox image, which I have now determined. Ergo Sum 18:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Citations

Some of the citations are missing publisher locations, which you might want to consider adding. The citation style is also a mix of short form and full citations, and you might want to consider standardizing this.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I'll go through and try to find locations for the books, although I didn't think there were many for which the publisher locations were known. As for the long-from and short-form citations, I based those off of Barack Obama, which uses both. The short-form citations refer to the full citations found under Sources. I thought this was an acceptable practice. Ergo Sum 16:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I'm new to FAC - the criteria as I read it strongly implies the article should use either short form or long form, but I'd appreciate input from a more experienced reviewer. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay. In the meantime, I've added the locations of publication to all of the books and all of the other media for which I could find locations. Ergo Sum 02:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify, yes the short form citations refer to the long form in the Sources section, but there is a mix of templates and freehand shortform in the "Citations" section. My understanding is that this would have to be standardized. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at Barack Obama and Guy Fawkes Night, two FAs, as well as others, it seems the intermixing of the two styles is permitted. In fact, some FAs use {{Harvnb}}, which is specifically designed for that. I can implement that template for all the short-form citations. Ergo Sum 18:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm really confused- is this the right version of the article [2]? It looks like those references were added later. I think I've seen articles lose their FA status over this? I'll let you know if I come across the FAR I'm thinking of...Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Are you talking about something like this, where all long-form citations are segregated in one section while all short-form citations are segregated in another? If so, I didn't realize that was required, but I can do that. The only thing I'm unsure of is where news, web, and journal citations would go, in the full ref or shortened ref sections, and how they should be styled if they have short-form counterparts like books. Ergo Sum 19:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I've checked a number of other FAs, where the same intermingling of short refs and full-form ones is used. If you do find anything proscribing that, I'm genuinely curious to know. Also, I've updated all of the shortened refs to use {{harvnb}}, so that the short refs will link to the full-form ones. Besides that, I'd welcome any other comments you have. Ergo Sum 14:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Sorry but after remaining open almost a month it appears this review is a bit of a non-starter so I'm going to archive it -- given the lack of commentary I'm willing to waive the usual two-week waiting period if you want to renominate, but I'd suggest trying Peer Review first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2018 [3].

---

Hong Kong

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Second attempt, let's gooooo. This article is about the city of good food, neon signs, and urban concrete forests. I've done a further expansion on this article, using (hopefully) better references this time. Here's to getting this in before Establishment Day. -- Horserice (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Brief comment Last para of #Etymology, first para of #Regional and administrative divisions, second para of #Architecture, and first para of #Rail have last sentence with no reference. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Added references. Horserice (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Now only last para of #Education which has last sentence with no reference. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Got it. Added more references. Let me know if you keep catching anymore. Horserice (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Almost all of images outside the infobox, except File:Kowloon Panorama by Ryan Cheng 2010.jpg, lack an alt text. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

General source formatting:

• You have several sources that are apparently uncited in the text, and so are producing harv reference errors. Print sources: Bromma (2008); Gaylord, Gittings, and Traver (2009); Lee, Chan, Pan, and So (2002); Rioni (2002); Stone (2008). Academic publications: Poon and Chau (2001); Sinn (1987).

• Removed these except Gaylord, Gittings, and Traver (2009) and Poon & Chau (2001). Ended up using them again. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• ISBNs should ideally be presented as properly hyphenated ISBN-13s.

• I'll make a pass at this later. If you can find some lingering examples, let me know. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Book-format works with no ISBN assigned should ideally have an OCLC number. Mostly, that applies to works before the introduction of the ISBN system, such as Davis (1841). But you might want to consider providing an OCLC number for Empson (1992), either in place of or in addition to the Amazon-specific ASIN.

• Added OCLC. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Publication locations are optional, but are all-or-nothing. You include them for (eyeballing) around half the sources, so you'll need to adjust things one way or the other.

• When running through all of the sources for the first time, I thought it'd be useful to include as much information as possible. Better to err on having too much rather than too little? Anyways, removed these. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• The MOS traditionally gives some flexibility about whether article (and chapter) titles are given in sentence case or title case, but you mix them. Personally, I prefer sentence case for article titles, but what really matters is being consistent one way or the other.

• Hmm, is it not better to stick to how articles style the titles? Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• For journal publications, the MOS generally suggests that publishers are unnecessary (in most cases); regardless, you provide them here for most, but not all, journals and should opt for a more consistent citation approach.

• Same with publication locations, took these out. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Specific sources:

• I'm not entirely sure where the demarcation lies between normal "print" sources and "institutional reports". Is The Basic Law and Hong Kong - The 15th Anniversary of Reunification with the Motherland the former and not the latter? If you're going to treat this as a print source, it needs a publisher (and probably an OCLC).

• I generally divided them into:

print - sources with an ISBN or otherwise had paper copies made

reports - published reports or summarizing pamphlets commissioned by the government/supranational orgs or data sources from an otherwise authoritative source (Akamai or HSBC would be examples)

Also added an OCLC for that source. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• The Empson source needs a publisher. I'm not 100% certain which version you consulted, as there are a couple, but I believe the publisher to be the Information Services Department.

• Added bibliographic info. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Chan (1994) is a doctoral thesis. While there's a certain measure of acceptance for doctoral theses, especially from prestigious institutions, is it possible to reference this material to something that has at least undergone peer review? Without digging into the text, I'm not sure if it can support the same claims, but I'll note the thesis author co-authored a published journal article on the same concept the following year: Chan, Tak Wing; Lui, Tai Lok; Wong, Thomas W. P. (1995). "A comparative analysis of social mobility in Hong Kong". European Sociological Review. 11 (2): 135–155. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a036353.

• Will try to find Found an alternative source for this. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Likewise, Horrocks (1994) is also a doctoral thesis. I don't see any immediate evidence that it was ever subsequently published in an academic journal. By its own abstract, he reaches different conclusions about the event than the prevailing scholarship, and since the thesis does not appear to be widely cited, it is possible that this work does not represent mainstream view on the topic. Perhaps different sourcing would be more appropriate here?

• Same as above, but may just rephrase and remove that bit. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Omitted this bit. Horserice (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Lupant (1999) is missing some bibliographic information. In particular, the linked pdf is a scan from the Proceedings of the International Congress of Vexillology 18, and should probably be cited as such.

• Added bibliographic info. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

§Legislation and court judgements:

• First, consider whether this should be judgment rather than judgement. In American English, the "no e" version is the only acceptable one; in British English, the situation is more complicated, but the "no e" version is at least as acceptable. I have no idea what the status of the word is in Hong Kong English.

• My bad, that might have just been a typo on my part. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Second, this section is formatted as if it represented notes, rather than references. If it were actually serving as notes (for example, to provide the specific legislation mentioned in passing in the text) then this section should appear in a separate section before §References, per the MOS. However, not all of these notes are being used qua notes; rather, quite a few (most?) of them are the sole reference for statements in the article. And that's potentially problematic. Now, primary sources aren't forbidden as references, but should be used with caution and are generally discouraged when secondary sources exist. In my mind, that goes double for laws and legal claims; if the interpretation of legislation were straightforward, the legal profession could be quite a bit smaller, I would think. Especially in §Legal system and judiciary, I find the direct use of the law somewhat problematic. You have claims such as "Chinese national law does not generally apply in the region..." sourced directly to the Basic Law. And, indeed, at least based on the link provided, I'm not sure that point is particularly clear there. Surely there is a secondary source available which discusses this situation (and the others so cited)?

• I did three things for this: 1) I redid legislation/case citations like normal references. 2) Basic Law/Joint Declaration citations now point to the specific articles I used. 3) I added secondary sources to replace some of the primary source citations. Direct legal references now are only used when what is expressed in the article is written basically verbatim in that piece of law. Example: "Public finances are handled independently of the national government and taxes levied in Hong Kong do not fund the central authority." references Article 3(8) of the Joint Declaration, which says "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will have independent finances. The Central People’s Government will not levy taxes on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." Horserice (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

External links are generally fine. I'm not sure whether the Curlie link is particularly necessary, but I have no fundamental objection. No examination of prose whatsoever. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Squeamish Ossifrage: I think I was able to adequately address your comments. Feel free to take a look again! Horserice (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Horserice: What establishment day? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: July 1st is when the handover occurred and the HKSAR was established. I meant that I wanted to get a review started before then and I did. Horserice (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Horserice: Ha! LOL @ me  :) i though you meant "gettig it in" as...as TFA by Handover Day! I thougt I was going mad, seeing the date was 1 July! Good luck with the review though! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: LOL that’d be cool, but also totally not gonna happen. Kind of aiming for August 29, when the Treaty of Nanking was signed. But we’ll see how this review goes. Feel free to read through some of the article too ;) Horserice (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Partial comments from Nick-D

I don't think I'll read through this large article again, but would like to offer the following comments:

• "The Ngong Ping Cable Car, West Kowloon Cultural District, multiple new railway lines, and additional cross-harbour tunnels were all completed in the first 20 years of territorial self-governance. Direct infrastructure links with mainland China are also being actively developed, with both the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge and Hong Kong section of the national high-speed railway currently under construction. Construction of the rail link generated a high level of controversy surrounding the demolition of key landmarks and displacement of residents along the planned route" - the reference given for all this material (a single newspaper story from 2015) does not support all this content. It obviously cannot reference projects currently under development, and doesn't cover the cross harbour tunnels or cable car. The article is also an op-ed, and so unlikely to be a reliable source.
• "Political debates have centred themselves predominantly on issues surrounding electoral reform and Hong Kong's jurisdictional independence from the central government. Following the handover, democratic reform of the Legislative Council was immediately terminated and the government attempted to legislate sweeping national security legislation pursuant to Article 23 of the Basic Law. Coupled with years of economic hardships and discontent of Chief Executive Tung's pro-Beijing stance, over 500,000 people demonstrated against the government, which eventually led to Tung's resignation in 2005." - also not fully supported by the newspaper reference Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Nick-D: No worries, thanks for taking a look at any of it again. I added sources to where you pointed out. Horserice (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

• Got it. Changed captions around. Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• March_of_the_Volunteers_instrumental.ogg needs information on first publication of the melody per the first tag

• Removed. Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:Hong_Kong_in_Chinese_2.svg is not copyrightable

• Removed copyright notice from file. Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• You do need some kind of tag though, such as {{PD-ineligible}}

• Added. Horserice (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:City_of_Victoria,_Hong_Kong.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?

• Replaced with File:THE PRAYA, HONG-KONG.jpg. Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• This one needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Added. Horserice (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• When/where was the image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Added a bit more source info to the image. First published in the UK in 1873, when the copyright period under the Copyright Act 1842 lasted for author lifetime plus 7 years or 42 years from first publication, so image is PD. Horserice (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:Battle_of_HK_01.jpg: is this image credited in the original publication?

• Can't find original publication, replaced with File:CenotaphHK.jpg. Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:PRC_Shenzhen_Luohu_entry_and_exit_stamps.png: under US law, scanning a 2D work does not result in a new copyright. Same with File:Hong_Kong_entry_passport_flag.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Removed these images. Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the IR, addressed your comments. I think we should be good on this front? Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from MarshalN20

I am primarily concerned about the article's readability. It is too long, from my point of view. Wikipedia:Summary style guidelines could be applied to various sections, including the:

• History
• Government
• Geography
• Demographics
• Infrastructure
• Transport
• Culture

• I can work on cutting some of these down. I'd appreciate if you could point me to some articles you think are a good length. Reading other featured country articles (Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia), it isn't really obvious to me how long this article should be. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Why is infrastructure a separate section? Would it not fit better within the economics or transport section?

• Sure, I merged it with transport to form a single infrastructure section. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

2. Why is media separate from the culture?

• Since Hong Kong belongs to both WikiProject Cities and Countries, I drew from both of the guidelines (cities, countries) and added the Media section strictly to detail "local newspapers, TV, and radio stations". Felt more appropriate to discuss the content delivered through those media outlets in the Culture section. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

3. Excessive number of images. I'm of the opinion that, per section, one image is preferable and two should be the most.

• I'd appreciate other editors' opinions on this as well, because it would seem like almost every featured country and city article has too many images, following your thought on this. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

4. It remains unclear to me why the climate chart is necessary in these articles.

• I agree with this. These charts seem to be in almost every city article, so I'm sure someone can point us to established consensus on it somewhere. I minimized the other climate chart so it takes up less space. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Structure is important to me. I look forward to the improvements.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 03:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing some of the concerns, Horserice. Regarding the image number, I base my position on Wikipedia policies such as WP:IG and WP:NOTIMAGE. The cityscape section is at the forefront. Three images, practically about the same subject, with no body text. Other sections also have this problem. Articles should display few, unique images. That's what makes them special.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Gotcha. Your comments on the Cityscape section are definitely fair. I cut that down to a single image and merged with the Architecture section, because I think showing the sheer number of buildings is the only way to effectively communicate the cramped architectural style. I will continue to work on cutting down some sections, most of it will probably come from the History, Government, and Transport sections. If you could highlight some parts of the Culture section you think are too verbose, that'd be helpful. Horserice (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• @MarshalN20: Alright, I cut huge chunks away. Take a look if you can. Horserice (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• The issues with summarizing and image number remains present. Several of the current featured country articles (such as Germany and Japan) are in need of serious revision. For example, as occurs with this article, image placement contradicts Manual of Style guidelines concerning text sandwiching. It's unclear to me how the image of Carrie Lam with Nicola Sturgeon (in Foreign Relations) reflects Hong Kong. The politician's portraits in the Government section are also of unclear necessity.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 12:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Interinter321: I'm cutting down the article in response to readability concerns in this FAC process and in the previous attempt. If you disagree with these changes, we can discuss it here. Looping in MarshalN20. Horserice (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, Horserice. I can lend a hand in summarizing, if needed, but defer to the primary editor(s) expertise on the matter to make better decisions. Ideally, information should be transferred to specific articles rather than just deleted (that is, unless the information is already present in the specific articles). For example, the article on the Culture of Hong Kong should contain all of the information presented in the Hong Kong article's culture section, while the section itself should be an introductory summary that encourages the reader to read the primary Culture of Hong Kong article for further information.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 19:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Sounds good, let's coordinate on that. I'm positive that nothing I've taken out so far from the History, Demographics, and Government sections can't be found in the main articles. I'd definitely need help on checking the Economy and Culture sections though, and possibly Geography. The Infrastructure section should be pretty straightforward to cut down though. Horserice (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Brief comment - The country should be linked in the first paragraph (I added the link to China but it was deleted). Imagine New York City not linking United States in the first paragraph. Mattximus (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, I noticed that another editor deleted it. I personally think that adding "of China" where you did is redundant in terms of sentence structure, because the lead sentence would be saying it twice. Regarding your example, I would point you to Guangzhou, which does not actually link China in the first paragraph. I think the article already makes it abundantly clear which country the city is part of. Horserice (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

With no activity for almost three weeks, and no consensus for promotion developing, this review seems to have stalled so I'm going to archive it. Going forward, I realise you've peer reviewed this but I believe you'd also be eligible for the FAC mentoring scheme, which might help get some traction on a future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2018 [4].

---

Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Nominator(s): Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This article has been promoted to GA status and has been stable for quite a while now. I have recently beefed up the lead section to better represent the material found in the body of the article, in anticipation of a Featured Article candidacy. Aside from that there have been very few edits since the GAC process and these represent minor if not superficial change. The article is very short but covers a wide variety of topics, while utilizing a decent amount of scholarly sources. The images are all properly sourced and licensed. As far as I know there are no glaring omissions of any major themes covered in academia that pertain to this topic. For anyone who's a fan of ancient history, including the reigns of Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great, it will most likely be an entertaining and informative read. Enjoy! Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: that's good to know! Thanks. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm a bit dismayed that this hasn't attracted much commentary, as it's a very interesting subject. Just a placeholder to note that I intend to review this soon. --Laser brain (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges

• I've made edits to the page to ensure all sources have identifiers, and fixed some issues with using page ranges for single pages. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• There is a citation without a bibliography, the Adams 2010 cite, which I believe should have this as its corresponding book, but am not certain enough to add myself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Prose suggestions

• Written evidence about Macedonian governmental institutions made before Philip II of Macedon's reign is both rare and non-Macedonian in origin. suggest:

  Written sources about Macedonian governmental institutions made before Philip II of Macedon's reign are both rare and non-Macedonian in origin.

• although this issue of kingship and governance is still unresolved in academia suggest:

  although this issue of kingship and governance is still debated in academia

• @PericlesofAthens: That is all my comments, Support this for featured article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Like Laser brain, I'm sorry to see this hasn't had much in the way of review but I don't think anything will be gained from leaving it open, so I'm going to archive it. Given the relative lack of commentary I'm okay with waiving the usual two-week waiting period following an archive; perhaps getting into the top of the list in the new month will give it greater visibility. Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2018 [5].

---

The Infinity Gauntlet

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the 1991 comic book series that served as primary inspiration for this summer's massively popular Avengers film. I dug into lots of old print sources to flesh it out and I believe it's about a comprehensive as it can be. Please comment quickly, before Thanos snaps his fingers and you lose your chance. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

Uh, Argento Surfer, I don't feel so good... but I'll comment before I disappear. JOEBRO64 19:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

First round of comments. This is just from a quick glance (don't have much time), so I'll be leaving more comments in a bit:

• "although other writers had scripted some tie-in chapters of the First Thanos War" is uncited.
  • I added two citations, one is a third party website that mentions a different scriptor, and one is a primary source directly citing a tie-in comic. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• "George Pérez is a popular artist known for drawing comics that featured large casts" seems to start in the present before shifting to the past.
  • I made it all present tense. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Aren't the "I" and "G" in "infinity gems" supposed to be capitalized?
  • Possibly! The comic is written in all caps so it's not immediately obvious, but it's capitalized at Infinity Gems. I capitalized them here as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• If my understanding is correct, plot sections are supposed to be limited to 700 words. The "plot" section of this article in the synopsis is 791 words.
  • By my count, it is now down to 695. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

JOEBRO64 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Part two:

• "He also did high-profile work for DC Comics, such as Batman and Cosmic Odyssey." Wouldn't linking to Batman (comic book) make a bit more sense here?
  • It would indeed. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• "...but Editor-in-Chief Tom DeFalco..." Sort of the opposite of "Infinity Gems" here: I'm don't think the "E" and "C" need to be capitalized.
  • done Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• "the start of the second act was spun off into the two-issue limited series Thanos Quest, released in Fall 1990." Watch out for WP:SEASON.
  • Revised to September and October. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• "but the sales of Thanos Quest were high enough to warrant another spin-off." This isn't a big deal, but I don't think "spinoff" needs a hyphen. The hyphen also isn't used later in the article, so I'd be consistent in how you use it.
  • Spin-off (media) says both are ok before using the hyphen. I added it to the non-hyphenated occurrences here. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• "However, some characters, like Thor and Quasar, were wearing outdated costumes on the cover of issue 3..." Single digits should be spelled out.
  • done Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• During production, Pérez was also pencilling War of the Gods for DC Comics" You've already linked to DC before, so linking it here is overlinking.
  • removed
• "One aspect of the promotion was sending Direct market retailers..." Why is the "D" in "direct market" capitalized?
  • Probably because I copy/pasted the article name. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• You link to DC again in the tie-ins section.
  • removed

I'll be back with my final comments soon. JOEBRO64 19:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Round three:

• Some of the characters linked in the characters section (Thanos, Warlock) were previously linked in the publication history section.
  • Extra links removed Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• My only comment about the synopsis section is that it technically doesn't need references, since a creative work's plot section is assumed to be sourced to the work itself and does not require references unless it contains original research that requires verification.
  • I follow that guidance in articles on comics that take place all in one title (Archie vs. Predator or The Fade Out), but since parts of the synopsis came from Silver Surfer, Thanos Quest, Warlock and the Infinity Watch, and Doctor Strange, I felt it was worth noting the source for each plot chunk. It also alerts readers that the tie-in issues are not directly referenced. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• "the different styles continues to be an issue for some critics." "Issue" is considered a word to avoid.
  • I rewrote this. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• "When Capital City released their top 100 best selling single issues of 1991, Infinity Gauntlet issues fell between the 42nd and 64th positions." This is just a minor suggestion, but could you add a footnote explaining where all the issues placed on the list? Some readers (including myself) might be interested in this.
  • I can add this, but it might be next week before I can dig up the sales lists. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• "Its sequels were poorly received by fans, and Warlock and the Infinity Watch was cancelled in 1995." While it looks like the article is written in American English, "cancelled" is British English.
  • I had no idea. I just went with it because it didn't have a squiggly red line under it. I have removed the second l. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

And that's it. Overall this article is very clean and well-written (indeed, I actually based a few of my articles on it!) Once these comments are addressed, I will gladly support promotion. JOEBRO64 17:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Support. This is FA-quality now. Well done! JOEBRO64 18:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't have anything substantive to add to the FAC, but I will commend you on bringing this article into a much better shape than it was when you started working on it in February: [6] BOZ (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest that in some cases it would be worth adding citations to captions
  • I added two references to the caption in the plot section. I think everything else it BLUE, but let me know if you disagree. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Think the caption on the final image also needs citing - the accompanying article text cites more general inspiration, but not this specific image. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I've removed this image. There won't be any sources that directly compare it to the cover. I'll just trust that anyone who makes it that far into the article will be familiar with the film's imagery. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• File:Infinity_Gauntlet_1.jpg: elaborate on purpose of use statement
  • Done. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• File:Sleepwalker_number_7.png: not sure we can justify the full cover just to show the marking - a crop of the top third would be sufficient for that, and the FUR needs to be stronger
  • I originally considered cropping the image, but chose to use the full cover to give an accurate impression of the relative sizes of the triangle and the cover. If it's cropped, that frame of reference will be lost. I have expanded the purpose statement to make this clear. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Not convinced by this, particularly given the number of non-free images, but interested in if any other reviewers have an opinion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
      • If no one else weighs in, I'll crop the image to be the upper right quarter. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• For both File:Infinity_gauntlet_excerpt_Perez.png and File:Infinity_Gauntlet_excerpt_issue_6.png, the content currently in the "not replaceable" section of the template belongs in "purpose of use". Same with File:Thanos_Avengers_Infinity_War_promo.jpg. The FURs are particularly important to given the number of non-free images in this article - as a general rule, the more you have the harder you need to work to justify each
  • These have been corrected. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• File:Infinity_Gauntlet_Toys.png: see commons:COM:TOYS. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link. I have revised the licensing based on File:Alternator smokescreen robot mode.jpg. If that doesn't work, then we can scrap this image. I think it's useful for showing the variety of toy types since most people don't know the difference between a minimate and a Diamond Select, but not 100% needed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The image has been deleted. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Argento Surfer, this seems to have stalled in recent weeks and will be archived soon if it does not attract some additional review. --Laser brain (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I requested input from the Comics Project and specific editors I thought might be interested on July 6. I'm hoping one or more of them will respond. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid this one has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Hijiri88

I have very little awareness of comic books as comic books, and so only checked the page for problematic content related to the recent Avengers films, and was pleasantly surprised to see it doesn't make the problematic claim, often cited to unreliable sources that predate the film's release, that the most recent entry in that series is "an adaptation" of this work. Kudos.

My one further concern would be that Since Thanos made a cameo appearance in the 2012 film The Avengers, there has been renewed interest in The Infinity Gauntlet among fans and reporters. is not necessarily accurate, as I was aware of this renewed interest months before the film's release, having seen a video essay on The Escapist in summer of 2011 (I'm pretty sure the video itself predated the release of Iron Man 2, though, as I recall it speculating that a "Donald Blake" might cameo in that film). I can get the exact link tonight when I get home, but I don't want to use data right now. I'm pretty sure this interest goes back to a Comic Con where the Infinity Gauntlet prop was on display, and before seeing the trailer for The Avengers I fully expected Thanos to be the main antagonist of that film, based on said earlier speculation.

I know this is something of a WP:TRUE complaint, so others can take it with a grain of salt if they so wish, but the sources to which this content is attributed are less than ideal. Marvel.com is a primary source, which obviously can't be used for the claim that there has been renewed interest among fans and reporters, let alone since a specific date, while the other is late enough that it could well have "forgotten" that the interest predated the reveal of Thanos in the actual film.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Thanks for taking a look. I'm wondering if the interest you're remembering was localized, or limited to idle talk only. According to Comichron, the Infinity Gauntlet TPB didn't garner enough orders to appear on the March or April 2012 charts, but it did appear in May, June, July, and August (where I stopped looking). There was no bump corresponding to the 2011 Thor movie in May or June 2011 despite the new edition released that year. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: I dunno... I think the problem might be the wording we currently use: "fans" and "reporters" already are "local", and not only were they already speculating about the relationship between Thanos and the Infinity Gauntlet and the Avengers film franchise pre-2012, but their doing so wouldn't be expected to directly cause a large increase in sales of the reprint (since they already have copies).

Would saying "the general public" not be better? The bump in sales would have been from "casual fans" like myself (except that they have more disposable income or don't know how to use the internet) who heard that the mysterious character who showed up in the last shot of the film was elaborated on in this 20-year-old comic book. But the fans and reporters had a renewed interest before that.

As I said above, though, this is a really minor nitpick, and you can take it or leave it; my interest in, and awareness of, this topic area is fairly limited.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I rewrote the sentence to avoid specifying who became interested. I think it reads better this way, so long as you don't think it's too weaselly. Thanks for taking a look at something outside your normal purview. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it reads better that way, and it addresses my concern too. Thanks for your effort, and good luck with the rest of the review! :) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2018 [7].

---

Saving Light

Nominator(s): Micro (Talk) 13:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the 2017 trance song "Saving Light" by English electronic music producers Gareth Emery and Standerwick. I believe that the article meets the Featured Article criteria when compared to featured articles of around the same length such as "All You Need Is Love".

1. Well written. During the articles good article review, it was almost completely rewritten to make sure that the article is the best it could possibly be, making sure that everything has been supported by reliable and third-party reference and that the article was completely unbiased. The article had undergone a copy edit that I had requested from the Guild of Copy Editors where it is now very well written in my own opinion.
2. Factually accurate, neutral and verifiable. The article has around 30 references, all of which being proven to be reliable in the articles good article review. The article did contain some unreliable sources, but all of which had been removed during the good article review. The amount of references may be considered quite low for a featured article or even a good article, though this is because it isn't a very well known song, being released by a relatively small indie record label.
3. Stable. The article had received only a few edits since it's good article promotion, as there is really nothing more to add. Since my last edit, I had fixed up every problem I had with the article such as not knowing Karra's last name and dealing with the 'Intro Mix' version of the song.
4. Appropriate length. The article is of adequate length, being around 27,000 bytes in size and having 1,286 words (according to XTools). The article is not too long, containing only how much the article should have without it dragging on.

