Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 23 May 2024 [1].

Mars Society[edit]

Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mars Society is a nonprofit organization that advocates for human Mars exploration and colonization. There is very little available source that is said about the Mars Society, yet early in its history it played a crucial part in Elon Musk's creation of SpaceX. I've spent more than two years trying to improve the article and I'm hoping for the best for the third FAC. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also contacted some Mars Society members to take a look at this article. No responses yet, but hopefully there will be a few by the end of the week. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't know what more to add to this article. Looks like this is comprehensive enough for now. Also, I just managed to borrow the book and is skimming it for facts. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this is when I contacted individual members of the Mars Society. Now that I finally found the official communication forum for the TMS, I emailed to the New Mars Forum to get more feedback. Hopefully they will provide insights that are still missing from the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: is this article still missing an image and source review? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have placed a request at WP:FACSR. FrB.TG (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by TompaDompa[edit]

I almost certainly will not do a full review, but I would like to suggest using Robert Markley's Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination (2005) as a source. There is a fair amount of material about the Mars Society therein; the index points to pp. 23, 350–353, and 385, but there's more—I would suggest at minimum checking out the "Mars Direct and the High Frontier" portion (pp. 346–354) of chapter 8 ("Mars at the Turn of a New Century"). It could for instance be used to verify James Cameron as a member. TompaDompa (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa Thank you so much for the source! It took me ages to make sure that every single source has been extensively checked, and you proved me wrong. Always nice to find more sources for the article, will get the book and write the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa Reading it... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa, I just finished adding everything I can think off to the article with that source. Wow, what an oversight. It confirmed some of my suspicions about the society earlier, but it's nice to confirm it with a reliable source. If you know any other sources that mentions the Mars Society, please tell me as soon as possible! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it, I'm afraid. I'm only aware of Markley's book because I used it heavily for Mars in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose support from PCN02WPS[edit]

  • Minor, but maybe reword "Many Mars Society members and former members" in the lead to "Many current and former Mars Society members" to avoid repetition?
  • The "Philosophy and propositions" section mentions a founding conference in the present tense initially and then switches to past tense
  • "2003 that Mars Society is a fundamentally" → when referred to like this elsewhere in the article, the phrasing "the Mars Society" is used
  • "They published their plan to NASA" → recommend linking NASA on first mention
    • Secondary point: The wording that they published a paper to the organization sounds a little strange, maybe "for NASA"? I'm not really sure what the best fix would be here.
  • "the same year as the sixth and last Case for Mars" → I think you can drop "sixth and" since you mention that the sixth was the final one earlier
  • "near Hanksville, Utah" → comma after "Utah" per MOS:GEOCOMMA
  • The crew would stay for eighty days" → reads better to me as "The crew stayed for eighty days
  • "totaling 236 crews,with each crew" → need a space
  • The second-to-last paragraph in "Earlier activities" seems to be missing a few articles here and there; for example, I think it reads better with wording like "later renamed to the Mars Gravity Biosattelite" and "students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology"
  • MIT doesn't need to be linked again in the last paragraph
  • I would also consider giving the "MIT" abbreviation at first mention and using it instead of the long form name at subsequent mentions as it is far more digestible
  • "had dwarfed the one of Mars Society" → "had dwarfed that of Mars Society" - also might need a "the" in front of "Mars Society"
  • remove links from FMARS and MDRS; they're given already above
  • Ditto for Devon Island and Hanksville, Utah
  • "As of 2017, it is back" → consider "it was back" since you're mentioning an update given seven years ago with no update since then

That's all I've got as far as prose goes, nice work! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your excellent review! I've implemented all of your changes to the article. I still haven't being able to loan "Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination" yet but I hope I will be able to loan it soon. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and changed a couple words to fix tenses and such myself so I didn't have to hold this up just for that. The article is very well-written and I'm happy to support on prose quality. (As a note, if you've got a bit of time I have an FAC of my own that could use some eyes) PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the support! It's my 4th year on Wikipedia and my 5th FAC, and this is the first ever FAC support that I've received. Thank you so much for believing in this FAC. I really do appreciate that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser[edit]

Neat and to the point, probably doesn't need to be much longer than this until we get boots on the ground. I'm having a little trouble with the "current" in the "current projects" heading, in part because we're unaware of whether two of these projects are even ongoing as of 2017 and august 2022.

  • "..and Peter Smith" If he is notable as a member we should be able to verify his membership with a secondary source.
  • "president is Robert Zubrin., and nNotable members" English loves commas, couldn't we still do a full stop here?
  • "The testimony seems to not have influenced the committee" Reads a bit like a stylistic understatement, can we be blunt here?
  • Could we do the inverse: "where the island is not uninhabited and lacks vegetation."
  • Google hits for the exact phrasing "student university competitions" do not look promising, rephrase?
  • "The MarsVR Project aims.."
  • Source spot check (random.org) 13, 14, 16, 24 and 28 — 24: I can't seem to find the date on page 4, or any other page. It's in source 17 though. Also, please add the rp-template to source 17.

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order:
  • Cannot verify whether Peter Smith was a board member or not, even on his personal website. If he had ever been a Mars Society member, he was most likely a member in the society for an insignificant amount of time. Removed.
  • I was stupid. Implemented.
  • Rewrote to "The committee was indifferent to the testimony"
  • Made sense. Implemented.
  • Removed "student"
  • To be explicit, added another ref after "In December 2001,"
Thank you so much for the source check! Sorry if I haven't been about to respond to you immediately. Courtesy ping: Draken Bowser. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. I'm gonna hold here for a while pending further comments/polishing and return later for another read through. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser Would you mind reviewing the article again for any further omissions? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get to a printer today, unfortunately, will get back to you no later than Wednesday. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser Wow, you're very dedicated to copyedit the article. Thank you so much for your time and effort! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly wanted to see how far my holistic impression had improved since the first look.

Final notes:

  • "This goal can be seen in.." prefer "These goals were set out.."
  • "..to espouse his own views on how human Mars mission should be done." Add "-s" or "a".
  • "Mars will be a way to give birth to an ideal society." Prefer "would".
  • "..and no further development of TEMPO3 has been done since the initial proposal." Do our sources confirm this, or should we go with "reported"?

That's all, and Support. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you so much for your support and your comprehensive review. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "advocates for human Mars exploration and colonization". This may be different in US English, but to my ear it is clunky. Perhaps 'advocates for human exploration and colonization of Mars'?
  • "to make human mission to Mars". Not grammatical. Either 'to make human missions to Mars' or 'to make a human mission to Mars'.
  • "... which aims to make human mission to Mars as lightweight and feasible as possible. The Mars Society aims to generate ..." Is it possible to avoid "aims" twice in such clos proximity?
  • "the Mars Society has been active with organizing events and research activities." Suggest 'the Mars Society has organizied events and supported research activities.'
  • "aim to replicate a true Mars mission for research." Suggest 'aim to stimulate a Mars mission.'
  • "Crew members in the stations must perform ..." Delete "must".
  • "do research assignments" → 'carry out research assignments'.
  • "and researching the effects