The article had previously undergone a peer review, with it being reviewed as a B-class article before it had passed it's first good article review shortly after. The article contains only one fair use image, being the official cover art for the song. Micro (Talk) 13:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Comments

I would revise this sentence ("Saving Light" was originally a demo track that Ian Standerwick and Gareth Emery had worked on.) to the following (“Saving Light” was originally a demo produced by Ian Standerwick and Gareth Emery.) to simplify the sentence structure. Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) You say in the above sentence that the song was originally produced as a demo. I interpret that as meaning that the track was created to possibly sell to another artist. Is that correct? It not, then why do you mean by this? I don't think that Emery and Standerwick had any intentions to sell the demo, I think it was simply made out of an idea in a studio session between the two with the possibility of it becoming a full song (as it did). Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification. I am actually wondering if there is a way to combine the first two sentences (i.e. "Saving Light" was originally a demo produced by Ian Standerwick and Gareth Emery. It was given to Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra during a writing session.) into something like this (Ian Standerwick and Gareth Emery produced a demo version of "Saving Light", which they gave to Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra during a writing session.). Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Fixed, combined sentences into what you wrote. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) I have two concerns about this sentence It was given to Emery's manager and sister Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra during a writing session.). The phrase (Emery's manager and sister) could be misread as applying to more than just the first name so I would revise the sentence to avoid this. Also, could you clarify what the writing session was for? Revised sentence by erasing "Emery's manager and sister", as I don't quite understand what you mean by "applying to more than just the first name". Emery does not clarify what the writing session was for, only saying "this song really began when my sister and manager Roxanne arranged a writing session in my studio, with her, HALIENE, Matthew Steeper, and KARRA." Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification; see my above comment about this sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Fixed, point was addressed in another point above. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) For this sentence (20 versions were produced and tested at Emery's DJ sets before the song was finished), I would revise “at Emery’s DJ sets” to “as part of Emery’s DJ sets” as I do not believe that “at” works in this context. Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I have a question about the above sentence. Is there any information on how the 20 versions were different from one another? In sound, instrumental, vocals, etc.? Emery stated in the interview "should it have an EDM drop? A dubstep section? Literally every idea in the book was tested. In the end we settled on a very classic trance interpretation." This could be put into the article, though he only listed two or three interpretations (dubstep section, EDM drop (I don't know what exactly he means by this, maybe about a generic big room or prog house drop), settled on 'classic trance'. The sentence could be revised into: 20 versions were produced and tested as part of Emery’s DJ sets before the song was finished, including the possibility of a dubstep section, though a "very classic trance interpretation" was chosen. This sentence is rough however and would need changing for it to go into the actual article. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I would suggest the following revision: (Standerwick and Emery produced 20 versions of "Saving Light" with different instrumentals, which included an EDM drop and a dubstep section. Emery tested each version as part of his DJ set before the song was completed.) Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Fixed, changed into suggested sentence and wikilinked EDM, dubstep and 'DJ set'. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) The following sentence (The song debuted at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway in June 2016, during the Electric Daisy Carnival music festival and was released on 30 January 2017.) is rather awkwardly phrased. I would simplify the front part to (The song debuted at the Electric Daisy Carnival music festival in June 2016). The location is not really important and only disrupts the sentence. I would also make the second half into its own sentence, ideally with a semi-colon. The revised sentence as a whole would look like the following (The song debuted at the Electric Daisy Carnival music festival in June 2016; it was released as a digital download on 30 January 2017.). In my revision, I clarified the format in which the song was released. Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I would revise this sentence ("Saving Light" was featured on Monstercat's thirtieth compilation album titled Monstercat 030 – Finale released on 22 February 2017.) to (“Saving Light” was featured on the compilation album titled Monstercat 030 – Finale released on 22 February 2017.). I do not believe that the record label part in the beginning is really necessary. I would move the wikilink for the record label to the next time it appears in the body of the article. Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I do not believe that this sentence (It was the first track on the album, which also includes 29 songs by various artists and two album mixes.) is necessary as it does not really add much to the reader’s understanding on the song. Fixed, deleted sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I would revise this sentence (The song is about standing up to bullying and helping victims in their time of need and giving them support—being their "saving light”.) to (This song is about standing up to bully and supporting victim by being their “saving light”.) Also, who is saying this? Is it a critic? One of the performers, songwriters, or producers? I would attribute this in the prose. Revised sentence. Emery had stated what the song is about in his Billboard interview, which could be put into the article as "Emery had described the song's meaning as about standing up to bully and supporting victim by being their "saving light". Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Seems fine to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Fixed, revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) I would revise this sentence (All of the proceeds from "Saving Light" throughout the month of February were donated directly to the charity Ditch the Label, which supports victims of bullying and harassment.) to (Throughout the month of February, all of the proceeds from “Saving Light” were donated to the charity Ditch the Label, which supports victims of bullying). Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Could you expand on this sentence (Emery was previously a victim himself.)? It feels a little too tacked-on at the end? Deleted sentence, didn't really hold much and seemed unnecessary. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Fixed, deleted sentence approved. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Should EDM.com be italicized? I would assume as a website name that it would not be. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean the website's address, not name? The website shows that 'EDM.com' is the actual website name, same as 'Your EDM' or 'Billboard', whose names are italicized. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I was just curious if this part should be italicized as I have normally seen something in that format (i.e. X.com) not italicized. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC) That's understandable. It does seem strange that EDM.com is the actual website name and not just the address. Should I mark this fixed? Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) I would shorten the Lennon Cihak quote (i.e. "Haliene's vocals are truly what brings this piece to a completely new level. She powers through the entire piece, placing her emotions, feelings, and strength behind the lyrics.”). I do not believe all of it is necessary. Fixed, got rid of the first half of the sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I am confused by this part (Writing about the overall video production, Cihak described it), particularly the “overall video production”. I thought this was just a remix. There is a video? There is a video of it on YouTube, yes. It's just a video of the choir performing the song but I think it's best to clarify that a video was released on YouTube before going into the reception. I could put in as this: On 17 August 2017, an acoustic rendition of "Saving Light" was released as a collaboration between the Saint James Music Academy Choir and Monstercat. A video showing the choir performing the song was released by Monstercat via their YouTube channel.[citation to the video on YouTube or just use one of the already existing citations] I want to see what you think of it before putting it into the article. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I would definitely add that sentence to clarify that point. I just have two comments for your suggested sentence. For "the Choir", I do not believe choir needs to be capitalized. And I would say "showing" rather than "depicting" as I do not think that the current word choice fits this context; whenever I think of the word "depict", I think more along the lines of depicting a fictional event, but that may just be me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Inserted the new sentence, should I add the YouTube video as a reference or do the current references show this information enough already? Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) I would cut down on the use of this quote (“warm, subtle, and comforting emotion throughout, and they only scratch the surface at describing what this song does to one's emotional state.”). You can definitely use parts of it, but I do not think that all of it is necessary. paraphrased and shortened the second quote by Cihak. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) The Lisa-sun Nguyen sentence contains two rather long quotes. I think that this first quote is fine, but I think you can safely paraphrase the second one. I use a lot of quotes too tbh so I understand where you are coming from, but I would look more carefully on why you are using them and what they add to the article. Re-phrased and paraphrased the second quote. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I would revise this sentence (On 18 August 2017, a remix extended play of "Saving Light" was released, featuring six remixes by various artists, including a remix by American producer Notaker.) to (An extended play of “Saving Light” was released on 18 August 2017; it features six remixes by various artists, including one by American producer Notaker.). Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) There are two typos in this sentence (Jim Babaoglu of EDM Sauce write, "Notakers ability to add a gritty digital feel to this song really let him display his own version of this already incredible track.”). I believe you mean “writes” and “lets”. Fixed, fixed typos. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I do not believe that the "second to none” quote is necessary and you can paraphrase. You include so many quotes that I think this one can safely be revised out. Fixed, changed it into Dexter simply 'praising' the remix as that seems to fit well. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I would look critically at the quote use in the “Critical reception” paragraph as there are a lot of them. I also do not get a sense of a strong narrative or structure here. It just seems to rather randomly hop from one critic to the next without any real rhyme or reason. I would work on the sentence structure and flow to have it read better. I would look at this resource for ideas on how to improve this section. I am not too sure how to improve this section. I had a look at the critical reception at Habits (Stay High) and it is fairly similar to this article. It would help me greatly if you could provide examples and help me improve it so it could be as good as it could possibly can. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Understandable. It should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Addressed. Move the wikilink for Beatport to its first use in the body of the article. Fixed, not sure how I didn't even notice that before. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I would try to make the following two sentences more concise ("Saving Light" was released as part of "Make Trance #1 Again". This was an initiative organised by Emery and Monstercat that encouraged fans to buy the song on Beatport to support the anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label.). Might re-phrase it into this, however it might need more editing to be adequate: "Saving Light" was released as part of "Make Trance #1 Again", an initiative that encouraged fans to purchase the song on Beatport to support anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label (who received 100% of the profits made from sales of the song in the month of February) and for the song to enter the top of the Beatport charts. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Sorry, but I think the above revision actually makes the section worse. It is far too much of a run-on sentence and contains a lot of content for a single sentence. Upon re-reading the section, I think it is fine as it currently stands as I am struggling to think of a way to improve it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Addressed, if you do think of suggestions to make the sentence better, don't hesitate to address them here. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) I would clarify what you mean by “it” in this sentence (It received 100% of the profits made from sales of the song in the month of February.). I would actually just revise this whole paragraph. The context is good, but the prose is not that great. Possibly addressed in the above point. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) See above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Addressed, improvements are always acceptable. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Is this part (They hoped it would reach the top of the Beatport charts.) really necessary? I would believe that any artist would want their song to be commercially successful? Possibly addressed in the above point about re-phrasing the sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) See above. I would honestly just cut this sentence entirely. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Fixed, deleted sentence. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Wouldn’t all of the information in the “Make Trance #1 Again” subsection make more sense in the “Background and release” section. It is really not about the critical reception of the song. Fixed, moved section to background and release. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I really do not understand the Christopher Lawrence part. I do not think that enough context is given to help an unfamiliar reader understand the connection to the song? I am assuming that Emery promoted this song as saving trance music, but that is not made clear at all. Although I can see what you are saying, I am not sure how to achieve this and make it clear. : In a Facebook post, American DJ and producer Christopher Lawrence criticised Emery for promoting "Saving Light" in hopes of it reaching number one on the Beatport charts. Lawrence wrote that Emery had been "waving the EDM flag for years", stating that trance does not need saving and that it has been doing "just fine without him". Lawrence has since deleted his post. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I think that the first part of your revision (i.e. In a Facebook post, American DJ and producer Christopher Lawrence criticised Emery for promoting "Saving Light" in hopes of it reaching number one on the beatport charts.) makes the situation clearer to an unfamiliar reader like me. Just remember to keep "Beatport" capitalized. Good work with the revision as it helped me a lot. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Fixed, revised sentences. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) For this part (for his widely syndicated radio show), I would remove “widely syndicated” as it seems to be overly positive language toward the program. Just saying “his radio show” is enough. Fixed, removed wording. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I would work on the prose for this section to make it flow/read better. I might rephrase it to this, though it may need further editing: On 1 November 2017, Armada Music opened voting to select for the 2017 Tune of the Year for Armin van Buuren's radio show A State of Trance. On 19 December, Van Buuren revealed the top 50 most voted tracks, which included "Saving Light". These songs were to comprise his mix album, A State of Trance 2017. On 21 December 2017, Van Buuren concluded his four-hour radio show special, announcing that "Saving Light" had won Tune of the Year. Matthew Meadow of Your EDM noted that this marked the first time a non-trance label (Monstercat) has won the award. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) That would be perfect. Thank you for understanding what I meant here, as looking back at this comment, I was vague so I apologize for that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Fixed, revised sentences. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) For this sentence (It was noted this marks the first time a non-trance label (Monstercat) has won the award.), who is doing the noting? Revised so it said that who noted a non-trance label winning the ASoT award, though this may need further editing. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) This part (conceived the idea of developing a music video dealing with the theme of bullying and harassment.) is unnecessarily wordy and repetitive . I would just say (developed a music video to focus on a theme of bully and harassment.). Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) For the first paragraph of the “Production and release” subsection of the “Music video” section, you use the word “develop” twice in the first two sentences. I would revise this. Changed second 'develop' to 'write', though it may need better wording. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I think that "create" would work in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Fixed, Changed wording. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) I would revise this sentence (They wished to showcase its negative and harmful effects which can lead to thoughts of suicide, and show how just one positive voice can save a life) to (They wished to showcase its harmful effects, potentially leading to thoughts of suicide, and the positive impact of one voice.) Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) You done good work with this article, but a lot more work needs to be done for this to meet the FA criteria. After my comments are addressed, I will look through the article again. Please let me know if you need clarification for anything. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC) There are some points that I've marked with "Fixed" or "Addressed". This means that I believe that the point has been addressed fully and points without "Fixed" or "Addressed" means that I do not believe they have been met and need further attention to be fixed. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the responses. I will responded to your points momentarily. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC) I have responded to all of your comments above; thank you for leaving such great responses as I appreciate that you took the time to explain all of your reasonings to me. The article is in much better shape now. I will look through the article again and provide further comments, but if you do not hear anything from me by Saturday night, then please ping me. I hope that this receives more feedback, but I have heard that summer is a hard time for reviews. Have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC) If you do find anything else that needs revising, I would gladly address them. Thank you for your time so far. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Thank you for addressing everything so far. It is cool to read and learn about this song. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate it if you could comment on my current FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC) While I don't consider myself very well qualified to judge if a GA is qualified to become a FA, I will have a look at the Abby article and if I see anything questionable, I would comment on the candidate page. Good luck with the FAC. Micro (Talk) 03:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the response, but do not feel pressured to comment on it. I completely understand what you mean; good luck with your current and future projects. Upon further examination, here are some further comments: For this sentence, could you clarify what you mean by "They" in this sentence (They composed the lyrics in under an hour.). Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC) "They" refers to Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra. For clarification, I changed the wording it "The group" (possibly for now). Micro (Talk) 07:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC) For this sentence (After this, Emery and Standerwick tried different ideas for a musical style for six months before settling on a classic trance interpretation.), I would avoid the use of "After this". Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Fixed, deleted the wording. I do not believe the two subsections in the "Music video" section are necessary. I would put the paragraph in the "Critical reception" subsection with this sentence (The music video was announced by Monstercat via their YouTube channel on 24 January 2017 and was released on 30 January 2017.[23]). I would change this sentence (The music video for "Saving Light" met with a mostly positive reception.) to (It was met with a mostly positive reception) during this edit to avoid repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Combined paragraph with sentence, rephrased latter. Although I deleted the first "Production and release" sub-heading, I didn't delete the "Critical reception" sub-heading as it seems awkward not to have the latter sub-heading. I would erase the sub-heading if you believe that it is unnecessary. Micro (Talk) 07:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the edits; I still do not think that sub-heading is necessary, and I would remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Fixed, Removed Sub-heading. Micro (Talk) 09:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC) After these comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• I support this for promotion following a review of the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Sorry but after running three weeks this hasn't attracted enough commentary to make me confident that consensus to promote will be achieved anytime soon, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Pls note that as a first-time nominator you would be eligible to try the FAC mentoring scheme, which might help expedite things at a subsequent nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2018 [8].

---

Whip It (Devo song)

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the 1980 song Whip It, which most people think was about BDSM or masturbation. Now that I have your attention, I'd like you to check out this compact article on a quirky yet surprisingly vital song in the new wave music movement, and a personal favorite of mine. This article has received a peer review and has been copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors, so I believe it is finally ready. Any and all comments are appreciated! Famous Hobo (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Aoba47

• I would reword this part (that is featured on the band's third album Freedom of Choice (1980).) to simply (from their third album Freedom of Choice (1980).). My suggested revision avoids the unnecessary repetition of the word “band”, and I do not believe that “featured” is necessary as you could argue that any song included on album is “featured”.
• You do not mention that this song was released as a single in the lead. Also, could you clarify in the lead and the body of the article that the song was the second single from the album?
• I have two comments for this sentence (Lead vocalist Mark Mothersbaugh wrote the song's distinctive riff, which was based on the riff in Roy Orbison song "Oh, Pretty Woman".). 1) I would avoid the repetition of the word “riff” and 2) I take issue with the use of the word “distinctive”. Distinctive according to who? It borders on Wikipedia:PEACOCK in my opinion, and I would suggest removing it.
• I am confused by this sentence ("Whip It" was not expected to be a hit because of its nonstandard tempo and strange lyrics.). Who did not expect it to be a hit? Also who felt that the song has a “nonstandard tempo” or “strange lyrics”?
• For this sentence (Peaking at number fourteen on the Billboard Hot 100, "Whip It" became a major hit and found chart success in several countries.), I would avoid the phrase “a major hit” as it is too informal. I would also avoid the phrase “hit single” in the body of the article as that is also too informal.
• For this sentence (An accompanying music video depicts these sexual themes), clarify what you mean by “these sexual themes”.
• For this sentence (In recent years, several journalists have described "Whip It”), clarify what you mean by “recent years”.
• Revise this part (In the band's forty-year history, "Whip It" remains the only song by Devo to peak), to (In Devo’s forty-year history, “Whip It” remains their only song to peak).
• For this part (As a result, Devo is often labeled as a one-hit wonder.), again clarify who is doing this action? I am assuming that it is music critics/commentators.
• Link Devo on the first use in the body of the article.
• For the first two sentences of the “Background and recording” section, avoid the reptition of the word “band” in such close proximity. Same goes for the word “formulaic”.
• Is this sentence (The band members believed a hit single would bolster the next album's popularity and finally give them radio exposure.) really necessary? I think that any artist would say that a successful single would increase popularity and radio play.
• For this sentence (In late 1979, audio engineer Robert Margouleff was brought on to produce "Whip It" and its parent album Freedom of Choice.), clarify that the album was released in 1980.
• For this part (Throughout the song there are), add a comma between “song” and “there”.
• For this sentence (Mothersbaugh created the main riff in "Whip It" by taking the riff used in Roy Orbison's song "Oh, Pretty Woman" and changing the ending slightly), avoid the use of the the word “riff” twice in the same sentence.
• For this part (and layered them to create smooth, consistent time signature), it should be “a smooth, consistent time signature”.
• I am uncertain about the audio caption, particularly the use of the word “defined” in the sentence (The song is defined by its motorik beat and seemingly nonsensical lyrics about "whipping it”.). Defined according to who?
• I would clarify the year that Gravity’s Rainbow was released?
• This is just a suggestion, but wouldn’t it be better to have a GIF for the music video screenshot instead of a static image to better illustrate the caption?
• I am confused by this sentence (Devo's members has never tried to distance themselves from "Whip It" and as of 2018 still play it live.) as I did not see anything before this about claims that they had tried to distance themselves from the song.
• I am confused by this sentence (Both musicians are wearing Devo's distinctive yellow janitorial suits and energy domes.), particularly the use of the word “distinctive’. Distinctive according to who?

Good work with the article. I have honestly never heard of this song before. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through it again. Aoba47 (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Just wondering if you have addressed these points? Aoba47 (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2018 [9].

---

History of Scotland

Nominator(s): Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This former featured article is about the History of Scotland. It was de-featured in 2006 due to no longer meating FA criteria, but has since been expanded and improved massively. It's just passed GA review, and, as far as I'm concerned, ought to pass the FA criteria with flying colours, too! Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment (note to self)

Suggestions from peer reviewer – will look at shortly, some of these instantly seem not applicable.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
  • Lead length is consistent with other articles like it, such as the featured History of Poland (1945–1989)
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 pounds, use 000 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 pounds.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
  • Have added TOC limit of 3 which helps slightly, though I accept the TOC is still very long. Sections are pretty ideal as is, though, especially given the myriad "Main article" indicators.
  •  Question: Would a floating TOC be preferable?
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armor (A) (British: armour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), programme (B) (American: program ), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic).
  • Fixed.
  • Please note the spelling convention for the article is specifically Scottish English, which retains the k in skeptic, so this will continue to flag.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]
  • I have scanned the article for grammatical, orthographic, style and tone issues and can't find anything, but this obviously needs checked over.

Also check User:AndyZ/Suggestions. --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 03:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure about this, I'm afraid. The nominator has—pace—15 edits to the article, and is not in the top-ten of contributors; regarding the GA review, since this is an article of over 17K words and 200,000 bytes, it shuold probably have received a slightly more indepth review than it did (involving two comments from the reviewer), by a reviewer who has ~2 months tenure. @FAC coordinators: , what say you? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This is true, however the main requirement is that the nominator be familiar with the subject matter and the sources used. I'm currently studying for an MA in Gaelic Studies and Theology, and am intimately familiar with a large portion of the sources the article uses. There simply isn't much room for expansion in the article, which is why I haven't been able to contribute much to it thus far.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 15:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The requirements are interconnected and not dependent on real life qualifications: the reason one is expected to have been a major contributor to the article is that that tangibly demonstrates a familiarity with the topic and its source material. Otherwise, one may as well be a dog. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but if I were a dog, this would quickly become apparent in my inability to respond to substantive issues during the review process. The fact that you have no particular reason to believe that I am familiar with the topic and sources does not mean you ought to assume the negative; that would quite blatantly fly in the face of AGF. If I am not well-versed enough in the history of Scotland to nominate this article, then this will become apparent during the review, and it will fail. To insist that the review not even go ahead just in case is, frankly, absurd.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 15:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It most certainly would not be an assumption of bad faith to suggest that no evidence exists to suggest that an article at FAC may not actually be ready for FAC. For your current purposes, our peer review process is generally robust; I suggest you utilise it. There is, after all no deadline. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but that isn't your suggestion. You have made no substantive criticisms of the article itself, only its nominator. Whether or not an article is ready for FAC is up to the article, not the nominator. Whether or not I am a suitable nominator cannot be positively ascertained before I actually engage with the review process, so it is nonsense to suggest that because I might not be, I ought not to even be given the chance to engage with this process.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 16:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments

A few initial comments from a quick read-through for formatting, spelling etc. More detailed comments may follow, although I shall hold off on that until SerialNumber54129's important point, above, is answered.

• Lead
  • A seven-paragraph, 670-word lead is on the gargantuan side. The Manual of Style recommends "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs".
  • The fourth paragraph is rather full of "would"s which would be better as plain past tenses.
• Pre-history
  • Lower case for BC won't do. Likewise AD later. The MoS stipulates the normal BC and AD (or BCE and CE if preferred).
  • "pre-ice age axes" – hyphenation problems: a second hyphen is needed here.
• Protestant Reformation
  • Something has gone awry with the punctuation and spacing.
• Enlightenment
  • "Historian Jonathan Israel" – clunky false title – fine for a tabloid paper, but inappropriate here. There are other examples in the text.

Further comments to come, after a more thorough perusal, subject to the clarification of SerialNumber54129's key question . – Tim riley talk 21:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! To address these:

• I've condensed the lead to 540 words in 5 paragraphs. This is now shorter than the lead of History of Poland (1945–1989) (575 words in 5 paragraphs) and is, imho, the shortest it can feasibly be without having to abandon any hope of being an adequately descriptive summary.
• BC and AD have been fixed, I have also taken out the unsightly small caps, I can't believe I didn't notice that while scanning.
• Axes fixed through proper capitalisation. I don't think unhyphenated proper nouns get hyphenated when confronted with a prefix.
• I'm not sure I understand what you mean regarding the punctuation and spacing in Protestant Reformation. There was one instance of double spacing, which I have now corrected, but I feel like that can't have been what you were referring to.
• Nothing wrong with "false titles", they are in use across the encyclopaedia (see historian Bruce Catton, researchers named John, and sociologists named James). I find myself agreeing with Merriam-Webster's view that they are useful as concise identifiers, and would thus reject the notion that they are "clunky" or should be removed, but that's up to consensus.

--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 15:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

The referencing is far short of FA standard (I'm surprised it got by at GAN): publishers, locations, dates, ISBNs/OCLCs missing, inconsistent ULC, some names as Surname, Forename and others as Forename Surname, some books in the References (e.g. McLaren) rather than in the Bibliography - an unprofessional mess. If it can be cleared up, the article might be worth re-submitting, as, at first glance, its content seems good and the prose adequate. When attending to the overhaul of the references it is of particular importance (with WP:V in mind) to distinguish between sources referred to and the other items in the current bibliography, which could be omitted or moved to "Further reading". Tim riley talk 19:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Another Oppose Have the two main editors (Sabre and rjensen) been consulted, as the rules require in such circumstances? Generally, rather a bumper feast o'facts, but short on analysis, tricky though this is with such a large subject. Apparently not even a see also for visual art, despite an unusually good series of period articles. Even by WP standards, far too little on economic matters. Does the photo of solid (probably) Victorian buildings captioned "Crofts at Borreraig on the island of Skye" really illustrate the "Collapse of the clan system" effectively? And so on. Also taking the comments above, pretty clearly not ready yet; the GA review was clearly even more cursory than usual. Needs a good deal of polishing in my view. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Thanks everyone. Although the FAC instructions are clear that nominators should be major contributors to the article or to have consulted with same, there is wriggle room and I wanted to see some more commentary before looking at early closure. Those comments reinforce SN's suggestion that a formal Peer Review is appropriate before FAC (as it would be in most cases anyway) so I'm going to archive this and recommend PR as the next step; per FAC instructions, the article can be re-nominated after a minimum of two weeks has passed since the date of archiving. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2018 [10].

---

Iveta Mukuchyan

Nominator(s): Harut111 (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a German-Armenian singer-songwriter and actress Iveta Mukuchyan. Harut111 (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

I'm not sure why this should be the case but, having attracted zero commentary after three weeks, this nom is a bit of a non-starter. I'll therefore archive it but in accordance with the FAC guidelines in a situation like this, you're free to re-nominate without waiting the usual two weeks after archiving. Perhaps getting it back to the top of the queue will attract some commentary. You can also ping projects or editors with neutrally worded requests for review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2018 [11].

---

Bicycle kick

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about association football's most iconic skill. With the 2018 FIFA World Cup in progress, I hope that this article can successfully pass the FA review in time for the final match. The article has already gone through multiple reviews, and the current version meets all standards of FA-quality. Sources are up-to-date and properly cited, images are properly licensed (and presented), and the prose reflects nearly three years of review and improvement. The past nomination failed because of few votes. All that the nomination currently requires is support. Thank you for your time and consideration.-- MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments –

• Minor point, but it wouldn't hurt to link FIFA in the lead.
• Execution: The line underneath the section name is being cut off by the Sergio Ramos photo in the previous section, which is discouraged by the Manual of Style. Fortunately, there's a simple fix that will not require you to interfere with the photo size or writing in the previous section. Just put Template:Clear between the end of the Name section and the start of Execution, and that will automatically fix the problem (with the added benefit that it shouldn't leave much whitespace in this case).
• Execution: In the third paragraph of the section, you don't need to repeat "Sports historian Richard", since that is all in the first paragraph and the subject's last name should be enough to identify him, since there aren't any other Witzigs being written about.
• Iconic status: Minor, but the Premier League link could be moved up a sentence to its first appearance in the text.
• We have an article on the 1982 West Germany–France match, which may be worth linking to.
• As an American, I was taken aback by the statement that Balboa's kick "is even credited with boosting the sport's popularity in the United States." I checked both of the given sources and found nothing that would support such a broad statement. One of the sources said the kick had an exhibit in a hall of fame, but that's not the same thing as popularity in my mind. This book has an interesting bit about how the kick indirectly led to the purchase of an eventual Major League Soccer team, and says it could have been a frequently replayed moment had he scored, but I would need to see something specifically saying it increased soccer's popularity here before taking it at face value.
• The source for the proposed Manuel Negrete statue is from five years ago. Have they built it yet?
• The page range in ref 16 should be the smaller en dash, not the bigger one in there now. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Awesome suggestions! Thank you, Giants. All should now be addressed. Negrete's statue has not been built yet, but a few months ago his goal was voted the World Cup's best by a FIFA fan poll (I added that information). Page 4 in the Simpson and Hesse book mention that Balboa's kick helped launch Major League Soccer, so that has been cited and the sentence fixed to reflect it.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 16:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Koncorde

• I am not sure this would pass a GA standard if I was to review it, so I am surprised that it did so in 2015. It doesn't appear to have resolved issues raised at prior FA nominations, notably it is poorly organised, rambling, lacking in concrete definitions. The origins talk about it being during the formative development of association football in south America during the 18th century...so the 1700's. The later sections barely mention the dates and times but suggest association football came from South American influence on the game brought by British expats. This doesn't really make a great deal of sense, given football in its various forms has been played on Britain for at least 500 years, and in wider Europe in various forms too, while various indigenous tribes the world over play any number of sports requiring the overhead kick as a general feature of play (Sepak takraw for instance) in addition to native tests of agility and physical prowess (Alaskan High kick being just one example). I think the origin would be better served by being specific in its claims as currently it's a very disjointed sequence of claims, counter claims, and even a source saying "we'll never know because it isn't written down". The article needs to go back to basics. Simplify, standardise, and concentrate on its motion and notable instances. Less subjective waffle. The POV talk page editors pushing for more and more definitive claims of specific inventions have not helped as it has just introduced more and more wishy washy sentiments. Koncorde (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Koncorde: Insults aside, I am interested in understanding your concerns. To answer a few direct points:

1. Nowhere in the article does the "18th century" appear. No reference is ever made to the 1700s. I assume we know that modern football took shape starting in the mid-1800s?
2. Dates and times appear in the "History" and "Iconic status" section, as well as in the introduction.
3. At no point is it ever said that association football "came from South American influence". Otherwise, please direct me to where exactly I can find is this claim?
4. The history is supported by relevant secondary sources written by historians and journalists. It seems you have your own idea as to how the bicycle kick was invented, but we both know that Wikipedia is written based on references and not personal opinions.

I look forward to your response and please kindly ask the provision of constructive criticism rather than destructive criticism (e.g., "I am not sure this would pass a GA standard if I was to review it"). Thanks.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 21:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, the criticism is entirely valid and nothing to do with "destructive" but an actual honest appraisal of the standard that this article currently holds (which is barely coherent). You might not like that, but it's the truth. I am introducing other examples to point out that the limited number of sources being used are likely not covering the breadth of knowledge on the subject or are too dependent on specific opinions for interpretation.

However, first of all - apologies, my editing via my mobile phone seems to have introduced a couple of anomalies in my statements (switching between browser windows). For instance for 18th read 19th, and the rogue mention of "association football" should have clearly been referencing the bicycle kick not the sport.

This still doesn't change the fact that this article is using synthesis of multiple sources to try and present a coherent history. Instead it presents various opinions about individual claims.

Starting from the beginning with the lease:

• The opening sentence makes little sense. A "physical move" is what exactly? The Rabona article is a much clearer format and standard.
• The description of the move is appalling. If there is a source somewhere that describes the action of a bicycle kick in such a way I would be very surprised, so I am assuming it has been bastardised by additional qualifying statements over time. It needs to be made concise, and then somewhere else it can go I to the physical mechanics.
• The use of the skill, and its suitability, and dangerous state is okay. I haven't read the citations for each individual claim made but I am going to assume that they uphold it. I wouldn't include it all in the same format, but that's a personal taste.
• The next paragraph explicitly claims a South American origin. However it then branches into lore, multinational objections and the last paragraph in the lede then says there is a controversy about the claims. I have no idea why FIFA's praise of the move ends up at the end of this paragraph when it should be either at the top during the intro, or within the section relating to cultural impact.
• The final paragraph doesn't really know what it is doing. It's at least two completely unrelated subjects.

Onto the main article,

• The Name section is actually okay. It repeats itself a few times retreading back and forth the the different ways it is referred to by different nations. A table would actually help present some of this in some fashion.
• The Execution section needs tidying up, it introduces cultural aspects or opinions of its flashiness, where it should focus on the actual strategic and functional execution. There are shades of duplication and repetition, mostly where Witzig is referenced at the beginning and end.
• The History section likely should be adjacent to the Name section in some fashion. They appear to be largely associated with each other.
• The history section in and of itself Runs into issues as soon as it starts making statements in Wikipedia's voice. "Nevertheless, the available facts and dates tell a straightforward narrative, indicating that the bicycle kick's invention occurred in South America, during an era of innovation in association football tactics and skills." Hmmmmmm. There are a number of cites and references, however it is unclear what elements of those statements are attributable to a person's opinion, and it is unclear to what "era" is being referred. I am assuming it is meant to fold into the following paragraph but it fails to transition.
• The following paragraph seems dependent upon a single source (Wilson), but reports it entirely as fact. Goldblatt is introduced as some corroboration, but this is entirely synthesis in its current form. It also needs to be properly attributed as their opinion.
• Their authoritative stance would be useful.
• We then run into mutually exclusive claims about 19th century Vs early 20th century origins. These are based, from what I can see, upon two independent sources with their own interests in the origin within their own nation. We should be clear that these are opinions. It should be clear that we either have evidence for the origin at an earlier date, or the first evidence is for the later date - but it is surmised that it originated earlier. I see "1892" being bandied around in a few sources.

In conclusion this seems relatively simple that there is no definitive answer as to its origin, and even the South American claim is clearly rooted in some degree of dispute. The final section on its iconic position appears to be a mix of just a list of instances and a bit of commentary often lacking context (the Peter Crouch comment only makes sense if people first know Crouch, an ungainly tall player, achieved such a 'skilful' goal). It also neglects to mention Barry Venison clearing the ball off the line back in 1994 for Newcastle. A travesty of an omission.

Ahead of time, apologies for any incoherence as editing via a mobile phone is technically difficult, and maintaining a quality of English, grammar and formatting is fraught with the usual problems of autocorrect that you don't always spot. Koncorde (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Koncorde: Thank you for the details. I appreciate high standards, but please do remember that I am a volunteer editor. Treating my work with disdain is not encouraging. If corrections need to be made, I will make them to the best of my ability. I need substance in order to address them. Telling me that the article is "barely coherent" is hurtful, not helpful. Telling me to look at the Rabona article to improve the first sentence is helpful, not hurtful. That is the difference between constructive and destructive criticism. I hope that this clarifies matters. As for the article, I have edited the introduction ([12]) and will proceed with the body, again based on those suggestions that are constructive. I look forward to more improvement suggestions.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 04:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

We are all volunteer editors. Criticism of an article is not criticism of a person. It is clear this article has been constructed, and rebuilt in small portions on a few occasions but hasn't had a wholesale review to recompose it's meandering threads (certain parts show better editing which suggests a single user has been more responsible for that contribution alone, or more confidence with presenting the sources). I am not sure whether multiple editors over multiple years have had a go at incrementally amending and improving the article, but it seems likely that is the case (with perhaps yourself as a single editor trying to tidy up those elements). A WP:BOLD approach was probably required a few years back at the GA review but it didn't attract enough attention from experienced editors, and this repeated at FA twice. If you posted this to the Football project then I am not sure how I missed it at the time.

When back at a PC I will happily provide more structure on the talk page. Koncorde (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: It appears from the feedback thus far that this article requires substantial work to get up to FA standard. Therefore, the nomination will be archived shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2018 [13].

---

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Alexandra Stan's second studio album, Unlocked (2014), released after her highly-mediatized violent event with former manager Marcel Prodan.

Unlocked has made its way through five FACs before, although new issues were 'discovered' every time. I believe the article is at this point well-written and well-cited, but I need further response on what should be improved. In the article's last FA nomination — among several support votes — two users were complaining over clipped sentences and American vs British English issues. While I tried to adress their queries, none of them responded to my ping-backs in the nomination, as well as on comments I left on their talk pages suggesting to work on the article. This may sound odd, but I do think that Unlocked has the potential to become a FA, with it having gained some considerable support among oppose votes. However, I need users who are ready to help me improve the article and to look over it again once I've implemented their suggestions, and don't ignore my ping-backs after leaving an oppose vote... Thanks in advance for every comment I'll (hopefully) get here. Best of regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Media review

• File:Dance_(Sample).ogg: given the length of the original work, this exceeds the limits outlined by WP:SAMPLE. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Hi there and thanks for the notice! I have shortened the sample down to just 20 seconds now, hope that does it. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Unlocked International.jpg: License, rationale and use seem fine for me. It has appropriate ALT text.
• File:Unlocked Japan Edition Cover.jpeg: License, rationale and use seem fine for me. It has appropriate ALT text.

It passes an image review. Good luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: This has been open for over a month without attracting any support for promotion. Therefore, it will be archived shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 [14].

---

John Adams

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

John Adams was one of the most important Founding Fathers of the United States. Before the war, he was a fierce advocate for the rights of the American colonies against British actions. All the while, he maintained a respect for the law, condemning mob violence and successfully defending British soldiers accused of murder in the so-called Boston Massacre. He was elected to both the First and Second Continental Congresses. At the latter, he was the foremost advocate for independence on the debate floor, and served on the committee of five which drafted the Declaration of Independence. As a diplomat, Adams was sent abroad first to France and then to Denmark, where he helped convince the Dutch to recognize American independence and negotiated an important loan. In the intervening period, he drafted the Massachusetts Constitution, which served as a model for the U.S. Constitution. He helped negotiate the Treaty of Paris to end the war and served as the first American Minister to Great Britain. As America's first vice president, he aligned with the Federalist Party but often felt marginalized on the political scene. His single term as the second President of the United States was consumed almost entirely by dealing with French hostilities during the French Revolutionary Wars, and trying to keep the United States out of what he believed would be a destructive conflict. He was opposed by both the Jeffersonian Republicans, who wanted him to support France, and the Hamiltonian Federalists, who wanted him to declare war on France. His retirement of 25 years was the longest of any president until Herbert Hoover. Display name 99 (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

My understanding is that his popular reputation after his death was so poor that the Democrats thought it worthwhile attacking WH Harrison as an Adams supporter (allegedly) in 1840 for accepting office from Adams, mainly because of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Can there be something in the Legacy sections commenting on how the popular view of Adams has shifted over time? I intend to do a full review, but I tend to look at the legacy sections first.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Wehwalt. I checked a couple Harrison biographies and couldn't verify it. If you have a source, I'd love to see it. I did add a paragraph and a lengthy quotation to illustrate how he was viewed in the decades after his retirement and into the Civil War. Display name 99 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's in Ronald Shafer, The Carnival Campaign, p. 128. "At this point in American history, Adams no longer was idolized. To the contrary, to be aligned with John Adams was akin to being a fan of Attila the Hun. Adams was widely reviled for presiding over an American "Reign of Terror" after backing the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts" ... Fortunately for Harrison, the first Adams was one of the few Founding Fathers with whom he'd had little contact."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Added. Display name 99 (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Drive-by

• I would avoid "our nation" - are you only seeking reviews from Americans? With talk like that, that's all you may get. I hope the article does not carry on in a similar vein. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's something I've grown accustomed to doing in discourse outside Wikipedia. I've changed it. If you read the article and decide that it is written from a pro-American perspective, please tell me and point to the cases wherein you believe it to exist. Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Consistent citations

• I see a mix of harv short form citations and regular citation templates. I think this would have to be standardized? Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System, sorry, I thought I took care of that, but I did see that there were still some issues, particularly towards the end of the article. I fixed the problem in several cases, but I'm going to do another run-through to make sure it's all taken care of. Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Another drive-by

• FAC doesn't observe Wikipedia's guideline on article size as strictly as it once did, but I don't think an article that's more than 18,000 words long is going to fly here. A. Parrot (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This page currently has 186,040 characters. I successfully nominated Andrew Jackson for FAC earlier this year. It currently has 190,336 characters. It's grown slightly since February, but I do know that in that time the number of characters was about the same if not slightly more. Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

There's a script you can use to count the number of words in the text ("readable prose size", which is what counts under the article size guidelines) at User:Dr pda/prosesize. I see the Jackson article was just under 16,000 words when it passed FAC and is just over 16,000 now. I wouldn't have been comfortable supporting an article that size, but it isn't quite as extreme as the Adams article is now. WP:Summary style points out something that it's easy for us Wikipedia editors to forget: "Summary style keeps the reader from being overwhelmed by too much information up front, by summarizing main points and going into more details on particular points (subtopics) in separate articles."

I don't intend to review this article beyond making this point, as I don't have the time or the resources to delve into the enormous literature on Adams. But I recommend, at the very least, looking over the article again to see if any details can be moved into subarticles, particularly the one on Adams' presidency. A. Parrot (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

When the article was last peer-reviewed, in February 2010, it was 7067 words long; when it received GA status in September it had grown to 10,189. Its current wordcount is 18,269, way above our length guidelines, and much of the current text is unreviewed material. I'm well aware that several presidential articles have similarly breached the guidelines and been promoted to FAC, but that shouldn't be a reason for continuing this trend. How long before someone tries to justify 20,000 words? Or 25,000, or 30,000 and so on? The article should be trimmed by around 20 per cent, through the elimination of less important detail and greater use of subarticles. At 14,000+ words it would still be one of our longest articles. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional Comments by Seraphim System

• "That question was whether to make more with France or find peace." -- more war, presumably?

The question was whether to declare war with France. The Quasi War was undeclared and not a war in the proper sense. Display name 99 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Following up on the above comments about length I see some sections that could be condensed.
• There is a lot of discussion of Jefferson in the Alien and Sedition Acts section but I think that it could hone in more on the relationship between Jefferson and Adams, and leave the technical details of the Act for the main article. (Things like The Naturalization Act increased to 14 years the period of residence required for an immigrant to attain American citizenship (naturalized citizens tended to vote for the Democratic-Republicans).

I trimmed the discussion of the Alien and Sedition Acts considerably since all of that can be found in more detail in separate articles. I'm wary of adding more detail on the relationship between Adams and Jefferson for two reasons. Firstly, I'm being told by multiple editors, including yourself, that I must cut considerably the material in this article, and I do not want to cancel any of that out by adding new content. Secondly, there's already a fair bit of information that one can use to track the development of the Adams/Jefferson relationship by reading between the lines. There's ample discussion given of their role in drafting the Declaration of Independence. We also mention how they toured the English countryside together in 1786, leaving the reader to conclude that they were good friends. Next, we hear Jefferson describing the titles proposed by Adams as "superlatively ridiculous" and being pitted against him in 1796. We also find him intriguing against Adams with the French ambassador and calling him "vain, suspicious, and stubborn." Finally, we read about him running against Adams in 1800 and paying Callender and other journalists to attack him. There is some information which I can think of that is not in the article, but I think there already is enough about the relationship between Adams and Jefferson so as not to necessitate going into additional detail, especially since extra detail is what I'm being told has to be reduced. Display name 99 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you be consistent in the use of Democratic-Republicans? The section discusses Democratic-Republicans but the last paragraph discusses Republicans/Federalists. Adams was a Federalist, but the article uses Republicans in other sections - is there a reason to switch to Democratic Republicans here? Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I've made it so that it refers simply to Republicans. Many modern historians, though not all, refer to it as the Democratic-Republican Party, but at the time it was simply known as the Republican Party. Display name 99 (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• "The acts became controversial from prosecution thereunder of a Congressman and a number of newspaper editors" -- words like "thereunder" "heretofore" "whereof" have precise meanings that are unknown to the average reader. Please consider rephrasing.

This entire sentence has been removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• "The Acts as well allowed for prosecution of many who opposed the Federalists, even on the floor of Congress." ---The Acts also?

I removed both words and chose not to replace them with anything. Display name 99 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• "The majority of the legal actions began in 1798 and 1799, and went to trial on the eve of the 1800 presidential election – timing that hardly appeared coincidental, according to Ferling. Other historians have cited evidence that the Alien and Sedition Acts were rarely enforced, namely: 1) only 10 convictions under the Sedition Act have been identified; 2) Adams never signed a deportation order; and 3) the sources of expressed furor over the acts were Democratic-Republicans." - this doesn't seem essential?

I'm not sure what you mean. Display name 99 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Republicans were outraged. Jefferson, disgusted by the acts, wrote nothing publicly but partnered with Madison to secretly draft the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Jefferson, writing for Kentucky, wrote that states had the "natural right" to nullify any acts they deemed constitutional. Writing to Madison, he speculated that as a last resort the states might have to "sever ourselves from the union we so much value."[219] Federalists reacted bitterly to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which were to have far more lasting implications for the country than the Alien and Sedition Acts. Still, the acts Adams signed into law energized and unified the Republican Party while doing little to unite the Federalists." -- I think this needs a bit of work.

Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you be specific? I don't want to expand it considering the direction that many of the most recent comments have been taking, especially because this had so little to do with Adams himself. Display name 99 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that the goal would be to condense. For example, his religious background is discussed both in the Childhood section and in a separate section near the end of the article. There are also some opinions from modern historians casting John Adams as a conservative. Commenting futher would require a more thorough source check, but I'm not sure how much value a blockquote like Here was a man who loved America as it was and had been, one whose life was a doughty testament to the trials and glories of ordered liberty. Here ... was the model of the American conservative. adds to the article. I'm sure there are other examples, but I echo A. Parrot's above comment about going over the article again.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll see what can be done about his religious background. The "Conservatism" section was added only in the past week by another editor without involvement from myself. I agree that the quotations mean little out of context and can probably be done away with. Would you consent to me deleting the entire section? Display name 99 (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I eliminated a discussion of Puritanism which I felt went too far beyond the subject of the article. I didn't find significant overlap between the two sections, and don't see the need for any more significant condensing in that area. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Now that other editors have commented, I would be ok with getting rid of the entire section. I agree with comments from editors below that it is a bit too presentist.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Should the Conceptions of constitutional government section be in the Diplomacy in Europe section? Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a little bit awkward, but it fits with the time frame. Adams wrote his Defence of the Constitutions in 1787 because of the Constitutional Convention. That happens to be while he was in England. Display name 99 (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It could also go in the Enlightenment section you are working on - there should be a few words added about the independent judiciary. [15] Thompson called it Adams' greatest theoretical innovation Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System, in the passage that you linked, the reference to an independent judiciary refers not to the Defence of the Constitutions but to the Massachusetts Constitution. The article already discusses it there as well. I decided to change the title of the section to Defence of the Constitutions to be more specific, since there are plenty of discussions about his constitutional ideas which are not in the section. I added a brief discussion of his views on the Enlightenment to the part about the Massachusetts Constitution. Display name 99 (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the things he is best known for - I think it should be coherently discussed in a single section. There are some issues with organization and excessive detail about some aspects while other major issues are missing. Neither Montesquieu nor the "independent judiciary" are discussed in the article. The discussion of the Constitutional Convention is currently While in London, Adams learned a convention being planned to amend the Articles of Confederation. - the rest of the paragraph does not discuss the convention at all. Though he did not attend the convention his ideas and the "Defence of the Constitutions" is something we still study today because it influenced the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I would consider separating the discussion of his philosophy and theory of government from the chronological biography. It is harder to understand when his biography digresses into complex political philosophy (and why it is important today). The discussion of Paine could be condensed, and it should be mentioned somewhere that [16] he supported lifetime tenure for judges (this is separate from "no federal judiciary.")

I don't see anything about the federal judiciary on page 97 of McCullough [17] but the editor may have a different edition. I haven't done a full source check yet, but looking at the phrasing "classical republican theory of mixed government" in the Defence of Constitutions section is a bit of a problem also. It doesn't seem to be supported by the currently cited source. It is supported by some sources, but not all scholars agree [18] - the disagreement is significant. Also, Polybius should be mentioned. Perhaps this quote could be removed from the Legacy section as well? Todd Leopold of CNN added in 2001 that Adams is "remembered as that guy who served a single term as president between Washington and Jefferson, and as a short, vain, somewhat rotund man whose stature seems to have been dwarfed by his lanky colleagues."Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System, thank you for your note. I'm currently at work and will have more time to deal with this during the weekend. There's a decent chance that this article will fail (something I didn't expect), but I'm not prepared to give up just yet. Would you mind explaining why you think the CNN quote should go? It seems to summarize much of Adams historiography very well. I'll consider the separations. That does seem to make sense and I've seen that done on other biographies I've worked on. I'll let you know when I've finished in the next few days. Display name 99 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System, I have enacted your suggestions. There is now a separate section for "Political philosophy" and I added mention of lifetime appointments to the section on the Massachusetts Constitution. p. 97 of McCullough does not mention the federal judiciary (all editions have the same page numbers). I couldn't verify it anywhere else and so I removed it. I got rid of "classical republican" because it does seem to be a bit contentious. I couldn't find anything about Polybius in either McCullough or Ferling. Can you tell me why he needs to be singled out among the many ancient writers (perhaps Cicero most of all) who influenced Adams? I see that you supported Rjensen's suggestion to trim the diplomacy section and create a separate article. I think I'll do that. Display name 99 (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by RJensen

It's a very good article. In my view the two main reasons Adams deserves a long article are his work for independence and his establishing moderate conservative policies (in opposition to Hamilton to the right & Jefferson to the left)--esp peace with France. I suggest: cut the diplomacy section --or spin most of the diplomacy into a new article on the "Diplomacy of John Adams". That will allow much deeper coverage that people can turn too. Also sharply cut the VP section by 2/3 Historians of 1790s generally ignore his very minor VP role. Rjensen (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that his influence on conservative just isn't something that his biographers emphasize. McCullough makes no mention of Adams's influence on conservatism, nor do I find mention of it in the parts of Ferling and Smith that I've read. I don't disagree with you. However, the broad conservative themes of Adams's life-upholding the rule of law (Boston Massacre), the separation of powers (Massachusetts Constitution and political manifestos), and opposing the radicals in France are clearly illustrated without the conservatism section. The issue of "ordered liberty" can easily be worked into the monarchism section.

I agree that there might be a little too much detail on his diplomatic service, but there isn't enough just yet to start a separate article. In your comment above, you essentially state that Adams's contributions to conservatism are more important than his diplomatic service. This makes no sense. Biographers always spend significant time on his diplomatic efforts but rarely mention him as a leading conservative intellectual or policy maker. Seeing your edit history, I can understand that the evolution of conservatism is important to you. But the fact is that Adams is not recognized as significantly shaping the development of conservatism in the way that someone like Edmund Burke, for example, was. There's ample evidence of his influence on conservatism elsewhere in the article. I'll look into cutting some stuff from the vice presidency section because that had little importance to American history but I don't think it makes any sense to start chopping away at his crucial diplomatic service in favor of something that none of his biographers consider to be of comparable importance. I welcome other reviewers' opinions, particularly those knowledgeable on the subject. Display name 99 (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The current "Conservative" section seems too presentist political and parochial, and not about his position relative to Hamilton and Jefferson. It's also not true that he was "conservative" in the most important event in his life -- he was a revolutionary, and a tenacious one, at that. But I was chagrined to see, just now, that nowhere in the article is the Enlightenment mentioned. My suggestion, change that sections focus from what modern conservative's say, to what is a broader focus on his legacy with respect to the Enlightenment. See, Burns, Fire and Light: How The Enlightenment Transformed our World. St Martins Press (2013) [19] for multiple discussions of Adams and his intellectual and personal struggle with the mechanics of "protection of human liberty against the forces of oppression" (p.76), etc.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Rjensen, I'm not sure what the Burns quote adds to the article that has not already been expressed in the section on the 1800 election. Once again, the conservatism section just seems to summarize and repeat ideas that can be found elsewhere. Display name 99 (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree, and either change the subsection so it is entitled "Adams and the American Enlightenment" (or some such) and talk about that as a part of his legacy, or get rid of the section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That section has been eliminated following consensus between myself and two other editors. Alanscottwalker, I will work on the Enlightenment stuff and ping you once I have concluded to my satisfaction. Display name 99 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I read the discussion of Adams in the Burns book. Burns seems to focus mainly on Adams's promotion of education as part of the Enlightenment. Therefore, I chose to add mention of the fact that in the Massachusetts Constitution, Adams guaranteed free three-year public education for all citizens, followed by a discussion of how Adams saw education as part of the Enlightenment. This can be found in the paragraph on the Massachusetts Constitution. Display name 99 (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you only read page 76? Because as I said there are multiple connections to development of the Enlightenment by Adams in Burns (think government, rights, oppression, liberty), 76 is just one discussion. See also, Adams discussions in [20] and [21] Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything else about Adams worth including, at least not in the parts of the book that were available online. The themes discussed in the first of the two links were already mentioned in the section on Defence of the Constitutions. Nevertheless, I expanded on them. Adams's political thought is given ample attention throughout the article. What I said to Rjensen about the conservatism section seems to apply here as well. I'm just not entirely sure what it is you want said that isn't already there in some form or another. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, and my point is the connection to the American Enlightenment should be made explicit either in its own section or in the several sections (as I said, there was not mention of Enlightenment at all, and one now limited mention is better but not full). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned in the "Religious views" section that Adams's religious views started to shift closer to the Enlightenment ideals in his old age. I checked the major biographies of Adams and they don't heavily emphasize his connection to the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was categorized by deism, strong anti-monarchism, and anti-Christian themes. These did not suit Adams, and despite his role in the American Revolution and advocacy of republicanism, he was still a conservative. Ferling actually directly points out that Adams differed from Enlightenment figures Franklin and Jefferson through his lack of interest in science or mathematics. (p. 174) We must defer firstly to what Adams's biographers say, and if they don't emphasize his Enlightenment connections, neither should we. Two direct mentions is enough. Display name 99 (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What? You said on the article talk page you have not read any biographies, except one, so it's difficult to credit your argument. This encyclopedia among others calls Adams central to the American Enlightnemnt. Finally, your understanding of the Enlightenment is cramped and borders on the absurd. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Quickly typing "Enlightenment" into a Google books search of each of the major biographies yields few results. Also, Smith 1962 says, "In his letters to Benjamin Rush, Adams was caustic about the effects of Enlightenment thinking on the mass of the people." (p. 1077) You've been unable to produce a statement from a biographer portraying Adams as an important Enlightenment thinker, and yet I have produced two separate statements from two separate biographers which distinguish him from the Enlightenment theorists. True, I've only read one Adams biography cover to cover, but I've also read significant parts of other biographies which have helped me to further understand who Adams was. You seem not to have read significant parts of any biographies of him, and so in an argument between the two of us it's clear who has more credentials. Display name 99 (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'd really encourage you to start looking past material that just talks about the Enlightenment. Those sources are inevitably going to overemphasize the Enlightenment and aren't going to provide much of an understanding of Adams's life as a whole. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) Your statements about me are not true, so there is nothing more to discuss, here. At any rate, this article is likely to fail. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Some of the captions contain information that does not appear in the text and so should be cited - eg the last portrait

I couldn't verify what was in the caption for the medallion. I decided to remove it. I added a source for the last portrait. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:StatenIslandConference_By_Chappel.jpg needs a US PD tag

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

When/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, it seems most of Chappel's works were published during his lifetime in history books. Unfortunately, I cannot find one which uses this image. Display name 99 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• All images with a life+100 tag technically also need US PD tags

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:Erkenning_onafhankelijkheid_Verenigde_Staten_foto2.JPG needs a tag for the original work

This image has been removed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:John_Adams_by_Gilbert_Stuart,_c._1800-1815,_oil_on_canvas_-_National_Gallery_of_Art,_Washington_-_DSC09727.JPG: given PD-Art, CC0 doesn't make sense

Rmoeved. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:Alexander_Hamilton_By_William_J_Weaver.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

According to Chernow (2004), pp. 562-563, Hamilton sat for the portrait in 1799 and sent it to his friend Edward Stevens in St. Croix. I have been unable to find a reliable source indicating when it was first published. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

What is the earliest known publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I do not know. Display name 99 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with this and the other above is, if we can't verify a pre-1923 publication, we won't be able to use that particular tag. Is there another US PD tag that might apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you for your review. I've responded to all of your points. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have no idea if another US PD tag would apply or not. This isn't something I'm familiar with. If we can't find where the images were first published, do we have to get rid of them? Display name 99 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but we do need to know what is the earliest publication we can find, in order to determine what other tag might apply. I would assume that for both of these the initial publication would have been in the US, but would be nice to confirm that as well if at all possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't confirm anything. The information for both of these images on the Internet is slim and doesn't come from reliable sources. Display name 99 (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well, in that case we might well need to get rid of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. I replaced the Hamilton one with a different painting which seems to have all of the necessary material. Supposing there's nothing wrong with that, I assume that's all. Display name 99 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

What is all this about? Paintings are not "published". The tags should be {{PD-US-unpublished}} or {{PD-old-70}}, surely? Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"Published" has a technical meaning in copyright law - see copyright.gov. Use of the former tag would require confirming that publication didn't happen until after 2002, while the latter doesn't specify US status, which is not solely dependent on author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I know (about the technical meaning), but this is still bullshit. As regards the Hamilton, there are many, many versions, and the museum owning this one on Commons says it is Public Domain. But in any case a painting of c. 1800 is just not going to be in copyright. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

If details are available to support a PD tag of some kind, the images can of course be re-added. While I agree it's unlikely (but not impossible) there is a valid copyright, the issue here is the lack of information available. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by L293D

Hey, I was driving by and so I figured I'd leave a comment. The sentence Driven by his devotion to the right to counsel and the presumption of innocence, he provided a successful, if unpopular, legal defense of the accused British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre, despite severe local anti-British sentiment. could be reworded to improve the flow. Otherwise, the article's great. Nice work as always! L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

L293D, thank you for your note. That sentence has been slightly reworded. Is this all or do you wish to add any other comments or support the article's promotion? Display name 99 (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that's all. I changed my vote to support. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: While I appreciate the nominator's quick replies to issues raised thus far, it's clear that this is not quite prepared for FA status and would probably benefit from a peer review and more work on fit and finish. Therefore, I will be archiving it. --Laser brain (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Laser_brain, I find this decision to be extremely premature. The candidate has received one support vote and no oppose votes (AlanScottWalker's did not count as a review, he said so on the John Adams talk page). I was in the middle of responding to comments from Seraphim System and about ready to do an overhaul of the diplomacy section of the article in order to address concerns about length. The length of the article was the chief issue that was raised-and I was going to take care of it tomorrow by cutting material from the diplomacy section and creating a separate article, as two editors have suggested (see the article talk page). Wehwalt was planning on giving a full review but now does not have the chance. This is way too soon. The nominator should at least be given the chance to address the concerns raised by reviewers before the nomination is closed, and I clearly did not have that. Is there any procedure to appeal? Sarastro1, since you have monitored previous FACs that I have submitted, do you approve of the decision to close the review after one support vote, no oppose votes, and while I was still the middle of responding to the concerns addressed by other reviewers? Display name 99 (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Laser_brain has given a rationale - I suggest you do more work on the article along the lines mentioned, then bring it to PR, trying to entice those who have begun reviews to join there. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 [22].

---

Prison education

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is probably my most ambitious featured candidate. Tackling a subject such as this one from a worldwide perspective has not been an easy task but I feel like it is now in a position where it meets featured standards. The article is GA, has recived a peer review and a copy-edit. Before anyone asks, the reason there isn't, for example, a sub-section on the history of prison education in Africa, is because to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever written about it. There are notable gaps in the literature for developing nations, and even for developed ones. For example I could only find one book written about the history of prison education in Australia; the author actually said his motivation for writing it was that nobody else had ever tried to cover the subject. Freikorp (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by GMG

Just making a space for notes. It looks to be in pretty good shape though. GMG^talk 14:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:REFERS, the lead needs tweaked. The article is about the thing, not about the term.

• Reworded

• ref name=real seems to be the only ref that uses location =

• Removed. None of my other featured articles use this parameter; I'm acting under the assumption that you want the refs consistent, rather than are asking for a location to be added to every reference, as I don't think that's part of the featured criteria anyway.

• Yes, just consistency, which is difficult to do in the other direction, because you rarely have location for all sources. GMG^talk 00:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Three refs currently use "et al" in authors. That needs to be replaced with the full author list.

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's always been my understanding that we only give full author lists up to a point, and I thought that was three authors. Two of the sources in question have five authors, and the other has seven. Would you like me to add the full author list for all of them?

I...have never seen this guidance, other than in APA inline citation formatting, if you can point me to it I would be appreciative. GMG^talk 00:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm maybe I'm just confusing my university assignments with Wikipedia :). I've added all the authors for these sources now. Freikorp (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Probably could use a scrub for available OCLC's from world cat for documents that don't have unique identifiers. For example this ref has a record. So does this one.

• I've searched for every academic source on world cat and have added ISSNs, ISBNs, and OCLCs where possible. Some documents had none of these and only have "unique identifiers": I added these to references with the parameter |id=. Freikorp (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not totally sure where the evidence of permission for the CC0 on File:Prison classroom in NSW circa 1900.png is coming from.

• It's a photograph from circa 1900 (most likely 1899 due to date visible on blackboard in original 45mb tiff format) taken by a government employee and donated to (and currently accessible at) the State Archives and Records Authority of New South Wales. It's my understanding that government works (at least ones this old) are in the public domain. I'm not an image licensing expert so if I've used the wrong license feel free to tell me what the correct one is. Freikorp (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Umm...Ping @Majora: to be sure, since they're a wizard. GMG^talk 00:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Provided the description is correct, then yes it is fine. I've tweaked the licensing template on Commons. It isn't CC0. That is a specific license with specific terms. It isn't a catchall for "public domain". Freikorp, if you have the full version please upload it overwriting the one currently on Commons. It is always preferable to upload the full resolution photo instead of a scaled down version. The MediaWiki software will automatically resize it if you use the "thumb" parameter while placing it on the article. If you still want to crop out the border that's fine but if you have the full size please use the full size. --Majora (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the licensing fix Majora. I do have the original file, but I'm currently tethering to the internet with the very limited data on my phone. I'll try and upload the original file next time I have access to wifi. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Could probably use a scrub to make sure we're linking to articles where they available online. For example, this source and this source are currently not linked to in their respective references.

• OK. I've punched every journal title into Google Scholar and have added URLs (and subscription tags) where appropriate. This should address all your initial concerns. :) Freikorp (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• The situation was only considered to have changed in 1992 This is super awkward construction. Taken literally, it means not that the situation changed in 1992, but that "the consideration" changed in 1992. So...like...reform happened in 1873 or what have you, but in 1992 people got woke and realized how great all that stuff in 1873 really was. I don't think that's the intended meaning. GMG^talk 14:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reworded. In this context my choice of the word 'considered' was synonymous with "according to [my source]". Freikorp (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• secular prison education programs - I'm confused. They were secular but they had the primary goal of teaching people to read the bible? GMG^talk 14:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Source reads: "Educational programs have existed in prisons for many years. In the early 1800s prisoners were given instruction in religious matters by visiting or resident chaplains. In order to make the program of religious studies more effective, secular education programs in reading and writing grew out of the desire to enable the inmates to read the Bible and other religious literature." I'm happy to just drop the word "secular" to make the issue less confusing for readers though. Freikorp (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm...maybe if we add a bit about the preexisting informal religious education that might be more clear. GMG^talk 14:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reworded. Let me know if there are any further issues with it. Freikorp (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• which have been linked to reductions in recidivism Is referring to the entire preceding list, or just the last item? If the entire list, should probably be "which have all been linked". GMG^talk 14:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• The ""Prison Education in Poland" source says it improves self-esteem, and though it doesn't say it directly reduces recidivism it implies this will help them succeed post-release. The "cost-effectiveness" source says it improves communication skills but doesn't make any link with this to recidivism. I've removed this one. Freikorp (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• $111,202 for incarceration for a year A) Holy shit Canada! How? B) The source actually says that that figure is for males only, while females cost twice as much. I kindof feel like that bit should be incorporated somehow. C) Holy shit Canada! You spend almost a quarter million dollars a year per female inmate?! GMG^talk 14:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah pretty crazy huh? I've added that they cost twice as much. Freikorp (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose from Squeamish Ossifrage

I'm going to have to disagree with your evaluation that there is no scholarship about the state of prison education in Africa, and, accordingly, oppose on comprehensiveness grounds.

One source I found useful in particular was The State of Adult and Continuing Education in Africa, which contains several independently-authored chapters, a few of which make brief mentions of prison education and offer hints about where to look further:

• Oduaran, Akpovire (2000). "Research and scholarship in adult and continuing education in Africa". In Indabawa, Sabo A.; Oduaran, Akpovire; Afrik, Tai; Walters, Shirley (eds.). The State of Adult and Continuing Education in Africa. University of Namibia. pp. 31–48. ISBN 978-99916-53-33-4. – on p. 37, there's specific mention of pioneering work in prison education by Evakuoma Enuku at the University of Benin in Nigeria. This mention is very brief, but that's a fantastic lead for further source-gathering.
• Walters, Shirley; Watters, Kathy (2000). "From adult education to lifelong learning in southern Africa over the last twenty years". In Indabawa, Sabo A.; Oduaran, Akpovire; Afrik, Tai; Walters, Shirley (eds.). The State of Adult and Continuing Education in Africa. University of Namibia. pp. 49–62. ISBN 978-99916-53-33-4. – the p. 57 mention that prison education activities occurred at Robben Island is also thin, but suggests further research.
• Nji, Ajaga (2000). "Creating knowledge society through disatance and open learning in Cameroon". In Indabawa, Sabo A.; Oduaran, Akpovire; Afrik, Tai; Walters, Shirley (eds.). The State of Adult and Continuing Education in Africa. University of Namibia. pp. 65–78. ISBN 978-99916-53-33-4. – if I read this correctly, p. 70 explicitly identifies the government ministry responsible for prison education programs in Botswana.

Another book compiling independently-authored works, Strategic Learning Ideologies in Prison Education Programs contains chapters dedicated to prison education in Ghana, Nigeria, and Botswana respectively (and some treatment of prison education in Egypt in chapter 7).

Following up on the Nigerian leads is quite productive:

• Chukwuemeka, Eze Malachy (2010). "Institutional reforms and the development of Nigeria Prisons Service, 1999–2007" (PDF). Journal of African Studies and Development. 2 (5): 114–121. ISSN 2141-2189.
• Enuku, Usiwoma Evawoma (2001). "Humanizing the Nigerian prison through literacy education: echoes from afar". Journal of Correctional Education. 51 (1): 18–22. JSTOR 23294029.
• Omolewa, Michael (1998). "Adult education research in Africa: a discourse on West African initiatives since 1949". International Journal of the History of Education. 34 (sup1: History of Educational Studies): 537–557. doi:10.1080/00309230.1998.11434901.

Sources for other areas exist as well:

• Quan-Baffour, Kofi Poku; Zawada, Britta E. (2012). "Education programmes for prison inmates: reward for offences or hope for a better life?" (PDF). Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 3 (2): 73–81. doi:10.1080/09766634.2012.11885567. – is self-avowedly a very limited report on prison education in South Africa, and so will need to be handled with the appropriate caution from a due-weight perspective, but is certainly on-topic

And my initial searches for Kenya and Tanzania only revealed Master's theses which I do not believe would be accepted as reliable sources, but which are probably worth examining in case they cite reliable material that evaded a first-pass search. In any case, the above sources aren't a comprehensive index of what is available, and I make no effort to determine what contributions to this article based on the African sources would actually look like. But I do feel that enough material exists that a broad-topic article cannot merely ignore the continent. Separately, I made no evaluation of the article text nor the formatting/suitability of existing sources at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I never said there was "no scholarship about the state of prison education in Africa", I couldn't find anyone who had written on the history of prison education in Africa, as in when it first started and how it developed. I didn't say there weren't sources on it over the last couple decades. At first glance none of those sources appear to discuss its history; "A discourse on West African initiatives since 1949" doesn't imply it has any information on prison education from the title alone, and in any case a 'history' sub-section would ideally go back a lot further than 1949. Naturally I'll look through these sources in detail as time permits, so thanks for finding them. Freikorp (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Considering the amount of effort you've put into finding these sources for me (and I do appreciate you finding them), I don't think you've misquoted me on purpose, but the fact remains I only said I didn't have sources on the history of prison education in Africa, and there's no immediate indication these sources will fix that. Accordingly, do you think you really have to oppose this early into the game? I mean, I am going to read those sources and no doubt I'll find some useful information in them to expand bits here and there, but this doesn't appear to be a game-changer. A source titled something like: 'The history of prison education in Kenya, 1876 to 1992', would be, but even then it wouldn't take me more than a few days to build a history sub-section (assuming I could access the source). I should be able to start reading through your sources later today. Freikorp (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I do want to be clear that I'm not calling for a quick-fail of this FAC or suggesting that you withdraw the nomination. When all I have to nitpick is stuff like reference formatting compliance, I start out with a neutral "comment". When there's something more structural that's wrong, I'll oppose because – if the FAC runs to completion without addressing the issue – I would consider it to not meet the criteria. But there's a lot of time for that. Now, as to the meat of the argument here, several of the sources (and I won't lie, I didn't comprehensively review them all; this isn't my topic!) do give history. It's just not as long of history. Chukwuemeka (2010) outright says that Nigeria's history of prison education essentially starts in 1999 because, before that, that's... not the sort of thing Nigerian prisons were for, shall we say. I didn't dig into the various chapters of Strategic Learning Ideologies, but I think there's history offered there, too. Several of these sources outright admit that Africa has been behind the curve on the topic. Outside of the history section, Quan-Baffour and Zawada (2012) tries to reach some conclusion about education and recidivism in South Africa, although they're working with really limited data. Honestly, I hadn't really looked at the prose when I tried to find some Africa-centric sources. Upon doing a quick read-through today, I think that the History section isn't the only problem with geographical bias. For example, the Opposition section is entirely from a US perspective. Broad topics are hard. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I've just finished going through the sources Aoba47 recommended using, and I've now read Quan-Baffour and Zawada. I'm going away for the weekend though so I guess I'll start looking through the rest of your sources on Monday.

As for the opposition section, the first paragraph is made up of references from Australia, New Zealand, the US, and I've just added the Quan-Baffour South African source because it gave a new reason for opposing I hadn't seen elsewhere. Journal articles that discuss the benefits of prison education list the same reasons why people oppose in their introductions, pretty much what you see in the paragraph, but they typically don't go into much more detail. 'It's a waste of tax-payers money', 'they deserve to be punished not educated' etc etc, its the same arguments around the world. I've added the quote block from the Australian senator and the example of the backlash in the US pretty much to flesh out the section so it wasn't just one paragraph. I get that the second paragraph is all US (and specifically all New York), but I mean, it was the best example of a backlash I could find. I suppose I could try and find another backlash elsewhere but it's going to be more of the same, as in 'right-wing radio host or politician saying its a waste of money and kicking up a stink'. How many examples of that do we want? I don't really see how I can address this section from a more worldwide perspective. Freikorp (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Weekend plans feel through, but yay for more editing time haha. I've expanded the opposition section as much as I think I can. I'll start working on the African sources now. Freikorp (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I've read Chukwuemeka. It states: "Currently, education is a marginal activity in Nigerian prisons. At the best it takes the form of unorganized apprenticeship for a small number of prison inmates which is a means of maintaining the prison system", that education varies from prison to prison, and "While the educational approach to inmates reformation has not been tried in Nigerian prisons, it has been tried with considerable success in Europe and North America." I've summarised this and added it to the 'Funding allocation and prevalence' section; I don't see anything I can add to the history section, other than to say there never has been any. More coming from other sources. Freikorp (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I've read Enuku and Omolewa now. Enuku had some decent information in it which has been summarised, and I've now added an 'Africa' sub-section to the History section. Omolewa had nothing useful in it though I've located a potential useful source via its reference list [23]; I'm going to put in a request for it via Resource Requests. Freikorp (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: I've now gone through all the sources you listed and have harvested everything I think is relevant from them. 'Strategic Learning Ideologies in Prison Education Programs' costs $200 to buy in eBook format; that's well outside my price limit for sources, though I did manage to get some decent information in parts that are viewable in previews. Based on chapter titles it looks like the book does have some very good information in it in parts that I can't access, but I can't do anything about that right now. I haven't followed up the leads on Robben Island or Evakuoma Enuku yet, but that's next on my list. Freikorp (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I ended up getting the source I mentioned above from Resource Requests; I was able to get a sentence out of it that was relevant. "Evakuoma Enuku" seems to be a dead end. Searching on both Google Scholar and Google only gets the original source (and this FAC in the case of the latter haha [24]). Searching on my universities catalogue gets zero results. I'm still searching for information related to Robben Island. Freikorp (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Evakuoma Enuku" actually appears to be a typographical error in the source. The individual's name is actually Usiwoma Evawoma Enuku, the author of one of the journal articles I listed above. And, actually, I'm not sure whether that's properly "Evawoma Enuku" or "Evawoma-Enuku", as it appears in both forms in various works. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Thanks for pointing that out. Searching for 'Usiwoma Evawoma Enuku prison' gets me three new hits on my university catalogue. The first talks about the educational benefits of bringing amateur theater to prisons, and cites an example of this happening at one prison in Nigeria. I don't think this one play should be counted in a history of Africa section, though I did add a tidbit from this source to the 'Literacy rates and available programs' section. The second was about AIDS awareness: [25]. This source can be summed up with sentence 'Prisoners in Nigeria don't have access to AIDS awareness education though it would be a really good idea to start educating them on the issue'. I considered adding a single sentence on this to the Nigeria paragraph of the Africa section, though I thought that was a bit redundant since we already say they have no formal education, and this would include education on health matters. The third source ([26]) is interesting, but it isn't about Nigeria per se, it's about the educational opportunities (or lack thereof) that foreign inmates in general are afforded in European and North American prisons. I've added a new sentence from it to the 'Challenges' section.

Let me know what further issues you see with the article. Freikorp (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• These comments are adding to the above discussion. Just wanted to add other sources that I found for prison education in Africa: 1234567. I found these sources through a brief Google search. I think with these sources and the other sources provided above, there should be plenty of material for a separate section for Africa. Aoba47 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Here are others sources on prison education in Jamaica and the Caribbean: 1223456. I am not sure these sources are helpful to the article, but I wanted to let you know about them. Aoba47 (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the sources, though as I noted above I never said there was no information on the state of prison education in Africa, I said I didn't have any sources to build a sub-section specifically on the history of it. I will read through these sources and add anything of value from them, so thanks for finding them. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification! There is a chapter called "History of Prison Education in Ghana" in this source here. I am not sure how much help it will be. Aoba47 (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• The source looks good, but its not the holy grail I've been looking for, or at least the preview isn't anyway. The full ebook costs $200, which is about 10 times what I'm willing to pay for a single source on Wikipedia, and the first few pages on prison education are hidden. From what I can see a program was launched in 2003 to offer basic literacy to inmates, but there's no indication if this was the first such program, so I don't think it would be appropriate to add it to the history section. Nevertheless there's some good data in the preview that I'll be able to use elsewhere. Cheers for finding it. :) Freikorp (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• I've looked through most of these sources now, and have expanded the article here and there where appropriate. I've got three more to search through, though I will note I have no way of accessing the 'Caribbean issues' source from 1974, which does look like it would have been particularly useful. Freikorp (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the update! I just want to clarify that these are suggestions so only use what you feel would benefit the article. This is a very expansive topic so hats off for working so hard on this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Here is an additional source (Education Within the Middle East and North African Prisons: Challenges and Opportunities) that revolves around prison education in the Middle East and Northern Africa, with an emphasis on Lebanon. Unfortunately, it is a chapter in a book that cannot be accessible online so it could be hit or miss for this particular article, but I wanted to raise it to your attention. You could make a request for it on here (I think that Wikipedia has a place where you can request for information from these more academic sources, but I could be wrong.). Maybe you could find free portions of it online to get a better grasp on it. I also ran across this source (Incarceration, Education, Emancipation), which connects prison education back to Plato. It might be help for the article in terms of history (though it was probably more of the philosophy on the idea then the actual implementation of it). I am wondering if more people made the connection between prison education and Plato (and similar figures). Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hmmm, the article is referring to Plato's Allegory of the Cave, which just seems to be saying education is the key to freedom in general, and uses an analogy involving prisoners to make its point. It's not actually about prison education. I did find a useful quote from that article though, which I've added to my collection of potential material on the article's talk page. I've also put in a request for the other source at Resource Request. Freikorp (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Jens Lallensack

I agree with the above reviewers that balance is an issue especially in the history section. Not only that Africa is lacking, there is also no mention on Middle and South America, including very large nations such as Mexico and Brazil, and all of Asia except for China and Japan is missing. Regarding Europe, the article discusses Scandinavia and the United Kingdom in great detail, and even Island with its 137 prisoners has two sentences, but no mention on the rest of Europe. It appears a little bit as if all available information, as disparate they may be, have been tried to fit into the history section. This not only creates imbalance, but also is not very instructive for readers. I will briefly outline what I would try to do, maybe you can get some ideas out of it: Generally, I would try to reduce the content to the important points. If there are no adequate sources on the general history of prison education, it is prudent to have the section concise. Following from that, I would not try to discuss nations individually. Also because there are just too many of them. Histories per nation could be covered by an article History of prison education if needed. I would name individual nations only when they were the first to introduce something, are leading in some aspect, or are otherwise notable; in any case, it should become clear to the reader why this and not another nation is mentioned. For other mentions of nations, I would clearly mark them as examples, and only mention them to illustrate important general points made. Instead of focusing on nations, the section could focus on general developments, with a clear common thread. In this context, I would also think about if the subdivision in the separate continents makes sense at all, or if another structure (maybe types of education offered) is more suitable. These are only my ideas; I can imagine that this is a very difficult topic, and I'm glad to see a topic like this appearing here, it does not happen often. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The section is organised into continents because that's what my earlier reviewers (GA and/or PR, can't remember which) suggested. I am open to alternate suggestions, but until now there have been none.

To the best of my knowledge, no-one has ever tried to write a history of prison education from a worldwide perspective; I appear to be the first, and yes, it's very difficult given the limited sources. Accordingly, to the best of my knowledge there are no adequate sources on the general history of prison education.

The reason I have covered Iceland with its 137 prisoners is because when searching for information on the history of prison education I found a source on it. The reason other nations aren't covered is because I didn't find sources. It's all well and good to say I don't have the history of other European nations, but it's another thing to actually find the sources. I have looked for sources on prison education in Europe. What I've found is in the article. I have looked for sources on the history of prison education in Asia. What I've found is in the article. I'm not saying there isn't more out there. I'm saying I couldn't find it. I'll give you an example of what I'm up against. I just finished reading this source[27] on prison education in the Caribbean, which was given by one of the above reviewers. The source covered seven countries in The Caribbean, though only gave any form of the history of prison education on one of them. It actually mentioned the history of another was unknown. Accordingly, I've got a nice little paragraph on the history of prison education in Barbados (I've added it to the 'Additional info' section on the article's talk page, where I keep all the interesting info I've found that hasn't been added to the article yet), but I don't know what to do with it as if I add it to the article that's just going to make people complain that I haven't added other Caribbean nations, and then I'll have an even bigger problem. I don't really know what to do anymore. In any case I still haven't had a chance to look through all the sources on Africa that were listed above by another reviewer. I'm trying to do one thing at a time so I'm going to just stick with working through that for now. I'm not opposed to a complete restructuring of the history section, though I'd like to hear more opinions on whether that is necessary (and what kind of restructuring would be appropriate) first. Freikorp (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've decided to just add the paragraph on Barbados to the North American section. Also I'm starting to think having a very concise History section would be a good idea, and splitting the article, with a new article specifically on the history of it. I'm not sure how feasible that is but I like the idea anyway. Freikorp (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

The article doesn't appear to cover the education delivered in military prisons at present. These can be an interesting variation on civilian prison education: for instance, inmates at the Defence Force Correctional Establishment (Australia) undertake intensive military training with the goal of rehabilitating them to return to their unit. The Glasshouse (British Army) notes that despite the brutal conditions in British Army prisons, inmates had access to guns and ammunition so they could be drilled! Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right, it doesn't take military prisons into consideration, though I'm not sure that it should. I mean, 'military prison' and 'Prisoner-of-war camp' are stand alone articles. Writing a article about the history of education at them around the world and all the ins and outs and different programs and effectiveness etc could potentially be just as large as this article is now. I think education at those types of prisons should just be a sub-section at their respective articles, with at most a paragraph here linking to the 'main articles'. I think trying to merge that all in here will just convolute this article, especially since the goals of prisoner of war camps in particular are considerably different from those of civilian jails. Your thoughts? I'm also not convinced drilling people in the use of firearms counts as education if using firearms was already their job (though that information is certainly interesting!). Incidentally I am a former Australian soldier though I never spent time in a military prison. Freikorp (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This is what this article looked like in February before I started working on it: [28]. I mention this as while there isn't an article on 'military prison education' at present, if someone put the effort in I'm sure one could be made that rivals this article in size. My point being I think that information should be included elsewhere, and that this article shouldn't be penalised because it currently isn't. Freikorp (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

POW camps are out of scope, as they're not prisons per-se, and the activities POWs are and aren't supposed to do are governed by the Geneva Conventions and other agreements. Where circumstances permitted they have had 'improving' elements (for instance, western Allied POWs in Germany in World War II sometimes organised courses), but I don't think that governments holding POWs are under any obligation at all to provide education. I don't see why military prisons would be out of scope here: they're a small, but specialised, part of the prison system. In many countries with such prisons, their goal is to prepare personnel the military judges worth retaining to return to service, so they have an explicitly educational focus - including by reinforcing core military training such as drill. Military personnel who commit crimes which are seen as so serious that they can't continue in the military are often sacked and sent to civilian prisons. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Umm...at least in the US, violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that justifies imprisonment sends you to a military prison, not a civilian one. But I agree that POW camps are out of scope, and military prisons are such an exceedingly small portion of the world's prison population that it's hard to argue due weight with regard to WP:SS. The article also doesn't include incarceration in recognized US native reservations. But again, at some level of granularity you have to call it an encyclopedia article and not a book. GMG^talk 23:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree: this is a non-trivial part of prison systems worldwide (especially in the era of mass conscription), and a significant part of prison education. A couple of paras would do the trick. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I dunno. Currently at least in the US it looks like we have a few thousand military prisoners, while we have a few million prisoners. On such a broad article, I struggle to see the due weight. GMG^talk 00:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're so resistant to covering this type of prison education: surely the article should be comprehensive? It covers other interesting examples of prison education such as the ability of the 472 people held in custody in the Australian Capital Territory to be issued with their own computers. Bear in mind that numbers of people held in military prisons used to be much higher during the age of mass conscription (for instance, Australia had large networks of military prisons during both world wars, but now has only a single small military prison). Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D, if I did add a couple paragraphs on military prison, where do you suggest I put it in the article? A sub-section in 'History' after all the continents? Also the comment about computers in the ACT is just to give an example of how prison policy differs around the country. Freikorp (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

A sub-section of the history section would probably work best. There may be scope for similar cross-cutting sections covering other specialised forms of prisons/imprisonment (for instance, on women, youth and indigenous peoples). Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think it's clear there is significant work required here to address opposition and develop consensus on balance and sourcing. I will be archiving it as this work is best done outside of FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2018 [29].

---

Fawad Khan

Nominator(s): Amirk94391 (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Fawad Khan is Pakistani TV and film actor who've also worked in Bollywood films. The article is thoroughly researched and well sourced. Since its last failure at FA, it has been peer reviewed twice and has also been copy edited by GOCE. I'm looking forward to your comments. Amirk94391 (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for this Amirk94391; When did the GOCE do their ting? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Serial Number 54129 On 10 November 2017, the article was copy edited.Amirk94391 (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Right, thanks. It was with rather a light touch, though: fifteen edits. And the fact that it was so long ago means that the article will have massively changed since then (and it has). A peer reviewer suggested it receive a solid copy-edit to make it FAC-ready; has that not yet occured? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It does need some work, I agree with Serial. I will try to give it some copy-edits. FrB.TG (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

After glancing at it briefly, I have to say that a lot of additional works needs to be done. A GOCE member did copyedit the article, but that was over eight months ago. I suggest that the editor withdraw this nomination, request another GOCE edit, and open a brand new peer review before renominating. Don't fret. There is no deadline and the article will eventually get there. Good luck! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I've also briefly read the article (in response to a request on my talk page), and have the following comments:

• I agree with the above comments regarding prose: the article's prose doesn't flow smoothly, with sentences being a bit choppy (for instance, there are quite a few paragraphs where each sentence presents a quite different fact, and others where the prose is laboured as facts are repeated).
• The article would also benefit from a copy edit which trimmed out unnecessary material - for instance, lengthy quotes praising Khan, especially from people who have been in commercial relationships with him (directors, etc) where such material adds little to the article. It would also be good to be able to summarise the various reviews of his performance - as noted below, sources other than news articles could help to do this.
• "Khan is one of the highest paid actors in the Pakistani film industry" - how much are we talking about?
• The article appears to be entirely referenced to news stories. Are there books or academic articles (for instance, on the Pakistani and Indian entertainment industries) which could be drawn on? It would be good for this article to put its subject in context and to use higher quality sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

I realise this received a well-patronised Peer Review recently, but it does still seem to considered underprepared for FAC, particularly re. prose. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly to permit improvements to take place away from the spotlight of FAC. I'd echo Krimuk in recommending another copyedit; I believe the nominator would also be eligible for the FAC mentoring scheme if desired. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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 archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2018 [30].

---

Black Friday (1910)

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the Black Friday of 1910, rather than the modern shopping frenzy. It was a suffragette demonstration in which 300 women marched to the Houses of Parliament where they were met with violence, some of it sexual, by the Metropolitan police and bystanders. This article has been overhauled recently and any further constructive comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Preliminary comment: Please check the caption on the Votes for Women cartoon image. "Offing"? More detailed assessment to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Oops- many thanks Brian! - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

This is a very interesting and high quality article on an important topic. I have the following comments:

• Why did the suffragettes not complain about police brutality?
  • It's not made clear why Pankhurst had the policy of non-reporting, just that it wasn't what they did. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • OK. Presumably it was done to appeal to the conservative side of politics. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• To what extent did the Conciliation Bill offer suffrage? ("introduce a measure of female suffrage" is a bit unclear)
  • The actual conditions are a little cumbersome to include in the lead, so they are in footnote H - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I'd suggest moving this up to this sentence though. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I've added that the Bill would have added a million women to the vote, which seems to be a good part to add, without the extensive rules of how to be in that million. I hope that's ok. - SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Why were different police drafted to handle this demonstration?
  • It was never fully explained by the authorities. I've added a line that says no-one knows, but probably an administrative decision. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Why did the attacks continue for six hours? Were the suffragettes continuing their protest, or had they been trapped? (or both?)
  • I'll check on this point (I don't remember seeing an explanation, but that may have been me) - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've found nothing in the literature that explains the length of time they kept up the attacks. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    • OK. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• "there would be facilities for a Conciliation Bill to be put to parliament." - is 'facilities' the right word here? (given that the problem was a lack of dedicated parliamentary time)
  • I'll check on this - I think it was the language they used at the time, but no problems in re-drafting it to avoid antiquated language. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Tweaked. (It was Asquith who used the term, but I think it probably confuses things here). - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Have there been any commemorations of this event? Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not that I know of, but I'll search specifically for this and report back. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Only one vigil on the night of the 100th anniversary - now added. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Nick. There are a couple of things for me to check on, and I should have that done shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Nick-D: all sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed, but please see the suggestion above. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Nick. I've added something to address your point, which covers most parts, but without excessive detail. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from SN54129

• Nice article, as always expected. The immediate thing that jumps out is the duplicate image, in the lead and the reaction section—any particular strategy with this? You've got plenty of good images already (and possibly, where they came from?); I think the one that's bordered by the newspaper headline would look good up here?
  • Yep: newspaper cover moved up to the top. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Couple of other things; " The conciliation committee were"—I immediately think, obviously, collective noun = "was" (as opposed to "members of the committee were..."). Does this depend on it being the committee itself or its members though. Also, I can see some (extraneous?) commas which seem to break up the flow of the sentence unnecessarily ("The rising levels of violence by the police, was not raised or complained about", "Asquith called a general election, and said that parliament") Ironically I also note a couple of places where I thought a comma would fit better :) but perhaps its style rather than necessity. Bloody interesting piece though.Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • BrEng commonly treats collective nouns as plural (and grammatically neither is considered 'better' than the other), so I think its OK here. I'll have another look over the commas. It's been through a bit of a heavy trim just pre-FAC, so there possibly are some errors that I'll look into once again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Always a moment of supreme enjoyment...having my lingua franca explained to me :p  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha! I knew as soon as I posted it that it looked a bit stuffy! - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Notwithstanding stuffiness, I'd just like to emphasise my support for this article's promotion. I understand the concerns expressed below, but I do not see the sources used as being particularly egregious, lightweight or outdated; as long as the coverage is sufficiently broad and in-depth, there is no requirement to give every source equal weight. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks SN54129 - your thoughts are very welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

I'm reading carefully, this being my first detailed look at the revised and improved text. Here are a few comments on the lead and first few sections:

Lead:

• Metropolitan police → Metropolitan Police
• "well-supported" - delete hyphen
• "Asquith refused to grant further parliamentary time for it to be discussed." Suggest: "Asquith refused to grant it further parliamentary time."
• "Asquith called a general election" – for clarity, I'd insert "another" before "general".
• "The demonstrations led to a change in tactics by the WSPU, because many of their members were unwilling to expose themselves to similar violence again; the organisation moved further towards direct action, such as stone throwing and window breaking, which gave the women a chance to escape before encountering the police." I'm not sure that "change in tactics" is the right wording. It was more a resumption and extension of the militant tactics pursued before the truce – as evidenced in your own later text in paras 3 and 4 of the "Women's Social and Political Union" section. I'm also unsure about "which gave the women a chance to escape..." etc, which motivation isn't mentioned in your text and ought to be referenced somewhere.
  • Added in the body, under the existing reference - it should have been mentioned there in the first place. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• The main text mentions a change of tactics on the part of the police, which is not mentioned in the lead.

Women's Social and Political Union

• The blockquote seems a little on the long side (170 words), going beyond the function of emphasising the text. You might consider a trim.
• You describe Herbert Gladstone as "the Liberal Home Secretary". You don't add a party label to Asquith when you describe him earlier in the section as the Prime Minister - probably just "the Home Secretary" would suffice.

Political situation

• Give date of the January 1910 general election, as you do in the lead
• A hung parliament eliminates, rather than reduces, a government's majority (as Mrs May learned to her discomfort last year).
• "Asquith took power" – retained power, I think, as he was already in office
• "they accepted it was an important step and called a truce in militant actions in support". A bit clumsily worded, I think. Suggest "as an important step", followed by a comma, and replace "actions in support" with "activity".
• For the benefit of those unversed in British parliamentary procedures, it might be useful to add the words "and it would therefore fail" after "but no further parliamentary time would be allocated to it".
• "Grey" not mentioned previously in the text, only in a footnote, so should be properly introduced.

More to come soon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian: these are now all covered. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Further comments

18 November

• "On 18 November 1910 Asquith called a general election..." Although the reasons for this don't impinge on your topic, a few words of explanation would be helpful, e.g. "On 18 November 1910, in an attempt to resolve the parliamentary impasse arising from the House of Lords veto on Commons legislation, Asquith called a general election. He said that..." etc. – or you may devise a briefer insertion.
• "the first groups of men..." – who were these "men"? Were they just bystanders? Calling them "the first groups" makes it sound as though they were organised. Perhaps delete the words "the first"?
• Six hours is a mighty long time. What were the demonstrators actually doing all this time, apart from being beaten up? Was it a passive demonstration, or did they make attempts to enter the parliament buildings? I think a little fleshing out of detail would help to form a better picture of what was going on.
  • There is very detail about what happened, aside from the reports from the women about their individual treatment. I've clarified that they were trying to get into parliament fr that time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not an expert on wheelchair mechanics, so I'm a little bemused by the policeman who "stole the valves from the wheels". What can this mean? Do wheels have stealable valves?
  • I suspect it's rather like bike tyres (or at least bike tyres from a century ago!) I've added a link - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Reaction

• On 19 November 1910, newspapers reported on the events." I would add: "of the previous day".
• "an attempt was made by the police to suppress publication" – "the police" is rather too general here. Perhaps "the police authorities"? Also in the following sentence, "he" and "they" require clearer definition.
• "When members of the Conciliation committee..." earlier "conciliation committee"
• "they demanded a public inquiry, which was rejected." Who rejected it?

Assessment

• "Emmeline blamed the maltreatment Clarke received at the two November demonstrations" – I'd insert "her death on" after "blamed"

Primarily these are small points I would have suggested at the peer review, had I got there. The only significant issue, I believe, is the "six hours" matter that I raise above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian; all covered per your suggestions. Thanks for your thoughts, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support: My specific points have been adequately answered. I believe that, overall, the article has benefitted from the searching analysis it has received at this FAC, and as it stands meets the FAC criteria. If new sources are found that provide significant fresh details or interpretation, the text can be adjusted as necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Brian, for all your suggestions and advice here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, those that are not should not

I thought these were OK? Can you point out the ones that are not? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• File:The_Daily_Mirror,_19_November_1910,_front_page_(cleaned).png: UK tag requires that you outline in the image description steps taken to try to ascertain authorship.

Photographer identified (inc date of death); tag changed - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Same with File:A_policeman_tries_to_seize_a_banner_from_a_suffragette_on_Black_Friday.jpg.

Explanation added - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Same with File:Elizabeth_Garrett_Anderson;_Emmeline_Pankhurst.jpg, which also needs a US PD tag and the source link of which appears to go to a different image

Explanation and tag added; link re-directed to correct image - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• File:Suffragette_Banner_-_Museum_of_London.jpg: who is the author on which the life+70 tag is based?

Tag changed. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Same with File:Suffragettes,_Daily_Graphic,_14_February_1907.jpg

Tag changed; explanation added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• File:Votes_for_Women_-_1909_front_page.png

Tag changed; explanation added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• File:Pankhurst_at_the_Black_Friday_demonstration.jpg.

Tag changed; explanation added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Technically same also with File:Flier_for_a_suffragette_demonstration.jpg, but that one I would argue is too simple for copyright protection

It probably is - the type is unexceptional and layout simplistic, but I've swapped the tags anyway, just for safety's sake. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• File:Arrest_of_a_suffragette_on_Black_Friday1910-11-18_(22163159204).jpg: per the Flickr Commons tag, are any more specific copyright tags available? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Explanation added - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Nikkimaria: all the tags etc sorted (hopefully!), but if you answer the question on your first point I'd be much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

A very worthy topic.

• "a truce in militant actions" is a rather curious turn of phrase. There's "truce in militant activity" further down, too.
• I feel the final paragraph of "18 November" could have more details about what actually happened on the day; is that basically all of what is known? Did the police not tell a story about what had happened? You mention lots of journalists being present; did this not tell of more details? I see now that more is discussed in the sections following!
  • Aside from the stories of the individuals involved, there is very little information aside from 'the two sides struggled'. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• "the image may be that of either Ernestine Mills[59] or Ada Wright.[60][61]" Presumably you mean that the person displayed was either Mills or Wright, not that one of the two of them took the picture?
• "The committee's secretary, the journalist Henry Brailsford, and" Was Brailsford the secretary? If so, dashes might help!
• "she had witness against others" Witnessed?
• In one place, you refer to "stone throwing and window breaking" and in another to "stone throwing and window-breaking". I'd have thought it should be "stone-throwing and window-breaking".
• "The historian Elizabeth Crawford considers the events of Black Friday "was to fix the image of the relations" This is grammatically a little odd.
• "Sir Edward Troup" but " Sir Edward Grey" (twice)
• The lead feels very long for what is actually a relatively short article.

Hope that's useful. This reads very well. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Josh! Your suggestions taken on board here; please let me know if this is what you had in mind, or if there is anything else you think should be addressed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV

Lead image

Hi SchroCat, I see you've removed the higher quality image from the lead again. I think it should be restored to either File:Black Friday, London, 18 November 1910, suffragette attacked.jpg or File:Black Friday, attacked suffragette on the ground.jpg (the lead image since 2015). Swapping it for the Mirror front page means the quality of the image is reduced considerably, and the article isn't about the news coverage. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Although the article isn't about the news coverage, it was an important part of driving public opinion (both toward and away from the demonstrators), so I think we do need the front page in there somewhere. At the resolution the images are shown in the article, the difference between them is negligible, and I think the impact is greater showing it as, very literally, front page news. (It was also you who suggested it ;-) ) Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the Mirror front page being the lead in principle; it's the quality that's the problem. Is there any way to download a higher quality version of the Mirror image? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've put in a higher quality version, but it contains a stamp on the front that appears in all the historic copies of The Mirror from their archive. - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The image reminds me of File:Ian Tomlinson remonstrates with police.jpg: Ian Tomlinson and several police officers just after one of them (not in picture) pushed him over. We use that in the lead of Death of Ian Tomlinson, but not as it appeared on the front page of The Guardian.

Despite this being a women's protest, the image shows only two women: one on the ground and one (possibly) in the background. It shows around 17 men, at least six of whom are police officers. That tells a story: for example, that the men dragged her away from the other women. We lose that detail by using the Mirror image. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we're losing Sarah: it's the same image, just with the additional impact of having The Mirror masthead above it. It's the same story being told in the two identical images. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

We lose the detail, as I said above. The Mirror images are just a mass of black. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be reading way too much into it "for example, that the men dragged her away from the other women"? There is nothing to back that up at all. What the Mirror version does is to reflect the reliable sources of it being a highly publicised front page matter. We have a whole section dedicated to the reaction, much of which is about the media. If you remember, there was a previous image of an old woman being tussled with by a policeman, which could also be happily put back in. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

As I recall, she has written about it. What did she say happened? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The little old lady? I don't think she's ever been identified. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The woman in the lead image. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

So, I'll go back to the suggestion of a large policeman wrestling with a little old lady. You seem to have missed that suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking about the woman in the lead image; the woman in the image in this section. She wrote or talked about the experience. You can take what happened directly from her. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, you seem to be talking past me on this. I've suggested an alternative image to get past this, as there is minimal difference between the two images, except for the additional impact of the newspaper headline. As to what someone has said, the reliable sources do not even agree on the identity of the woman in the photo. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is what I'm discussing: The Mirror (as I recall) identified the woman on the ground as Ada Wright. She identified herself as Ada Wright and wrote or discussed what happened to her. Every RS I have read about this (as I recall) names her as Ada Wright. Her name and statement should be in the article. Given how that image became a symbol of Black Friday, it should be the lead image, as it was from 2015 until you changed it recently. Of the various versions of that image, we should use the highest quality so that we can see the detail.

As for the National Archive saying it was Ernestine Mills, are they alone in that, or do any of the primary sources or reliable secondary sources say the same? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No, the Mirror do not identify her as Wright. I am not happy about dismissing the National Archives version, as they are fairly good at what they do (although I have not seen HO144/1106/200455, the document from the Home Office where the identification as Mills is made). I don't agree that the "detailed" version is better (as far as I can see, amorphous shapes are all facing perpendicular to the woman and may have nothing to do with her specific situation), and it loses the impact of showing it as front page news. I do not wish to continue this discussion: you are talking past me much of the time, and I am prepared for other reviewers to chip in to make comments as they see fit. Hopefully a consensus will develop out of the other attendees at this FAC, particularly as it was your suggestion to use this particular image in the first place! - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Where does the National Archive say anything about the Home Office? They say only "Possibly Mrs Ernestine Mills prone and Dr Herbert Mills in top hat". [31] Given that they don't even mention Ada Wright, that could be a simple mistake. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

[32] It could be a mistake, but as this very reliable source refers to Mills in more than one location, it seems an odd mistake to make. Either way, I'm happy for others to chip in to get some consensus from third parties. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've tracked down the source (the citation, not the book itself) for Ada Wright's statement. She was interviewed by Antonia Raeburn for her book The Militant Suffragettes, London: New English Library, 1973, pp. 170–171. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't seen this, so I should make clear that I'm assuming she interviewed Wright directly. I believe that she did interview suffragettes for the book, and that Wright's statement that she was the woman on the ground is in the book. I'm inferring from that that Raeburn spoke to Wright. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Now I see that the Raeburn book with Ada Wright's statement is quoted by Caroline Morrell, a source you've cited a lot, so you would already have known about it. (I wish you had said; it would have saved me time.) SarahSV ^(talk) 23:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have not had time to check. Most of my limited Wiki time this evening has been spent emailing you documents or discussing the lead image here, even though you seem not to be taking on board some of the things I'm saying. Try and work with me, rather than against me please. I'm off to bed, having been going round in circles here and not actually achieving anything. - SchroCat (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• It matters very, very little when making the decision about the lead image, and whether or not Wright thought that image was of her or not. Again, I am happy to let others chip in with their thoughts on the selection. - SchroCat (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It matters for two reasons not related to which image is in the lead: (1) we should name the woman in this famous image, assuming it has been established; and (2) her statement describing what happened to her belongs in the article.

Re: the lead image. For background, the higher quality image was added to the article in January 2015. You added a rewrite in one edit on 18 April 2018, which removed the image and added the Mirror one to the "Reaction" section. I restored the higher quality image on 20 April and placed it in the lead. You removed it again on 31 May and moved up the Mirror image instead. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Im always wary of people attaching their names to a famous image or event some time after it occurred. Either way, the reliable sources show two names and we should reflect that. I would not be happy to see something like the National Archives ignored on an interview of someone claiming that it's them.

I am very aware of the history of the use of the image in this article, but I'm at a loss as to why it matters. A consensus of reviewers here will suffice. -SchroCat (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: your point about being "wary of people attaching their names to a famous image or event some time after it occurred", Sylvia Pankhurst names the woman as Ada Wright in The Suffragette Movement (1931), which you use as a source, and says she saw her. Describing Black Friday, she writes (p. 343):

I saw Ada Wright knocked down a dozen times in succession. A tall man with a silk hat fought to protect her as she lay on the ground, but a group of policemen thrust him away, seized her again, hurled her into the crowd and felled her again as she turned. Later I saw her lying against the wall of the House of Lords, with a group of anxious women kneeling around her.

SarahSV ^(talk) 05:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Which of these six times is the photograph of, do we know? On the assumption that's what it's of, of course. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, sorry, I don't understand the question. Pankhurst says that she witnessed the attack on Wright. The implication is that she saw the tall man in the silk hat try to help. That's the man in the photograph. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

At present, the text reads: "the image may be of either Ernestine Mills or Ada Wright." The weight of evidence in the sources clearly points to Wright rather than Mills, so at the very least I'd be inclined to reverse the name order, and perhaps prioritise Wright's claim a little more emphatically, e.g. "the image is likely that of Ada Wright,<references> or possibly Ernestine Mills.<ref>" Perhaps add a short footnote explaining that Wright identified herself in a 1973 interview? Brianboulton (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

We can certainly do the first half of your suggestion, but the second half (as it stands) is a problem: Wright died in 1939, and the details of when the interview was, or who it was to, remains a mystery. We can fudge something to say that she claimed it, but without too much additional information. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It might not remain a mystery if we had the chance to do the research, but this article was rushed from a sandbox rewrite (with no notification to page watchers that it was taking place) straight to peer review, and presumably it would have been straight to FAC had I not raised objections on talk. There are other problems with the article, but anyone wanting to review it seriously needs time to send off for the sources, and some will take weeks to arrive. I don't understand why this had to be rushed to FAC over an objection.

I added a selection of the sources identifying the woman as Wright to Ernestine Mills, but you've removed them to a footnote and edit-warred to keep them there. Here is the section as I wrote it (I would normally not even mention the photograph in that article until I knew more; I wrote that section only as a compromise). Please see the discussion at Talk:Ernestine Mills. Georgiana Solomon identified her as Wright in a letter to Churchill in December 1910. Sylvia Pankhurst identified her as Wright. That is significant because the National Archives description page is claiming that the man in the silk hat might be Mills's husband, Dr. Herbert Mills. But Herbert Mills was the Pankhurst family doctor. Sylvia would surely have recognized him had he been the man in the photograph, or he would at least have mentioned it to her.

I've emailed the National Archives to ask why someone has added to their catalogue description of the image that it is "possibly" Mills (because that page appears to be the only source that says this), so we have to wait for their reply. Again, all this should be sorted out on the talk page, not during an FAC.

I object to the removal of the high-quality image from the lead. We see detail in it that you can't see as clearly or at all with the image as it appeared in the Mirror, including detail that sources discuss (e.g. the smiling boy); also that the policeman appears to have removed just one glove, which may suggest that he had hit her with it, and that the crowd around her is almost entirely men, which is significant. Someone appears to have dragged her away from the other women. You don't see that in the Mirror image. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

1. No notes are needed to page watchers (not that anyone can identify them) as they are notified by the opening of the PR/FAC by the addition of the templates to the talk page.

2. This article – in approximately this form – since mid-April. How long do you suggest we wait for you before doing anything?

3. (Re: edit warring on the Mills article: You Boldly added sources, I moved them, you reverted: you are equally culpable of edit warring on that article as I am. As I pointed out on the talk page, discussions abut the potential identification in an image belong in a footnote, not in the main text.

4. The specific identity of the person in the image is of minor academic interest compared to the remainder of the article, and there is no reason why this process should be held up for you to undertake Original Research.

5. Regardless of that, I have included (in footnote M) several of the sources that identify Wright. I have not included the synthesis of Pankhurst "surely" recognising Dr Mills.

6. I have already said that I am happy to keep the decision of the image to other reviewers, rather than the opinion of one person over another. Personally I think you are reading an awful lot into the static image (Someone appears to have dragged her away? Really?) and none of what you suggest is backed up by the sources. I also think the fact it was front page news in one of Britain's widest circulating daily newspapers gives it much more impact than minor details when seen at 300px wide on the page. Either way, let other reviewers chip in with their thoughts and suggestions, and let's not forget, despite your objection, it was you who originally suggested it. – SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You added a sandbox rewrite in one edit on 18 April 2018 (with the edit summary "a ttweak or two..."), and later asked that the sandbox be deleted. That means page watchers knew nothing about it until it was done.

You took it to peer review the next day, then presumably intended to take it straight to FAC. I objected on Talk:Black Friday (1910), for several reasons, including because you had copied a paragraph word-for-word from text Brian wrote at another article (diff). You responded that you would not edit the article again.

On 28 May you said you had changed your mind and would be nominating it for FAC shortly. You asked me to make any further comments immediately. I told you I didn't have time and wouldn't be able to support it (discussion). Had I known about the rewrite when you started it, as is the case with most editing on Wikipedia, I'd have had time to order the sources. But instead everything is done in a rush, so the only people able to review it are people without access to sources. That's a big problem.

As for the image, it has been in the article since 2015. You removed it during the rewrite, and when I saw that, I restored it. So it seems to me that you need consensus to remove it, not the other way round. It doesn't make sense that the high-quality image is in Ernestine Mills and Ada Wright (one of whom had nothing to do with this), but in the article about the event itself we have an inkblot. Regarding your claim that the woman's name is "of minor academic interest", I strongly disagree that the identity of the woman being attacked doesn't matter. The point is that it's an UNDUE violation to pretend that the sources disagree. One source (anonymously written and citing no source) says it was "possibly" Mills. All other sources say it was Wright. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I really have no idea how you think me adding a PR and FAC template onto the talk page isn't going to alert page watchers, but never mind.

Thank you for potted history: it means sweet fanny Adams (particularly to me, as I know what steps I took and when), but the main point is that it is here for those who wish to review this in good faith are free to do so.

It's not true to say only those with access to sources can review this, and I've lost count of the number I have sent though to you, when you have requested them directly or through the resource exchange.

I have had to ask you before to work play nice, and work with me, not against me. If you could do that, life would be much more constructive for everyone. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The "sandbox-to-FA pipeline" bypasses the normal collaborative process. Reviewers are probably not familiar with the issues, and no one has had time to access the sources (I mean books, not newspaper articles). If the article is promoted, it becomes even harder to change anything. The PR and FAC templates alert page watchers when it's too late. Please take that point. There's no point in having your work reviewed exclusively by people who don't have the sources in front of them. Yet that is what this speed causes. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry it doesn't fall into the way you do things, but it is not uncommon, and I have never heard anyone complain about it before. I will certainly not change the way I do things on the basis of one comment. As I have already pointed out, I have emailed though a large number of sources to you (more than anyone has ever asked before) and I have done so because I want the articles I work on to be the best they can be. I disagree that this method by-passes a collaborative process: both PR and FAC are collaborative processes and those who wish to review this in good faith are free to do so. – SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Returning to the question of the lead image and the related text re Wright/Mills. I think the present adjusted text and footnote is acceptable, unless incontrovertible evidence emerges that either confirms Wright absolutely or rejects Mills entirely, at which point further adjustments can be made. As to the choice of image, I'm always inclined to go for the best quality available, but I can see the force of the argument for including the DM masthead even if the image is inferior. Is it possible, I wonder, to create a fresh image by combining the better quality photograph with the masthead? Is it legal? If so, I doubt that it's beyond the skills of our techies to create it, which could provide a pleasing solution. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• It would look something like this, although I wasn't sure what you all considered the best image. Even so, you get the...picture  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose from SarahSV

Oppose mainly per 1b and 1c. Also 1e, 2a, 2b and 4. I apologize for how long this has taken, but I was waiting for sources. I still don't have everything, so this will have to do. In any event, I hope the following is helpful. Please post any replies after my post rather than inside it.

Summary: The article is not well-organized. It isn't comprehensive; there is too much missing to list. The key issue about Churchill and the arrests is barely examined; most of what he said about this is missing. The issue isn't mentioned in the lead. The primary and secondary sources on Churchill are not explored. That he apparently contradicted himself is not mentioned. The article includes that he threatened to sue Christabel Pankhurst for libel (and The Times, which is not mentioned), but doesn't tell us what she said. We hear very little from the women who were attacked. Those who are quoted aren't named; some of the names are known. There's only a passing mention of the Battle of Downing Street and its aftermath a few days later, but the events are closely connected; the WSPU wanted a public inquiry into all the events of 18, 22 and 23 November. There is no historiography section. The article uses some secondary sources outside the academic literature, but it's not clear why. The primary sources are underused or not used at all; the Brailsford–Murray report is surprisingly underused. The article should rely on the most authoritative source (primary or peer-reviewed secondary) for each point. It doesn't do that.

To follow are examples of the problems; more major issues at the top:

1. Organization: It needs shorter sections and descriptive headings so that the reader can navigate their way through it. The background section is far too long and contains a lot of irrelevant material. Several paragraphs throughout the article are too long. The article is around 3,700 words, including the lead. Of that, around 1,150 are background. The day itself is under 600; of that only around 230 are on the key events. (These figures are from copy-pasting and include captions, etc.) The background needs to be reduced. The day itself, and particularly the key events, increased. More witness statements from the women. More from Brailsford–Murray in its own section. More about Churchill in its own section. Not clear what the Assessment section is.
2. Churchill: A key issue is whether Churchill ordered that there should be few arrests and understood the implications of that. One problem is that the article doesn't explain that the WSPU wanted arrests and why, so there's no context. The issue needs its own section, and the primary and secondary literature should be mined, including the Churchill literature. The issue is not mentioned in the lead (which violates WP:LEAD). There is one short paragraph about it in the Reaction section (from "The WSPU leadership were convinced "). That Churchill may have contradicted himself is not mentioned. We're not told what Christabel Pankhurst said to trigger talk of a lawsuit, and The Times, which published it, isn't cited or mentioned. It doesn't mention Churchill's general dislike of the suffragettes and women generally; e.g. "Nothing would induce me to vote for giving women the franchise. I am not going to be henpecked into a question of such importance" (in Sylvia Pankhurst, The Suffragette Movement).
   When I objected to the heavy reliance on Rosen 1974, the source was replaced without the text changing (or barely), apart from the article's conclusion about Churchill and the violence. It said: "Rosen considers that Churchill had not given any orders to the police to manhandle the demonstrators." On 11 June this became: "June Purvis, in her biography of Emmeline Pankhurst states that the police were acting under directions from Churchill to refrain from making arrests."
   But all points of view need to be explored. Tell us who said what, and what the scholarly consensus is on whether he gave the police instructions. The Churchill statements I'm aware of (arguably inconsistent):
   On 22 November he wrote to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner: "I am hearing from every quarter that my strongly expressed wishes conveyed to you on Wed evening & repeated on Fri morning that the suffragettes were not to be allowed to exhaust themselves, but were to be arrested forthwith upon any defiance of the law, were not observed by the police on Friday last, with the result that very regrettable scenes occurred" (Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill, vol 2, part 3, p. 1457, cited in several sources; I haven't seen this myself).
   He made a statement on 1 March 1911 about the Brailsford–Murray report (part of that statement is in the article), and again on 8 March. On 10 March, he said "No fresh instructions, verbal or written, were issued to the police on or before 18th November." He also discussed how "the women work themselves into a high state of hysteria, expose themselves to rough horseplay at the hands of an unsympathetic crowd, and finally collapse from the exhaustion of their own exertions." He said he had intended that the police should "have these women removed from the scene of disorder as soon as was lawfully possible", but "[t]he directions which I gave were not fully understood or carried out on the 18th of November." Also, "no one is responsible but the disorderly women themselves" for the "disagreeable scenes"; he called the WSPU a "copious fountain of mendacity". But then on 11 March, he said: "No orders, verbal or written, emanating directly or indirectly from me were given to the police".
3. Brailsford–Murray and witness statements: Very little use is made of this key primary source, which needs its own section. The article should include what the report said about the police, as well as more witness statements. The short citation, "Conciliation Committee for Woman Suffrage 1911", is sometimes cited alone and sometimes as "quoted in", and quoted in different secondary sources, some of which have been swapped for others. Does that mean the full report hasn't been seen? If it has, it's better to cite it directly and use more of it. Brailsford is described as a journalist and secretary of the conciliation committee; more needs to be said about him. (Minor writing issue: where it says "The memorandum summarised their finding", it isn't clear what is meant. The article later says "the memorandum prepared by Murray and Brailsford". Also, in the long citation, the committee shouldn't be named as both author and publisher.)
   The failure to include women's voices is a major issue in suffragette historiography, and this article includes very little from the women who were attacked. Several names are known but aren't in the article. One woman is quoted but not named ("I can grip you wherever I like to-day"). Several women talked about being dragged out of the crowd and pulled down side streets. There is a large blockquote from Sylvia Pankhurst, but it's about another event; the only other blockquote is from Churchill. More eyewitness accounts should be included in the 18 November section (which should be split into subsections), and in a new Brailsford section.
4. Conciliation Bill: This is not clear. When did the truce (the "pause in militant activity") begin? What was the conciliation committee (say something about who was on it). Why was it called a "conciliation" bill? What did it propose? What is a first and second reading? The lead mentions interviews by the conciliation committee without saying what it was. Note that Churchill voted against the Bill. "They further decided that if no additional parliamentary time was given over to the Conciliation Bill, Christabel Pankhurst would lead a delegation to Parliament." When did the WSPU decide this? Say something about the meetings they were holding during this period.
5. Sources in general: The article should use the most authoritative primary and scholarly sources for each point. The aim is to present as accurate an account as we can, but the article seems to present material simply because secondary sources have done so, even when it makes little sense.
   The primary sources are not used when they ought to be. For example (these are only examples), why not use Brailsford–Murray for "29 of the statements also included details of ... indecency", and Emmeline Pankhurst for her belief about her sister's death? Although the newspapers of the period have to be used with caution, a few more original reports from The Times would be appropriate. It's cited only three times (an article and a letter).
   Morrell 1981 (based on her BA thesis) seems to have been followed very closely in places. It's appropriate to use her for Black Friday, but she's used for other issues too. The article relies on sources outside the academic secondary literature, but there's no reason to; it would be better to stick to academic historians. Lucinda Hawksley, a travel writer, was added as a source during the FAC when Rosen was removed. (I've glanced at the book and it does look interesting; sometimes she cites sources, but often not.) The article ends by quoting Crawford, describing her as an historian, but Crawford describes herself as an independent researcher and bookseller. Why use a 1953 History Today article? The ODNB (a tertiary source) is not the best source for this. The addition and repeated restoration of Bearman during the FAC was troubling, especially when he was removed a few days later anyway.
6. Historiography: There is no historiography section. The article should explain what the key primary sources are. There is no attempt to offer a contextualized history. What effect did the scenes of sexual assault have on women? Gillian Thomas writes (A Position to Command Respect: Women and the Eleventh Britannica): "What Black Friday and scores of less notable demonstrations, showed to educated women ... was that neither class nor education could protect the woman who ventured into the public domain." This change in women's consciousness about male attitudes toward them should be explored.
   The article should do more to examine how the narrative changed once the primary and early secondary sources were revised. For example, Rosen 1974 wrote of the sexual violence:

   [T]he great majority of the women who took part in militant demonstrations were in their twenties and thirties. By attempting to rush through or past police lines, these women were bringing themselves repeatedly into abrupt physical contact with the police. That the police found in the youthful femininity of many of their assailants an invitation to licence, does not seem, all in all, completely surprising.

   We should discuss on talk whether to include comments like that, depending on secondary sources, in a section about the attitudes of the early sources. The newspapers made light of these attacks, and the early secondary literature reflected those attitudes. Some of this is explored in the article but not much. The article (not counting sources) doesn't contain the words feminist, feminism, sexist, sexism, misogynist, misogyny, masculinist, or gender. (This isn't about Black Friday, but it's worth reading June Purvis's paper, "Gendering the Historiography of the Suffragette Movement in Edwardian Britain: some reflections".)
7. Lead: The biggest issue is not mentioning the Churchill allegation. It should explain or link "women's suffrage". Explain "a measure of women's suffrage in national elections". What is "a cross-party conciliation committee"? If first and second readings would be too much to explain in the lead, does it need to be there? Re: "the suffrage movement supported the legislation": in public, but the WSPU didn't like it, so that sentence should be rewritten a little. Re: "Lines of police and crowds of male bystanders met three hundred female protestors outside the Houses of Parliament; the women were attacked for the next six hours." That makes no sense if the lead doesn't explain about Churchill and the lack of arrests. For six hours, the government and police allowed the area around the House of Commons to be in chaos for no reason?
   Re: the sexual assault: "Many women complained about the sexual nature of the assaults ..."; it would be better to leave it there. The issue with the damage to breasts was that women believed such damage caused breast cancer (that's according to a couple of sources; it needs to be checked.) If it can be well-sourced, it should be explained in the article, but in the absence of that explanation in the lead, the mention of it is jarring. Re: "Police arrested 4 men and 115 women, although the following day all charges were dropped": not explained. No mention of the events following Black Friday; the calls for a public inquiry referred to all the events, not only Black Friday. "The violence may have caused the subsequent deaths of two suffragettes." It was three deaths, not two, and the sentence needs in-text attribution ("in the view of the WSPU" or similar).
8. Lead image. The woman is Ada Wright, according to the primary and scholarly literature. The mention of Ernestine Mills should be removed from the footnote. The suffragettes, Wright herself, and scholarly sources say the woman was Ada Wright. That it might be Ernestine Mills was added to this article because one webpage on the National Archives site suggested that name—in square brackets, unsourced—as a possibility. Several people contacted the National Archives about this; they've already edited the entry and I hope will soon remove it. But that page was never an RS for the name. The words in square brackets are not part of the source material that the catalogue description is based on.
   Re: "the police authorities made an attempt to suppress publication". The Mirror discusses, the day after Black Friday, their contact with police; that should be cited. Kelly is cited alongside Hiley, but Hiley is her source. Hiley doesn't cite a source, so he's not a good source for this. And he doesn't say, as the article does, "When they found out that the paper had nearly completed its run, they tried to purchase all 750,000 copies." He says that the newspaper sold 750,000 the next day, and that the police first tried to stop publication, then buy up early copies. I wouldn't include this unless I could find a good primary source.
9. Constance Lytton: She is mentioned twice as though she's different people. In the "Women's Social and Political Union" section: "Constance Lytton wrote that 'the word went round that we were to conceal as best we might, our various injuries.'" In the "Political situation" section: "a cross-party conciliation committee of pro-women's suffrage MPs was formed under the chairmanship of Lord Lytton, the brother of the suffragette Lady Constance Bulwer-Lytton." Re: the quote from her: "It was no part of our policy to get the police into trouble." The sentence cites Morrell, but Morrell's explanation isn't included. Without that, it raises the question why not. But if it's explained, it becomes even longer. Not clear why it's included; it's not about Black Friday.
10. Quoting: There's some quoting of ordinary words instead of summarizing: van Wingerden, "the differing accounts of the event of that day"; Smith, "it appeared to witnesses as well as the victims that the police had intentionally attempted"; and Morrell, "almost unanimously refrained from any mention of police brutality". Re: Purvis, "cast to the ground" and "treated with exceptional brutality by burly policeman", it seems pointless to have Purvis repeat this in quotes at the end of the Reaction section when she's summarizing the Brailsford report. There is too much quoting of Sylvia Pankhurst. A blockquote in Background, two quotes at the start of the next paragraph, another at the end of the same paragraph, another in the second paragraph of 18 November, again in the third paragraph of 18 November (there it is justified).
11. Deaths: "Mary Clarke, Emmeline Pankhurst's younger sister, was present at ... Black Friday ...". Was she? Sylvia Pankhurst indicated otherwise; Morrell does too. Emmeline Pankhurst said Clarke was present, so why not cite her directly rather than via Atkinson? But any doubt needs to be included. There's no mention of Ellen Pitfield, whose death Sylvia Pankhurst appeared to blame on Black Friday. These claims may be tenuous, but Pitfield's death no more so than the others (attributed to the WSPU or Sylvia Pankhurst).
12. Assessment section: It isn't clear what this is meant to be. It repeats some of the Brailsford report (the deaths) in the first paragraph. The second paragraph describes the immediate impact on the WSPU. What was the long-term effect of Black Friday?
13. Hume, p. 71: "it was kept to a relatively small number to make the bill as acceptable as possible to Conservative MPs". The article should include Liberal and Labour concerns too, as Hume and others do.
14. There is no need for two images of Emmeline Pankhurst and Elizabeth Garrett Anderson.
15. Punctuation. Re: "According to the historian Caroline Morrell, from 1905 'The basic pattern ...'". As discussed elsewhere, punctuation, preferably a colon, is needed after "from 1905" in this and similar examples.
16. There's a formatting issue on mobile in the Notes section caused by the indents at note h (the numbers). It's producing a lot of white space on mobile.

Again, please add any responses below. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah well, an FAC over three times longer than the article...

1. Organization: People have different ways of splitting articles and there are no set rules. Your opinion on sectioning appears to be different to mine. I'm relatively happy with the sections as they are, but will consider some of your suggestions.

"shorter sections and descriptive headings": I disagree – what we have is descriptive enough and the sections break at logical places.

"background section is far too long and contains a lot of irrelevant material" and "The background needs to be reduced": I disagree – as I've explained elsewhere on the page – the information is in line with WP:FACR 1b ("it ... places the subject in context") Without that context, readers will be confused at why certain things happened.

"The day itself, and particularly the key events, increased": Details of the "key events" are extremely limited and we include them all. Outside the women's reports of what happened to them specifically, what other "key events" do you see as being missing? I have suggested elsewhere on this page to move many of the Murray/Brailsford quotes into this section, which would beef it up (a suggestion that went unanswered), but it seems like you want to have them in their own section, which would be too stubby.

"More witness statements from the women": How many? I agree we could include more, but as this is an encyclopaedia article – a summary of events rather than a full book, and I'm wary of turning this int a quote farm. Do you have a feeling of how many more quotes or words should be added? (The ones chosen so far are representative of others in M/B, which means we will probably be doubling or tripling up in terms of type of report)

"More from Brailsford–Murray in its own section": I'll mull over B/M in its own section. It sits well within the Reaction section at present, but that's not to say it wouldn't work separately. Now split off

"Several paragraphs throughout the article are too long". I don't necessarily agree, but please provide examples.

2. Churchill
3. Brailsford–Murray and witness statements:

"needs its own section" As I've already said above, I don't necessarily agree, but I'll mull it over Striking the duplicate point

"Does that mean the full report hasn't been seen?" Yes it has.

As it's a primary source we have to be careful how we use it, and I think its use here is safely within the WP:PRIMARY policy

"Several women talked about being dragged out of the crowd and pulled down side streets": so do we.

"18 November section ... split into subsections" No need.

"One woman is quoted but not named": that's because the report and all other sources give her name as "Elizabeth Freeman", for which we have no article (and I don't normally add in names is they are unlinked or of only passing mention. However, if we agree that the report and all subsequent sources have mis-spelt her name, then you'll see I've now added Elisabeth Freeman's name.

"Brailsford ... more needs to be said about him"; no, it doesn't. We introduce who he is and provide a link to his article, where there is a much more complete description.

"in the long citation, the committee shouldn't be named as both author and publisher": this was how it was described on the copy I read.

"The failure to include women's voices is a major issue in suffragette historiography, and this article includes very little from the women who were attacked": this is an encyclopaedia article. We cover all the sources and have quoted a representative sample where appropriate. I have already said further up that we can consider adding some more quotations, even if they duplicate some of the points already raised.

4. Conciliation Bill:

"When did the truce (the "pause in militant activity") begin?": Now added

"What was the conciliation committee (say something about who was on it)": We already say what the party breakdown was, but we don't need to go further than that – the Conciliation Bills article should have more, but doesn't

"Why was it called a "conciliation" bill?" I could make an intelligent guess, as could most people, but I don't remember seeing anything in the sources that specifically says why.

"What did it propose?": We already say this

"What is a first and second reading?": these are already linked

"Note that Churchill voted against the Bill": added

5. Sources in general
6. Historiography: Do you have any sources that deal specifically with the historiography of this event (aside from the brief mention in Thomas)? SYNTH is something I avoid in articles, and without sources we shouldn't be attempting to cover the ground.
7. Lead:

"It should explain or link 'women's suffrage"': the last link of the opening sentence goes to Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom.

"a measure of women's suffrage in national elections": Asquith said there would be some votes for women, but provided no further details – the sentence is clear enough as it stands.

What is "a cross-party conciliation committee"? Tweaked

"'all charges were dropped': not explained": as this is the lead, we are summarising, not regurgitating all.

Re: the sexual assault: I disagree. "sexual nature" is not 'could possibly cause cancer': it's grabbing of genitalia. The major sources do not refer to cancer, and it doesn't appear in their comments as reported by Murray/Brailsford.

8. Lead image. Are we still on this?

We have boosted the name of Wright so that it is the only one in the body. We refer to the tentative identification of Mills in a footnote, reflecting what a reliable source says. When the NA remove mention from their site, we can remove mention the footnote.

Re: Suppression of publication. As I've said elsewhere, this goes back to Ada Wright's claim. There is no reference in her statement to any source from which she heard the information. Removed, however.

9. Constance Lytton: Tweaked the second reference to CL. Morrell's unreferenced explanation is that "Christabel Pankhurst apparently did not want..."; I'm not happy having an explanation based on an unsourced statement that contains the word "apparently". That CL said those words is not in dispute, but her own memoirs do not clarify the point. "it's not about Black Friday": seriously? It's about the WSPU policy towards injuries suffered at the hands of the police, a policy that was revered on Black Friday.
10. Quoting
11. Deaths
12. Assessment section. I think it's fairly self-evident what it was, but I've tweaked the title, if that is where the confusion lies
13. Hume. Tweaked.
14. Two images. Too minor to quibble over – done
15. Punctuation. And as has been explained elsewhere, there is more than one way to introduce a quote
16. Formatting issue. Take it up with WMF – it's automated and, as it's formatted properly in the article, is something they will have to deal with. My mobile shows no white space, either in mobile view or desktop view.

This is a partial response only. There are other points I'm working on which I hope to post later. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Purpose of FAC

Off topic

Ian Rose and Laser brain, can I ask you please to look at what's happening here and consider archiving this? It's another sandbox-to-FAC article. It was rewritten in a sandbox in April (without alerting page watchers that it was being rewritten), added in one edit to the article, immediately taken to peer review, and presumably would have gone straight to FAC had I not objected on talk. When I objected to some of the edits, SchroCat said he had changed his mind about working on it. On 28 May he announced that it was going to FAC after all. This has left no time for other editors to get hold of the books via inter-library loan. Now, very contentious edits are being made during the FAC (see Talk:Black Friday (1910)#Problems for more details), and BRD is being ignored. These issues should have been resolved on talk before the nomination. I'm minded to add the NPOV template; I've held off only because it's something I do very rarely. But this feels like a misuse of FAC to gain control of content, content that can't be reviewed thoroughly because of the speed from rewrite to nomination. If the article is promoted, it will be pretty much impossible to change. SarahSV (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Oh for crying out loud. The article has been there since APRIL to allow people to comment or edit, and guess what: nobody did. Not even you. If you have a problem with what you call "sandbox-to-FAC articles", then open an RfC and get the process looked into. As far as I am aware there is no policy or guideline against this, nor have I ever heard anyone complain about it until you raised it today. There are no contentious edits being made, apart from you trying to delete a reliable source. I would be glad for the co-ords to look at this nom: it is uncontentious (or a the least it was until you tried to derail it). The only person trying to "gain control" Sarah, is you. You have been obstructive on this in both the PR (where you refused to use the process, but were obstructive on the talk page), and you have been equally obstructive here. I do not now how many times I have requested that you work with me rather than against me, and I have gone out of my way to dig out sources and send them over to you when requested, but my pleas have consistently fallen on deaf ears. - SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Sigh. Butting in, in a big way having watched this play out since seeing the edits to Mud March last night. Writing about the history of women's fight to simply be able to vote is difficult and it's really not helpful to see a man tell a woman to "work with me" and to see the word "obstruction" used multiple times. That's the elephant in the room here and needs to be pointed out. Clearly Sarah is interested in the topic and is knowledgeable; in the spirit of collegiality and collaboration, she should be welcomed and her scheduled accommodated. In my view this and Mud March should be joint noms, but that's just me hoping for a better world. In terms of minor points: I looked at this a few weeks ago when I noted it on mentioned on Sarah's talk page and wondered why the lead image was a blur of black; 2., in March I linked this article that I found to the discussion on Mud March - the first para discusses the woman in the image. I'm not sure why these points have become so contentious, but my suggestion, if anyone is interested, would be for everyone to step back for a day or so and to take a few deep breaths. I agree, that no good can come at this point and archiving isn't the worst decision. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC) "it's really not helpful to see a man tell a woman to "work with me" and to see the word "obstruction" used multiple times". Oh good grief... One of us is here is 'gender-blind'. Victoria, this is nothing to do with my gender or Sarah's gender, it's to do with 'playing nice' with others and trying to end up with a quality article. - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC) This idea of "playing nice" is patronizing (and means I have to do what you want), as was the comment about the "little old lady". There is a lot of misogyny in the primary and secondary sources. You have to know how to spot it, and know how to handle those sources and their language. The people in the privileged position always believe they are "blind" to race and gender; that's part of the problem. If your aim is a high-quality article and not a gold star, why the rush? SarahSV (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC) "Playing nice is patronizing"? Sorry, but that's nonsense. You have not come across at any point during the writing or review processes as being collegiate or co-operative: that's why you have been asked so many times not to be so confrontational. As to the "privileged position", are you saying that only women should work on suffragette articles? I'm not sure what you're saying otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC) As a neutral bystander, who is so shy that the post above is filled with typos, and yet felt compelled to speak out, the tone isn't good and continues to degrade. Speak of the edits not editor, and all that, would be a very good rule to follow at this point. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Victoria, I agree entirely that the comments should be about edits, not editors: I am being called patronizing on no basis at all, and by being in a "privileged position" (which appears solely to be because I am male) I am "part of the problem". How much more personal and misguided can these comments get. It isn't the FAC that should be archived here, just one sub-section of it. - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC) I agree about discussing edits, not editors. But I would like to post this analogy for SchroCat in the hope it might prompt a lightbulb moment. Imagine this were an article about the civil-rights movement or Black Lives Matter. A white editor inserts a rewrite; ignores objections from a black editor; tells the black editor to "play nice"; removes an image that clearly shows a black activist on the ground surrounded by white cops and other white people (rather than a blob that doesn't show the background figures); adds at least one source that black historians regard as racist and problematic; refers to a black figure in an image using a racial slur (insert "girl" or "boy" for "little old lady"); follows the black editor to an article about a black activist to revert related edits there; and reverts the black editor's removal of the racist source. When another black editor arrives, they're told they ought to be "race blind" like the white editor. SarahSV (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC) I am afraid your comments are way off the mark here. I suggest you read WP:AGF and try not to cast every move made by someone you are in disagreement with is inherently bad. Your mischaracterisation of the situation here is shockingly bad and woefully misguided. - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC) The disgraceful behaviour seen at this FAC, by persons who should really know better, is depressing to witness. Why is it being hijacked by a lot of virtue signalling, "sexist claptrap", to coin a phrase from elsewhere. Are we really now at a stage in society where unless you fit the race/gender/sexuality profile of the subject you're writing about, you're not qualified to even speak about it. No wonder people are leaving in droves. CassiantoTalk 12:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Reiterating what I wrote below: telling a female reviewer that she's obstructionist, to "work with me", to "play nice", and now "disgraceful behaviour", "hijacked" "virtue signalling, "sexist claptrap" is ironic given the article topic. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC) You can reiterate all you want. Being female doesn't negate you from criticism, whether that criticism comes from either a male or a female. This type of oppressive behaviour doesn't wash with me. Treat everyone as equals is how I like to play it. CassiantoTalk 13:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• • • • I think, hopefully, that everyone has had their say on the process issue, though the temptation is always to try and get an extra word in. Would it be possible to get back to reviewing this article? The particular issues I'd like an opinion on are

• Does my suggestion that we "doctor" the lead image in the way described above meet objections?
• Does the present text fairly reflect the sources, in relation to Wright v. Mills?
• Are there other issues of problematic text which need consideration?

I really think we ought to try and move on. Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Brian - concentrating on the article is the most constructive path. In answer to your questions,

• I don't have a problem (although I'm not adept enough to do it myself, and I am happy to ask the graphics lab to do what they can
• I think so, but let's see what others say
• There are one or two things that have been raised on the talk page, rather than here, that probably need sorting, but these are limited and can easily be overcome.

If there are any other things that people wish to raise about the article (rather than the process), I am very happy to deal with it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I actually agree with Carabinieri that this is an important discussion to be had, and they are never comfortable. In terms of the two points that were raised, this article clearly identifies Wright as the woman in the photograph, and Frank Meeres, p. 43, reiterates Wright's own words. I'm in favor of the image that's not so dark. I might be able to lighten the image from the Mirror, but suspect it's dark because of the ink smudging, in which case it's better to use the original photograph. Will look into it later, and I intend to open my own section with review once I've read through. I'm on my way to an appointment and might not get back for a few days. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton and Victoriaearle: I demonstrated the new image above...but I guess it got lost in the adjacent brouha...using the lightest image with the masthead as an example. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the mock up Serial Number (which I missed). I think that could be the best way round it - the higher quality image, but still retaining the impact of it being (literally) front page news. I will see if there are any dissenters in the next 24 hours or so before I request the graphics lab to do what they can. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Serial Number 54129 and Brianboulton:, There have been no objections to the suggestion, so I've requested this at the graphics lab. - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How to proceed

I'll try butting in as well. I don't want to stop the previous discussion. I think it might be helpful, but I don't know if I have anything substantive to add to it. I just want to raise the question of how to best proceed. I don't think we necessarily need a policy for dealing with the "sandbox-FAC pipeline" in general. We just need to figure out what to do in this instance. As far as I understand it, as of yet, you have no actual objections to this article, Sarah (other than the image question, which I think can be resolved). You just need to time to review the sources to be able to form an opinion. Is that right? I really don't see any harm in giving Sarah that time. Do you have a rough estimate on how long it would take you? I would suggest asking that this FAC not be closed until Sarah has had the time. The oldest FAC open right now is from March, so it doesn't seem unreasonable for this one to stay open long enough for Sarah to do her research. The article could certainly profit from that. Most reviews (mine included) tend to be fairly superficial, mainly because reviewers aren't knowledgeable about the subject matter and haven't read the sources. If Sarah is willing to go through the sources and gives this a more in-depth review, isn't that worth the wait?--Carabinieri (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Carabinieri, thanks for the response. I do have objections, and I'd like the article to be open for editing so that they can be fixed in the normal way, with discussions on talk. FAC is for articles that are nearly ready.

This is an important article about the history of first-wave feminism, written from a male or masculinist perspective. Several of the sources are red flags. Bearman is notorious (see Talk:Black Friday (1910)#Problems). Rosen is a problem (published in 1974; see this article), and there are other issues. I started discussing the problems in April when I saw the rewrite and found plagiarism (from another WP article). The discussion stopped only because SchroCat withdrew. Five weeks later, he announced he was taking it to FAC after all.

Now instead of fixing the article, am I supposed to post here with suggestions? Am I expected to spend the summer doing this because someone else has decided this is the timetable? Even if I were willing to do it, the books will take weeks to arrive, then have to be read or re-read, and an infobox RfC alone will take 30 days. This is not what FAC is meant to be. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There wasn't plagiarism, there was an editing oversight in the draft stage. Again, please see WP:AGF. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• The way to proceed is to let the article ontinue on its path through FAC. I'm seeing a concerning number of red flags in the comments you are making Sarah - ticking them off the list at Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Statements. You have said that I should not be writing this because I am a man (seriously?) and because you don't get to determine the timetable. You do not get to give your seal of approval to every article just because it is your area of interest. There are other editors beside yourself interested in this area who are more than capable of providing balanced, high-quality content. I'm going to stop interacting on these tangential attempts to disrupt the process. This is a community review process: either join in by reviewing it properly or move on. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• And I assume there will be a source review at some point? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There certainly will need to be a source review, as in all FACs, perhaps sooner rather than later here, and perhaps by more than one reviewer. I've noted Sarah's concern with Bearman in particular; I don't have access to it but if the abstract is accurate I can understand how it would be controversial. Its reliability/appropriateness needs community vetting along with the other sources employed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• I can't make strong promises,but I will give a little time to a source review tomorrow...! Axylus.arisbe (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • • Ian I spent some time yesterday reading Bearman - the one that's on Jstor - and some of the other sources. I have loads of academic experience in source reviews and will gladly take this on. I do intend to do a full and fair article review but decided to wait until the dust settles a bit. In the meantime, I'll begin with gathering sources. Victoriaearle (tk) 02:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Victoria, given your approach so far, I think it better that someone with a more neutral stance take on the review. - SchroCat (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Schro, you've quite reasonably asked several editors to AGF here, I think it applies all round. I doubt it will all come down to one review(er) in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
          • You're probably right Ian, although my stock of AGF has run low, given both on and off-wiki shenanigans that have been going on. Thanks for the reminder tho. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oh I guess there's value in 2 pairs of eyes. No need to pick among volunteers. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • SchroCat, if you have sources yu could send by email, that would expedite things considerably.... Axylus.arisbe (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Sure. Drop me an email with details and I'll ping them back. Same goes for anyone else who wants the full sources. - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Ian Rose:, @Laser brain: Whoever... I have been busier than expected, but expect a breather next week. I will not be able to do anything until either Monday or Tuesday but may have considerable time then. Sorry Axylus.arisbe (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Carabinieri

Great article. I've made a few changes, but feel free to revert if you don't agree.

• "The police also changed their tactics, and in future demonstrations they tried not to arrest too soon or too late." Shouldn't this be "at" or "during future demonstrations"?
• I feel like the long Sylvia Pankhurst quote in the background section might be a bit excessive. I think it can be trimmed and parts of it paraphrased without losing any information. I can make a suggestion, if you agree.
• "Public opinion turned against the tactics and, according to Morrell, the government capitalised on the shifting public feeling to introduce stronger measures" What kinds of measures? This sounds fairly vague.

• It's the force-feeding referred to in the next sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand how a budget is a way to circumvent the House of Lords if the Lords are in a position to reject it.

• I've done some rephrasing here, for the sake of clarity. Please check that I haven't mucked things up. More explanation is contained in the footnotes which could, I suppose, be incorporated into the text. But it's a bit off-topic and I think it better that the footnotes remain as footnotes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Brian - that looks good. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm assuming that the lead group and the first group in the Nov 18 section are one and the same. Is that right?

• It's not 100% clear from the sources, and it's possible that the elderly women in the first group were overtaken by a younger group - or they may have stayed in order. Either way, the sources don't make it too clear! - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Previous demonstrations at the Houses of Parliament had been policed by the local A Division, who understood the nature of the demonstrations and had managed to overcome the WSPU tactics without undue levels of violence" Undue seems like a rather subjective POV word. In any case, doesn't that contradict the background section?

• I've added the name of the historian who states this. It doesn't contradict the background section, as A division policed Parliament, whereas the suffragettes were in action across the UK. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Groups approaching Parliament Square were met at the Westminster Abbey entrance to the square by groups of men, who manhandled the women" I'm assuming this is not referring to the police. Maybe this could be made clearer.

• Perhaps "men" could be "bystanders"? Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Bystanders it is - thanks Brian. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• "4 men and 115 women were arrested on 18 November" Were those men part of the demonstration or onlookers who took part in the violence against the women?

• I check - I think all pro-suffrage, but I'll make sure. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• I can't find any reference to the 'side' of these men, but I'll go over the newspaper sources to see if they can provide any information. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it make more sense to place the image of the flier somewhere earlier in the article?--Carabinieri (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Possibly, but we are image-heavy further up the article, so there would be too much overlap and/or text sandwiching going on. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Carabinieri. I need to address your penultimate point, but will be back shortly; all the others are done, unless otherwise said above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Lingzhi

• I have been truly impressed by this article. Excellent. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Axylus.arisbe/Lingzhi - I am most grategul. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

I'm sure everyone involved here will appreciate that our job as coordinators is to be maddeningly fair, and operate based on consensus on the nomination page unless there is some astonishing disruption. I have no position on the sandbox-to-FAC strategy, although I've observed it succeed and fail spectacularly in different cases. Opposes based on WIAFA (including stability) are actionable and that's a potential reason to archive a nomination if that's the consensus among reviewers. We've occasionally and reluctantly archived a handful of nominations in the past because the reviewer–nominator interactions got disruptive on their own, but that scenario serves no one. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Off topic

Laser brain, every time this issue is raised at WT:FAC, people agree, including the coordinators, that reviewers willing to oppose should be supported (and clearly I'm opposing); that FAC shouldn't be used to get unprepared nominations in shape; and that "archive early, archive often" is a good principle. But again in practice this fails. The article obviously fails 1e ("it is not subject to ongoing edit wars"). The nominator is edit-warring here and at related articles, over related content. Victoria has added a DS template to one of them, and I'm considering posting DS alerts. The nominator is adding contentious material during the FAC itself and edit warring to retain it. I shouldn't have to keep reverting and actually add the NPOV tag for it to be obvious that the article isn't stable. SarahSV (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Laser brain, I wrote the above without having seen the latest comments. This is really unacceptable. Please archive this. SarahSV (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC) I'm not sure we're saying different things. I'm just now getting to looking at the actual nomination—I was just responding to your request that I consider archiving the nomination for behavioral or procedural reasons. --Laser brain (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC) This comment feels like either a threat or a promise. I can continue in this atmosphere, am half way through the article, have some concerns, but given the reverting of copyedits will have to write up quite a lot and that will take time. I shouldn't have to continue in the face of bullying, nor should my opinion be dismissed. What that will achieve is that the coords will be the position of having to read a false consensus, which is not ideal. I'm taking some time off. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Good grief! A threat? This is absurd. I said "please think very carefully" because if a comment was made insinuating filth like I'm some sort of sexist arsehole for wanting to write an article about a woman, then my relationship with Sarah, which has always been very good, would suffer. I'm out, I won't be getting involved in this any further. CassiantoTalk 18:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC) I'm just going to throw this out here - but the irony of being told to "I have had to ask you before to work play nice, and work with me, not against me." on an article about feminist history is a bit withering. I'm pretty sure that the male editors here won't see it as patronizing, but ... yes, it is. It's just a step above being told to "run along to the kitchen because the men are going to talk about important matters". Most women get told to "play nice" and "work with me" a lot, and it gets very very very very old. Sarah pointed out she found it patronizing. So... instead of not doing it again, everyone piles in to say that she's wrong. So she's wrong because the men know how SHE feels? REALLY??? Please stop and see how politely nasty that is... someone says that they feel slighted/patronized and the person who made them feel that way tells the original person they are wrong. Cass rightly gets upset when he is told to play nice about his editing, SchroCat gets upset with being told to play nice (i.e. be civil) about his editing, but you both feel it's okay to tell Sarah to play nice?? Ugh. I hope that many of the editors here can stop and think here about what they are saying. I'm not involved in this article, and *I* bristled at the "pat the little lady on the head" tone that I clearly felt from the tone of the discussion. Yes, I'm offended. And, yes, I'm annoyed enough that I'm not caring if you think I'm mad, because .. yeah, I'm mad. It's freaking madening to see two editors (SchroCat and Cass) who get all up in arms whenever the civility police to come call them to account ... turn around and expect perfect civility from female editors. "Play nice", indeed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Oh, FFS. This is not about a man making a comment to a woman, this is about someone being mightily fucked off with an obstructive editor who has trouble with someone editing an article on the basis of their gender. I have made similar comments ("play nice", or similar) to other editors who have been obstructive or shown OWN tendencies; I have not bothered, cared or known the sex of the people I've said it to before. The "pat the little lady on the head" tone? Rubbish. I treat all editors the same – yes, normally not brilliantly, but all equally. Fuck me, I've been compared to a misogynist and a racist, and you're offended, Ealdgyth? I guess my compass may differ on what is offensive to yours. What a joke: "Wikipedia, the article anyone can edit, unless they are a man editing a suffragette article". I don't give a flying toss what gender ANY editor is, but I do expect them to treat article development seriously and to play nice (i.e., be a flaming adult with something of a collegiate and co-operative attitude, not an obstructive pain). FFS, I see the Gender Gap being driven wider with this attitude, and the thought of AGF seems to have escaped you Ealdgyth, and a few others too. Well done for creating more heat than light with a lack of AGF that has been a constant during this review process. Ian Rose, Laser brain, I will confirm that I want this review to continue, despite everything else, as the subject, and the article, deserve better treatment than the rather shoddy approach some people are exhibiting. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Is there anyone around who is prepared to actually provide a review on the article, rather than just snipe? - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC) To be very clear: I brought it up. I pointed out the irony of the situation, plus issues, here and this comment. I did not, nor would I ever under any circumstances say that a man cannot write about a woman. That's just bullshit. Furthermore, I intend to review in the same manner that I review every article I've ever reviewed. To suggest otherwise is a gross assumption of bad faith. Ealdgyth nailed it. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC) The "irony" is that I've been accused of misogyny and compared to a racist, and I'm the bad person here? I have made the same comments to obstructive and disruptive editors before and not known, cared or noticed the gender of the person making them. I don't care what sex they are, but if someone can make a good faith review on this article it would make a pleasant change. - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC) To be clear, on the internet, no one knows that I am a dog, but it seems to me that we have three self-identified female editors making similar comments, and a bunch of (apparently) male editors dismissing it. On this topic, of all topics. Please, SchroCat. Umbrage is not the correct response here. Have some respect for the people you are talking to. Just listen and reflect, and check your privilege. At some point, someone needs to mention discretionary sanctions because this is getting ridiculous. (And for those editors not following the discussion, for what it is worth, the National Archive has revised its catalogue entry of the woman in the photograph. Discussion at Talk:Ernestine Mills.) 213.205.198.235 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC) No, IP, umbrage and anger are the right answer here. I've been compared to a misogynist and a racist, and I'm supposed to respect the people that have dived into the gutter to cast those aspersions? Discretionary sanctions? It should funny an IP knows about these, and probably no coincidence that DS tags have been applied to two articles I am working on (although there seems to be confusion about whether this is for Gender Gap or Gamergate), neither of which I have any knowledge of, or interest in. - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC) I may be an IP but I am not an idiot: I am quite capable of reading the pages linked to from banners on talk pages, or indeed reading the sources and contacting the National Archive. This is not about what you mean. I doubt anyone thinks you are sexist (or racist, and that was just an analogy to help you see what they are saying). It is about how you are coming across. Please listen without responding, take a break, and come back to this later. Please. It will be better for everyone if you do. There is no rush. If you are in the UK this weekend, you might want to consider this: https://www.processions.co.uk/attend-processions/ 213.205.198.235 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC) And I'm supposed to be the patronising one? "I doubt anyone thinks you are sexist (or racist", Balls. If that's the case, then why the fuck was the analogy raised if not to blacken or bully? The duplicity and underhand tactics are quite sickening. I am working to try and improve a topic in which I believe and am interested, and all I have got for doing this is insults, bullying and attacks BECAUSE IM A FUCKING MAN! Fuck me, what a twisted way to treat editors trying to deal with this subject. IP, I have no idea who you are, but look at today's front page. It's The biography of Emily Davison. I re-wrote it in the same way I re-wrote this (the supposedly controversial "sandbox-to-FAC" route), I took it through PR and FAC, and no-one said I shouldn't write it because I'm a man. These double standards are utter nonsense, and people saying I don't understand sources, or that I'm purveying sexist claptrap are, baldly, spouting fucking nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC) There are editors here who believe that being "gender blind" (and presumably "race blind") is a good thing. It isn't. That kind of blindness is the result of privilege. It's the men and the whites, the people in the privileged, default groups, who can afford it. If we were writing an article about black history, and black editors complained about racism, would we really tell them to "play nice" and insist on ploughing on? This article should not be written from a "gender blind" perspective. The primary sources about the suffragettes were deeply misogynist. They're so bad they make you gasp (and it wasn't that long ago!). The first secondary sources were sexist too. Why does this article rely on authors who have been criticized as sexist by feminist historians? Why the heavy reliance on an author from 1974 to support contentious points? One of the problematic sources was added during the FAC, and now there's revert-warring to retain it. These discussions about suffragette historiography are difficult, and they need to be thrashed out calmly on the talk page. It will take time, because we need to read the sources, be familiar with the issues, and agree on neutrality and on which details matter. This just isn't an appropriate topic for a quick rewrite-to-FAC nomination. SarahSV (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Is there anyone who is prepared to provide a quality review? Sarah, try AGF. Claiming "quick rewrite-to-FAC nomination" is untrue. Try being collegiate and co-operative with people who are trying to improve the article, rather than being the road-block to article development here based on little more than the gender of the person whose undertaken the re-write. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC) The pressure-cooker atmosphere of FAC is not conducive to patient, careful, collegiate and co-operative article development. This is not the way to do it. If you don't want to listen, fine, that is your choice. 213.205.198.235 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC) IP, I've been through FAC I don't know how many times (20? 25?) and I don't find a pressure cooker when people are responding positively and in good faith. Sadly there are several editors who are not acting either in good faith, or positively. If they did, then I'd be able to deal with their comments appropriately, rather than try and defend myself on the basis of my gender. The stupidity of the situation is beyond me. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Despite his/her username, I have to agree with pretty much everything IP wrote. Might I suggest a 48-hour moratorium on editing anything related to this article for anyone involved in this discussion? Right now, this isn't getting anywhere. The only hope I have for this discussion is that heads could be cooler two days from now. --Carabinieri (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC) That's your opinion, Carabinieri—and I appreciate the sentiment behind it, but if any editors provide a good faith review of the article, I will deal with their comments and edit the article appropriately. My thoughts towards anyone acting in good faith in providing a constructive review remains unchanged: they are warmly welcome. To those who are obstructive on flimsy and facile grounds, I will ignore or respond appropriately, particularly if they decide to sink to the gutter, as some have done. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Crawford

As I did with the article I wrote on Emily Davison, I asked Elizabeth Crawford and Professor June Purvis for their thoughts on the article. Elizabeth Crawford has replied saying that it is "that looks a very thoroughly researched piece of work – and it all looks fine to me". She had some input into the photograph, and thinks the source used by Raeburn probably comes from her papers in the Suffragette Fellowship Collection at the Museum of London. I have emailed the person at the MoL to ask if she can help.
If Professor Purvis is good enough to reply, I will also pass on their thoughts on the article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just to be clear, so far as I know, Crawford did not review this article. SchroCat, do you have her permission to name and quote her? SarahSV (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC) That's odd: I thought she would have mentioned it to you when you contacted her (and I believe you posted a link to the comment) - indeed I thought she said she had, but I'm tired and my memory must be playing me false. This has little to do with the article or review, and is shouldn't be stuck in the middle of this over-long page. Do you have any substantive points about the article? - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC) I don't know what you mean about linking to a comment. It's a simple question: did she give consent to be quoted and named, and did she review the article? If not, I hope you'll strike your post. As for whether I have other points to make, yes, I intend to post more, but as I said earlier, it takes time to gather sources. SarahSV (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Sorry, let me clarify: when you emailed her, sending a link to the comment I made above, I thought she explained what she had done by way of a review. - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC) I can't see the point of playing games. If I contact sources, I don't repeat what they say on WP without their permission. So I'm asking you whether you obtained permission and whether it was a review. I won't keep asking, because it's pointless, but I wish you would just answer it. SarahSV (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Again, I think she explained what she did in the email she sent you. I'm not the one playing games Sarah: you sent her a link to my comment in 9 June, so why are you raising it now, and why here. I can't see the point in playing games either, do please either review this, or don't. – SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Comments from Victoria

I think in terms of rubrics, so am following Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. These are broad-brush general comments:

• 1. a., (prose): It can be tightened a little and there's some repetition throughout, but not anything that can't be taken care of fairly easily. My experience is that it's always best to get another pair of eyes on the prose to find issues. I did make a few copyedits to tighten (reverted, but that's fine); generally something along that line should be continued throughout the article. I don't have tons of time today, but this sentence jumps out at me as needing to be split: "The question of women's suffrage was divisive within Cabinet, and the bill was discussed at three separate meetings[33] before, at a Cabinet meeting on 23 June, Asquith stated that he would allow it to pass to the second reading stage, but no further parliamentary time would be allocated to it and it would therefore fail.[34]"
• 1. b., (comprehensive) - yes & no. The background is very comprehensive, slightly too long for my taste because I want to get to the action, whereas the "18 November" section is less than 600 words of a 3200 word article. Also, there seems to have been some continuing actions/arrests throughout the next seven days until 25. Nov. Is any of that worth a mention? Adding: striking the previous sentence, the issue is now moved to structure. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• 1. c., (well-researched) - the rule of thumb for women's studies (now known as gender studies) is to go to the most recent scholarly material. It's a new discipline (and one this article falls squarely into), in that study wasn't available in universities until the mid- to late-seventies, departments generally cropping up in the eighties. It's taken a generation to "grow" scholars, so to speak, so it's best to lean on scholarly sources published in this century instead the last. As an aside, that's true in general in the humanities, not only in terms of gender studies, but highlighted in this topic because the scholarship wasn't really fully established until the nineties or later. Generally when writing about literature or art, I tend to go the most recent scholarship. This has the added benefit of allowing the scholar to bake in all the primary sources. Every discipline has a *the* expert or two or maybe three, and it's best to research, identify, and then lean on their work. Added to that, every discipline has a pioneer whose work is generally very well-respected. Bearman wasn't great (aside from showing an obvious bias) because he's not a subject expert (his other publications have to do with folk music); Rosen pre-dates the prevailing scholarship. I'm not familiar with the History Today website, so can't speak to whether it's high quality or low; the best thing to do is take a look at their bibliographies (they will be leaning on the same sources) and determine accordingly. The same applies to websites, i.e BBC - obviously RS but there are better academic sources available. The amount of primary sources seems ok to me. One comment re primary sources: I have access to the New York Times archives, so if anyone is interested in how these events were covered in the US I'd be happy to take a dig - but not at all actionable or necessary.
• 1. d., (neutral) - I have a few niggles: I'm curious about note m: "Morrell, when writing in 1981, observes that the only reference she found to the suppression of the photograph was in Antonia Raeburn's 1973 book, The Militant Suffragettes.[70] The image was also published in Votes for Women,[47] The Manchester Guardian[71] and the Daily Express.[72]" Morrell is an early author in the field and would be supplanted by now, I'd assume. Kelly, published in 2004 doesn't raise the issue. Kelly is an academic, Morrell's book a senior thesis in 1979 see here, it is might best better to defer to the more recent scholarship. Right now, it does appear to throw doubt on Raeburn's assertion (she's a pioneer and relies on the women's own voices). That's a book I might order and take a look at; the same with Morrell. Finally, there needs to be a better balance between the background and the events of the day.
• 1. e., (stable) - better than last week.
• 2. a., (lead/style) - lead should be concise. I trimmed some detail from the lead i.,e this, which was restored. It seemed better to summarize it, ("the women reported groping"), plus "complained" about having breasts twisted isn't maybe quite the right word. Regardless, these details aren't in the "18 November" section. Re MoS, very nit-picky but MOS:NUM tells us to write out numbers between 0 and 9; I fixed one of these and it was reverted. It's massively nit-picky but technically we should adhere to MOS.
• 2. b., (appropriate structure) - background could do with a trim and more emphasis on the day, the week, etc. Adding: The demonstrations lasted a week until the government was dissolved, suggest restructuring. Also, "Assessment" suggests analysis, critical analysis, etc, but the section is about the two deaths that occurred within two months of Black Friday, the second para is about evolving tactics that would fit better in a "Reaction" section, the third is about a 2010 event. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• 2. c., (consistent citations) - very fancy, very nice
• 3. (media) - if the pastiche is allowable, that's a good compromise. If available, it would be nice to focus more on the day in terms of images, but I don't know what's available. Adding: still no image of Rosa May Billinghurst yet an image such of this, perhaps taken on the day is extremely evocative. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• 4. (length) - same as above. Suggest trimming "Background" and focussing more on the event itself; otherwise fine.

I'm exhausted and removing this from my watchlist now. Note that these are comments only, neither a support or an oppose, but simply my general impression according to our criteria. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Adding: Two weeks later, I'm still seeing issues with 1.,a (prose); 1., b. (comprehensive); 1., c. (well researched); 2.,b (structure). Victoriaearle (tk) 20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a brief note on the numbers question: MOS also tells us: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". Therefore, "Police arrested 4 men and 115 women" is correct.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed: I forgot that rule first time round (and even managed to erroneously put it back in after one edit)! I don't particularly like the rule, but there are only so many times I care to bend the MoS. – SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Victoria. In response to the 'broad-brush general comments', here are some 'broad-brush general responses' to explain. The upshot is that yes, I will go over the background section to see what could be trimmed from that, without loss of historical context, and look at the prose to tighten where necessary. In more detail:

I will have another look at what could be trimmed from the background (although there has already been considerable cutting from the first draft. This is one of those events that came about because the twists of history that lead up to it are all important, and all those strands had something to do with it (the increasing aggression shown towards WSPU demonstrations in the preceding years; the budget problems/battle with the Lords faced by the government; the conciliation movement within parliament): all these factors go towards why the march took place. That said, I will go through it again and see what can be trimmed further.

Morrell's book isn't her university thesis, but it is based on her thesis. Much of her research was at the Fawcett Library, which has moved from where she (and I when a lowly undergraduate, for that matter), researched and is now the Women's Library at the LSE. The book is referenced throughout and carries a good bibliography. It chimes with much of the more recent histories.

In terms of the photo suppression, Kelly cites her mentions to Hiley. Despite being published in History Today, there are no references or a bibliography to support what he's written. He is described at the end of the article in HT as "Nicholas Hiley is a freelance writer and teacher". I'm not sure Morrell's statement throws doubt on Raeburn's assertion, but it does put a question mark over Wright's claim (In all the other sources I've read, most link the claim to Raeburn, or to another source that circles back to Raeburn. None of the sources have pointed to police or home office primary source records, and The Mirror (either at the time, or subsequently) makes no mention of such an attempt being made). You would also have thought it would have been raised in either Pankhurst's (1931) or Fawcett's (1912 and 1921) histories, but they don't refer to it. Wright's is the only claim on which this is based, and one does have to wonder how she found out about the behind-the-scenes machinations of government or police, if there is no earlier record of the fact. While I wouldn't be comfortable putting any of this into the article, I am comfortable citing Morrell's research: we are not saying Wright is wrong on the point, but it does need to be acknowledged that all sources of the story lead back to her.

You are right that the lead should be concise, but it also has to tell the story (as that is all some people will read); including some details of what the women went through is, I think, key to that (the information is included in the "Reaction" section).

Images. A surprising problem given this was in 1910, in that although there are some great images on web searches, getting them back to a free status is a bit of a struggle and I can't see many of them published in the press to give us the 'first published' date. Conversely, there are some newspaper images which may be great, but whose quality is too low to use. If anyone can find some more images (particularly of the violence), then that would be great. In terms of the main image, the current one is the combination of both newspaper headline and higher-quality photograph.

Thanks again Victoria, and I'll go through the background again to see if I can trim. I hope you are better soon. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Moved to talk page. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

:I ordered Caroline Morrell's book from the library last week because I was curious about it, picked it up today, and before sending it right back, took a look at the last page, where in my experience a good summary should be. This is what she writes:

Thirdly, the suffragettes were stepping out of their accustomed role as ladies. They were no longer behaving quietly and submissively but were taking part in a militant and noisy campaign defying male authority.

There's two more pages in this vein; I won't write it all out. It's this analysis, a vein of which runs through the subsequent secondary sources, written since the 1990s, which I don't see in the article. Why did it happen? Because they were defying the social order.

Re the bachkchanneling remark: I found it offensive because a., I was very ill and found a post on my page that seemed to ask me to do something; b., the "unless you've gotten them from Sarah" (paraphrased) insinuates a situation that doesn't exist and c., suggests I can't do this. The third might be true. I know I did a crappy job, but I tried and I think there's material missing. For that reason I could oppose, but I'm choosing not to. I'm choosing instead to walk away from the project. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think the reasons behind the motivation of suffragettes to demonstrate does not belong in this article, as it's slightly too tangential. In the WSPU article, or the one of Women's suffrage, yes, of course, but not this one. (Morrell is the only source that writes about the motivation in connection with this event and does so in one paragraph; others deal with it in the general context of the movement as a whole).

I am sorry that you took my offer to email sources to you in the wrong way. It was a good faith offer to make things easier for you, and I am sorry you did not see it in that light. - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Victoriaearle, can you elucidate on what grounds you are opposing please. - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an example only: the 3rd para in the section "Women's Social and Political Union" (beyond the long block quote), describes a June 1909 incident ending with a footnote cited to Morrell, page 17. On page 17 of 'Black Friday' and Violence against Women in the Suffragette movement Morrell discusses a 1906 incident, writing: "On 23 October [1906], the opening day of the autumn session of Parliament, the WSPU organized their second deputation to Westminster, again carefully planned in advance. On failing to obtain a promise from the Prime Minister that female suffrage would be considered before the end of the session women went before the lobby and began to make speeches. Ten were arrested and imprisoned in the Second Division" she has a superscript footnote here. The footnote reads in full, "Under the Home Office rules then applying, prisoners convicted of offenses considered to be motivated by political rather than criminal reasons could be placed in the First Division. They were allowed to wear their own clothes, receive visitors and have unrestricted access to reading and writing material. Prisoners convicted of criminal offenses were placed in the 2nd or 3rd Divisions where they were subject to the normal prison regime". (Morrell, 1981, p. 17). Victoriaearle (tk) 12:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you've read this wrong, as far as I can tell. The paragraph describes the events of the June 1909 incident. The three sentences are supported by citations 10 (van Wingerden 1999, p. 123.), 11 (Atkinson 2018, 2709–2722.) and 12 (Pankhurst 2013, 6011.) The information in the footnote, which is about the grading by Division in prisons, is supported by the Morrell citation. Morrell is not being used to support the 1909 information.

Could you please let me know the other examples on which you are basing your oppose? - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

1., it appears that Morrell is being used to support the 1909 incident; 2., the footnote we use is almost identical to Morrell's footnote; 3., Wingerden does not discuss the 1909 incident on page 123. I'm stopping now. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

1. No, Morrell is only being used to support the information in the footnote, not the 1909 events, which are supported with the other three citations. 2. Not too closely. Morrell writes "They were allowed to wear their own clothes, receive visitors and have unrestricted access to reading and writing materials"; we have "They had unrestricted access to reading and writing materials, could wear their own clothes and receive visitors". I'll tweak slightly to move it even further away, but it's not really oppose worthy. 3. Quite right, mea culpa: I've tweaked to the right pages.

Could you please let me know the other examples on which you are basing your oppose? - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Where does "Women arrested for window breaking began a hunger strike to be treated as First Division prisoners" come from? Also, we shouldn't copy Morrell's structure, i.e, this footnote, the other re Raeburn. I can't find anything in Morrell to cite the image was published elsewhere. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Victoriaearle,

Thanks for your additional clarification. I've tried to deal with it as best I can both in comments here, and by edits to the article. If there is anything I've not dealt with, or that you need further work on, could you please address your responses below this (or interspersed within my comments), as it's getting too involved in the above for me to see what are actionable points that need dealing with (it's my problem in getting lost in the comments/responses, not yours, so if you could clarify, that would be great).

In terms of the points in your last edit (per this edit), my responses and associated edits are:

• "better to defer to the more recent scholarship": I think we do, unless you can provide examples that are better than the sources used. If you say there is "more recent scholarship", can you provide examples of what you consider to be better than that used?
• "background could do with a trim and more emphasis on the day, the week, etc.": I disagree with the trimming the background section, and wonder if you could indicate what you think could/should be cut. My rationale in the re-write was to cover two areas:

• A very brief summary of where the suffrage movement was at that point (two main organisations, one of which one—the WSPU—had split from the other. This new organisation was grabbing headlines for their militant action and seeing an increasing level of violence from the police over time as a result.
• The second area covers the highly eventful few years of politics where the suffrage argument was partly put on the back burner by the realpolitik of the time (an anti-suffrage PM; the troubles with the HoL and the budget which led to the dissolution of Parliament while the Conciliation Bill was progressing). Without this crucial information, readers will not understand what happened. We deal with it as briefly as can be, while retaining enough detail to get the information across.

You refer to "more emphasis on the day, the week, etc", one possible change I see that could be made is to move the reports of the women's treatment from the Murray/Brailsford report up from the current section into this one. It would beef up this one, although leave the next a bit slim, and need some considerable tweaking of the text. Would that work for you?

• Image of Rosa May Billinghurst: I agree. I've added an image of her from Commons, and will look at replacing it with the one you suggest once I've looked at the copyright position. Now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• "Women arrested for window breaking...": additional citation added to strengthen.
• You've added that "Two weeks later, I'm still seeing issues with 1.,a (prose); 1., b. (comprehensive); 1., c. (well researched); 2.,b (structure): under #Supporting and opposing in the FAC procedure, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed" (emphasis in the original). I am happy to deal with specific points, but the 'blanket' comments are wide of the mark:

• prose: please give examples. Some of the best writers and reviewers on WP have looked over this and have supported; like me, however, they are only human, and may have missed things, but without examples, it's difficult to judge;
• comprehensive: please provide details. The only thing I can see you think I may have missed your comments in the above is the motivation for the demonstrators. (I think it belongs elsewhere, partly on the basis it is not covered in the reliable sources, but I would welcome any sources that relate to this specific incident – I may well be mis-remembering the research I have done).
• well researched: this is well-researched. If you think otherwise, please can you can provide examples of what you think should be used;
• Structure is broadly appropriate, unless you can point to specific examples of what you think is wrong.

Again, please let me know if there is anything I've missed from your comment further up, or if you have anything else to add. – SchroCat (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Re Billingshurst, see

Some details in Constance Lytton's memoir, see here, pages 310 to 317, that are useful, i.e that Churchill replaced Gladstone in February 1910, that her brother chaired the conciliation committee, the full text of the Conciliation Bill, & details we are missing re passing locally and acceptable to the suffrage movement, the names, professions and women who went to speak to Asquith on November 18, etc. To be clear: I am not actively searching for sources (this popped out when as I was searching on an entirely separate topic as did the link yesterday that led to the image of Billinghurst), because I don't believe that's the reviewer's job.

In terms of your comment that "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed" (emphasis in the original)", Ian Rose, Laser brain or Sarastro1 will disregard my comments if not sufficient. Not only here, but on other FACs, if opposing, I prefer to avoid a line-by-line laundry list of "do this, and then this and then this", particularly when structure and sourcing is involved because the prose shouldn't be polished until the end. Depending on how quickly the nominator works, it's best to take the time to do the work outside of the glare of FAC. If you, and the coords, want a line-by-line list, I might be able to provide it in a week or two, but it would take a lot of work. In the meantime, I'm sticking with general points per our criteria. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your further comment. I had seen the Lytton memoir, but as a primary source it does need to be treated carefully (although much of what she says can, of course, be backed up by secondary sources). In terms of the points you raise from it:

• Churchill replacing Gladstone is too tangential to include in this, as is the fact her brother chaired the committee (although I will add that to the article, as it's less clear) now added;
• I've read the text of the bill elsewhere, but that shouldn't be here, and if we make full use of it, it should be in the Conciliation Bills article. We already have the key clauses of the bill in the article;
• we already include the names and professions of many of those that went to see Asquith.

All this has been considered before, but as a primary source, we do have to be careful (note, for example her vagueness on the number of people she says were "charged at the police court the next day"(316); she says 150-160 while the exact number was 119. She also neglects to say that all charges were dropped).

Victoria, I am happy to consider any actionable points people raise, and I do take into account general ones too and action where possible, but your comments are just too broad to take anything from, and where you have been specific in any of your comments here, I have either actioned them or explained why I think it would be best if we didn't. If you do decide to produce more points, I will, of course, deal with those too. – SchroCat (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

What brought me here was the edit warring I noticed on Mud March (suffragists) and as far as I know I've never interacted with SchroCat before making a couple of comments on the talk page there in March. What I avoid is being pulled into the weeds, lengthy non-constructive back-and-forth and for lack of a better word, wikilawering. I represent the reader, so in no particular order, here is a sample of a few things that jar:

• The first sentence of the second para in the lead is awkward
  • It reads clearly to me, but I'll have a look in the morning when I'm less tired. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I still think it's fine, but I've tweaked it anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• I find mention of breast twisting in the lead quite offensive and, again, for lack of a better word, unnecessarily titillating.
  • I'm sure the women who reported it later found the act more offensive than the words, but this isn't here for titillation, but to give examples of just how they were maltreated. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• As a reader I wonder why I'm reading about the WSPU in 1903 (and as a Wikipedia editor I wonder why the block quote and structure we use in the second para is an almost exact mirror of Morrell's structure, also found in the long footnote in the third para)
  • I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I'll have a look in the morning when I'm less tired. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As I've said above, we have a very brief summary of where the suffrage movement was at that point, with the WSPU receiving an increasing level of violence from the police over time This is in line with WP:FACR 1b ("it ... places the subject in context":
  • Victoriaearle, I know you said this was going to be your final comment, but I wonder if you could clarify what you mean when you say "I wonder why the block quote and structure we use in the second para is an almost exact mirror of Morrell's structure, also found in the long footnote in the third para". It looks to me like you are commenting on the fact that we and Morrell use the same quote? And are you also commenting on the fact that Morrell puts the information about A Division prisoners in a footnote as we do? Both are explainable, but I wonder if you could clarify that is what you mean. – SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

*The image of the woman being force-fed, that shows up in the 1903-1909 section is offensive and emblematic of the type of imagery seen then: crazy woman, in a straight jacket, tied to chair, being fed - for her own good.

• • ? An interesting opinion. I see a group of people essentially torturing a woman tied to a chair. As this is from Sylvia Pankhurst's book, given as an example of force-feeding, I'm not sure it would have been meant or seen as 'crazy woman'. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

... and so on. I thought about bolding the specific suggestions I've made throughout, i.e a specific sentence that is overly long and should be split, issues with structure, small issues such as proper referencing for edited collections of primary material, etc, but that would be obnoxious. I'm finished making comments. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for these additional comments. I have had an over-long day at work, and I'm too fogged to deal with them all properly, but I will look again tomorrow, and at the other points you say are above but that have not been dealt with. I disagree that there is any wikilawyering going on: I'm trying to get solid, actionable points to deal with, which is how reviews work best. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• I've found the over-long sentence and cut that, but I can't see where you refer to "proper referencing for edited collections of primary material". I am afraid I can't see the "issues in structure", which you will have to breakdown a little more if I am to do anything. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

SchroCat, to repeat - there are times when I'm not able to respond quickly. I'll get back to this in a few days if/when I can, but in the meantime will point at the Purvis' Emmeline Pankhurst, page 150, and note 230. I have the book next to my bed, but here's a handy link to the note: handy link. And I've supplied a handy link to page 150. This is an enormous amount of work, btw. Also, worth noting is that Purvis points to Earp, an author I suggested was worth taking a look at a few weeks ago. I'm deeply disappointed at the degree at which my suggestions have been brushed aside. This needs to be said for the coords, those who have happily supported, and because I'm just downright disgusted and as Ealdgyth wrote, pissed off. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Victoria, I have not brushed aside your suggestions: they have all been carefully considered and adopted when appropriate; for several of over-broad comments I have asked for clarification and specific points continually. These requests and some questions I have made to you have also gone unanswered: that also needs to be said for the co-ords. You may be pissed off: I am monumentally fucked off. – SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review x 2

While this detailed sources review takes place off-stage, to be revealed here I assume at a later date, I have carried out a general MoS check on links, formats etc, There is nothing amiss in these respects; formats are consistent, all links are working. I will defer any substantive comment on sources until the ongoing review is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've done all I'm able, disengaged, and, thus, moved my comments to the talk page. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have done what I can with the suggestions given in the review, but without further details to back up general statements, many of which are inaccurate, there is nothing else needed. I look forward to the review from Lingzhi/Axylus.arisbe. - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This is community I'd like to be part of and feel welcomed in, but there are times when it's impossible for me to edit. I refuse to discuss personal circumstances, nor am I required to, the self-imposed restrictions I follow, but suffice to say there is no deadline is my mantra these days. I got exhausted, tried to keep up with the questions/replies, was unable, and decided it's best to step away. I've never sat across a table and shared a beer with a fellow Wikipedian, but sometimes we should be reminded that there's a person behind the computer screen who has feelings and might even have a brain, is capable of finding material and doesn't appreciate being accused of back channeling, nor badgering, nor accusations like these. Getting things right, quality, these are things that interest me; breaking inter-personal relationships and cutting into limited family time, not. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • "Back channelling"? So asking if you would like me to forward you sources to aid the review is now something bad? I've not badgered you Victoria, and I am sorry if you got that impression: I posted to ask of you could clarify some points in your review, which, I am afraid to say, was unfocused, vague and incorrect: it is entirely appropriate that I ask you to clarify things that are unclear in a review - it's the only way people can understand things. After you posted onto this page saying you were going to disengage, I asked if you were going to do any work clarifying the points, but I certainly did not "badger" you at all. You are not the only person who is interested in quality, which is why I have spent considerable time on this article to ensure it is in the best state it can be, using the highest-quality and most appropriate sources. Perhaps you should also try to remember that 'there's a person behind the computer screen who has feelings and might even have a brain [and] is capable of finding material' - it is something that cuts both ways, you know. As I've said above, I look forward to the review from Lingzhi/Axylus.arisbe for any further suggestions to improve the article. - SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Your offer was given as an example of back channeling, not badgering. "Back channeling" means that you took a public discussion to a "back channel". In this instance, you spread a discussion from this central page to an individual editor's talk page. Some editors would likely consider that a friendly and personal gesture, but others don't appreciate it, and prefer to keep everything in one place, so that everyone knows what's been said to whom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks WhatamIdoing. I knew the example was about back channelling, but making an open offer to provide sources directly to someone who has said they are going to undertake a source review? I had already said on this page that I would send them, but there has been so much noise on the page that it was too easy to get lost in the background, thus the direct reminder of what was available. It's certainly not an action for which people should be berated: there has been a dearth of AGF in this review (yes, from me too), and helpful gestures shouldn't be used against people. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
        • On another reading of what Victoria wrote, she seems to suggest that I accused her of back channelling, which I don't agree with either. It is a shame that this effort to make someone's efforts easier (in the same way I provided Sarah with sources whenever she asked) has been taken so badly. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, it really is a shame that things have turned out so badly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• While awaiting further suggestions, I would just say:

• I am very grateful to Victoria for the time and trouble she has taken over this sources review. I accept fully that her over-riding concern is that the article meets the most exacting of quality standards, an aim which I'm equally sure that SchroCat shares. He has been generous in sharing his sources with enquirers, and has responded to earlier sources criticisms by replacing certain dubious sources (Rosen, Bearman) with better ones.
• If I understand Victoria, her main outstanding concern is that the article might not be based on "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and may be lacking in specifically "scholarly" sources. Note the word in the 1c criterion is "representative", not "exhaustive". Victoria doesn't say which essential works she thinks are missing from the present rather copious list of books, but suggests that "more is available" if time is allowed to search for it. Unless specific works which give additional insights into the topic can be identified specifically, this is, I'm afraid, too open-ended. In subjects like this there is always more material, and more still will be written. We can never reach a stage where we can say that absolutely everything has been covered, however much time we allow. This is of course true of many of our articles.
• An earlier concern, expressed I think by Sarah, was that once an article receives its bronze star it becomes difficult to change it. My own experiences indicate that this tends to be so if the new material added is trivial, unsourced or contentious. But most of the articles that I brought through the FAC process between 2008 and 2015 have been substantially altered, updated, and improved, without controversy as new material has become available. There's no reason why that shouldn't be the case here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• I could approach sources in two different ways: one would be to generate statistics showing how many cites are from academic sources etc., and another would be to go looking for additional sources.... Since we seem to be focusing on "adequate coverage" etc., I have spent a couple hours doing the latter. My initial thoughts (yes a couple hours only qualifies as "initial") are that Schrocat is largely correct in saying this event seems to be woefully under-covered. Wikipedia herein fills an important gap, especially for the general public, who don't have a couple hours to look fruitlessly for info... Stepping back and looking at the big picture, I am not convinced that there is any value that can be added, nor any detrimental material removed, by Opposing this FAC. I just don't see any major facts being omitted, nor any major omissions or errors being committed. [I did see that perhaps first division criminals were not political prisoners per se but were those convicted of minor offenses and thus that status was equated with political protest in suffragette's minds... reasons for breaking windows included the desire to be arrested which would reduce opportunity for injury, plus desire to involve insurance companies....]. But those are tweaks. If anyone wants me to do stats I will, but after searching for sources and finding precious little, I stand by my Support. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Many thanks Axylus.arisbe /Lingzhi. Your second review here is very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Like Brian Boulton, above, I have read particularly carefully through the revised text of this article, and I find it admirable. I honestly don't understand why it has provoked such unusual dissent from a reviewer, and as far as I am concerned it meets all the FAC criteria handsomely. Happy to add my support for an excellent article. – Tim riley talk 16:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. This, and your comments at the PR, are much appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Brief comments, Outriggr

• I don't understand the use of "reportedly" in the lede. It happened, right? (Another "dilutive" phrase; see comments on passive voice below.)

Struck - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• The demonstration led to a change in approach: many members of the WSPU were unwilling to risk similar violence, so they resumed direct action—I'm not sure what constitutes direct action, but I read this as "they tried a new approach by resuming [x]"—which doesn't make sense—is something like "employed a new form of direct action" appropriate?

No, it wasn't a new form. I've tweaked so it reads "so they resumed their previous forms of direct action—such as stone-throwing and window-breaking" - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• he was so concerned about the potential impact of the image that an attempt was made by the police authorities—very very passive construction if the fact is uncontested (and really, what does it have to do with uncontested, but that's the message a reader receives with passive constructions—a dilution of impact, if you will). There is quite often a use of passive voice where the police are involved, which has the effect on me of diluting the importance of their actions and could be mistaken for a point-of-view bias. Other examples: "She had her wheelchair pushed into a side road by police", "to say that she had been assaulted by the police", "Three hundred women were met outside the Houses of Parliament by lines of police", "3,000 police were involved in preventing" (not passive, but a dilutive phrase), "Following the violence used by the police on that occasion", "women attempting to enter parliament were beaten by police". I mean some are fine, I've not included the one in the first paragraph—and I agree it's not always about the police—but there is too much passive voice which has the effect of diluting the apparently factual actions of the police. Edit: another similar sentence: "There were two deaths of suffragettes that have been attributed to the treatment they received on Black Friday."

All tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• "another woman reported that a policeman grasped her thigh, "I demanded...—this creates a run-on sentence with the quote

Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• who campaigned from an invalid tricycle—I'm not 100% up on preferred modern terminology (which is to say, the terminology that a community itself prefers) but "invalid tricycle" rings those bells. And it's just a weird phrase—would "who used a special tricycle" work?

It was the term she used for it: I've just gone with "wheelchair" now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Do we have an image of her invalid tricycle? It may be a form of wheelchair, something like a bath chair, and see this image from around the same period. But some invalid tricycles were essentially early self-propelled invalid carriages, e.g. [33] The Disabled Drivers Asociation was the "Invalid Tricycle Association" when it was founded in 1948. 213.205.198.245 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Rosa May Billinghurst (39633766971).jpg, File:Rosa May Billinghurst (24849570088).jpg from this category. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) File:Rosa May Billinghurst demonstaring.jpg is one: it's a wheelchair (having now seen it), so we've got the right wording on place now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(Apologies for random changes of IP) With its levers and gears and steering, arguably that is a handcycle. Hats off to Rosa May Billinghurst. 213.205.240.140 (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Regards, Outriggr (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Outriggr. All tweaked, per your suggestions, except where I've said otherwise above. Should you have any further comments, I look forward to hearing them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support A very few issues, just below. I won't pretend to know the period as well as do the nominator and many of the reviewers (and I have no opinion on certain discussions above) but here's my bit:

• "H. H. Asquith, leader of the Liberal Party, " I might say "Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party".
• "The Liberal government of 1905" I might insert "elected in".
• "for the new year to obtain a new mandate for the legislation." I would cut "new" before "mandate", or change to "fresh".

Reads very well and otherwise seems from my perspective to meet the FA criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Wehwalt; your input is much appreciated. All three of your suggestions now adopted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

Recognising that the FAC has proved controversial, I've tried to focus specifically on the criteria. Under these, and having read it through four times, I think it clearly passes. It is very well-written, is properly structured and cited, is stable, aside from the ongoing FAC developments, and seems of an appropriate length and focus. The issue, which would also appear to be the main concern above, is whether it's a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Gender studies is not my area, although the government of Asquith is a speciality, but it seems to me that the sources being used are comprehensive, representative and include many recent works. I'm therefore pleased to Support it. As a personal observation, having also read this FAC through more than once, it is sad that it has become acrimonious. The nominator, and some of the commentators above, are very well-versed in the history and the relevant literature. That could have been the basis for what this place does best, a productive collaboration. It's a great pity that's not how it's played out. KJP1 (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks KJP1 for your thoughts on the article. I also heartily agree with your closing lines, and I am sad how this has turned out (for which I am partly responsible, obviously). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

I have a couple of things to say.

• You do not, ever, ask female colleagues "to be nice".
• It seems to me that Sarah and Victoria are writing from a position of decades of consideration of the core underlying issues.
• Over these years, they have accumulated a solid grasp for the validity of the major sources.
• I don't get that feel from the nominator.
• If a fact is challenged on the basis of poor sourcing, it is not sufficient to leave the claim unchanged and simply swap the book reference.
• Some of the nominator's behaviours here have been appalling, especially this morning when he seemingly took out frustration with Sarah upon Victoria.[34]. The rhetorical question posed should be seriously considered by the nominator (hint: the answer is not to ban women from wikipedia).
• Earlier the nominator seemingly told Victoria not to bother with a source review, presumably because he had somebody less informed and sympathetic in mind.
• There is no consensus for promotion here, and it should have been withdrawn about three weeks ago. Instead we got [35], another disaster in waiting. I note that that article's talk page was rev deleted today.
• Its no wonder very few opposes are registered at FAC anymore; at the very least I want to register a procedural Oppose. St. Caurgula (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC) (the editor formally known as Ceoil)
• Ceoil, There has been a lack of good faith in too many comments on this page, and I am disappointed that you have continued in that vein. I am also disappointed with some of the errrs in your comments, including my grasp of the sources (Much of my undergraduate studies were at what was the Fawcett library), and your claim I "told Victoria not to bother with a source review, presumably because he had somebody less informed and sympathetic in mind". Untrue on both counts: at no point did I tell anyone not to do a review, and at no time have I asked anyone on or off wiki to undertake a source review. While it is laudable that you are coming to the defence of a Wiki-friend and colleague, I am sure the co-ords will consider on what basis you have registered your oppose. - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You most certainly told Victoria not to bother with a source review. Anyhow, It doesn't matter to me if you are *disappointed* or not. My opinions are based on what I have seen, in totality, around these groups of articles, over the last six odd months, and its not impressive. Anyhow, I have clearly articulated my views, and want no more of this. Gold star for this? Dont care. These issues crop again with Mud March? Worried. ps "coming to the defence" is cheap; frustrating even given what I had in my inbox about "crazy women" (not you). I'll leave it to the delegates to tease out the several layers of irony at play here. St. Caurgula (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil, I am sorry that you wish to continue in this vein. I have always considered you a good Wiki-colleague, but I am afraid you are in error on many points of fact here.

I am also worried about other suffrage articles - I have struck my comments of wishing to proceed at Mud March and will not be bothering with any other suffrage articles in the future. The bullying and off-Wiki shenanigans I have seen and been subjected to recently are not want I ever want to deal with, and they have seriously tainted my desire to edit.

My comment about "coming to the defence" was not meant to be cheap or snide, and I meant what I said when I said it was laudable: people should come to the defence of their Wiki-colleagues and friends - I believe that most sincerely. (Just ask Cassianto how many times I have stepped up at ANI to speak on his behalf - and he is just one example). All the best - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I had thought of you as a wiki friend also, but see the diffs above and your response now. Guilt tripping opponents for having a POV? I am not ten years old. St. Caurgula (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid you have lost me, but that's perhaps for the best. Keep well. - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Ian Rose, Laser brain, could you please close this nomination. The suffrage movement is one I specialised in as an undergraduate, and have held a deep-rooted interest and belief in ever since. I have a descendent of the Pankhursts as a close friend (who I will be seeing this evening, ironically), and I have met and discussed matters with several academics and interested parties in the field. This article is beginning to be as contentious as its subject matter, and any enjoyment I had when I first began to research about this event (about 2 years ago), has been battered out of me a long time ago. There is one editor here who should be deeply ashamed of themselves, and who has set out, from an entirely sexist frame of mind, to ensure it fails. Unfortunately their attritional, uncollegiate and negative tactics have won out and they can get whatever kick they want out of that. The article is FA-worthy according to any measure we have, and I take comfort that a subject about which I care deeply has an excellent article to represent it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think this would be a very unsatisfactory outcome. Rather, the main antagonists here should sit back, take a deep breath and remember this is a Wikipedia article, for God's sake, not a fight to the death. We have strong personalities at odds here, who probabaly have separate cause to regret some of the things that have been said. But playing the blame game is pointless when we should be concentrating on getting the best possible article out of the process. Is it not possible, even at this late stage, to look at the outstanding issues objectively and attempt to resolve them? This means putting aside the animosities that have festered here but, per St. Caurgula, none of us are ten years old. Quiet, calm deliberation, etc. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If Schrocat wants to bollock me for interfering and/or ignoring him, then I will take that on the chin. But @FAC coordinators: , If you could please turn a temporary blind eye to the above request, while we sort this out, that would be appreciated. It's always gutting to see editors whom one respects disagreeing, particularly so vehemently, but I think on the whole the differences appear procedural in nature rather than in terms of content. Perhaps if we focus on that, we might make something else out of this after all? It is, as I think everyone agrees, clearly a topic that should be on the front page this year. Much of the disagreements also appear to be have been based on misunderstandings in language and tone, or misconceptions; we don't have the nuance of tone on the web that would stop things like this going snafu in the first place, let alone getting worse. If the discursive points are distilled into a form of words that can be agreed on, it is surely impossible that we could not then iron out the differences. Just my tuppence, of course. It would be a tragedy (writ-small) for all the work—both in writing and reviewing—that this FAC has already consumed to be wasted. Come on. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • • • lame lame lame. AllOpposes should put facts on the table. Fac coords should look at facts not empty words. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect Brian, Sarah's rationales for opposing are material and actionable. The toys had left the pram before I asked for closure. Ling are you living on planet earth. I mean really.[36] The ganging up and hand waving here is enough to swear off the process. For god sake. St. Caurgula (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Brian, the rewrite has had very little time outside peer-review/FAC. It was developed in a sandbox from 25 March to 18 April and added to the article on 18 April in one edit (edit summary: "a ttweak or two..."). The next day, it was sent to peer review, where Tim declared it "thorough". I noticed the rewrite on 20 April and found that several sentences had been copied from an early version of Mud March (suffragists) written by you. I objected on talk; SchroCat closed the peer review and said he wouldn't be editing the article again. If he had carried on working with me at that point, we could perhaps have developed something. But then on 25 May he announced that he'd be taking it to FAC after all, so that month was wasted, and here we are. Getting hold of all the sources can take ages, never mind reading them, so I don't know how reviewers are able to judge so quickly that it's comprehensive.

The problem with these sandbox rewrites is that they create an emotional mismatch between the rewriter and page watchers. There's none of the usual evolution, where "stewardship" is gradually transferred to the editor earning it by putting in the most work. From the rewriter's perspective, he's been working on the content for weeks and has indeed earned stewardship. But to the page watchers, someone has arrived out of the blue, inserted a rewrite in one edit, and thereafter seems to want complete control. I think we should discuss developing some guidance about it because it has affected several articles.

The bottom line is that the article could be better organized, more comprehensive, and better sourced. But achieving that will take time, and FAC is supposed to be a final review. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. FAC Coordinators should actually READ the arguments and replies, and evaluate the merits.They do not. They say oh goodness. Someone put up a wall of text Oppose. Read it? No way! Facts are irrelevant. ARCHIVE FAIL. What we need guidance on is fac coords need to evaluate arguments instead of just closing unread when someone uses the wall of text Oppose method. Axylus.arisbe (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

If an oppose followed by a lot of text was a surefire way to get a nom archived then this would been closed some time ago. There's a difference between a nom that receives a good deal of comprehensive support for promotion as well as comprehensive opposes, and one that receives comprehensive opposes against a sole voice of support on prose (assuming of course I've understood correctly exactly what this alludes to). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(The withdrawal was to reduce the heat and noise, not increase it. Apologies to Ian and Andy for stepping on their toes with implementing the close: this was only ever going to go downhill at an accelerated pace if left open.) – SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to be pointy about this and revert your adding the archiving template (though technically it should use the "withdrawn" parameter), because I respect nominator's withdrawal requests, even if I sometimes like to let them sleep on it; given you're clearly serious about it, it would've come to the same thing in the end. There is a bit more to closing a nom though, and I'll deal with that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.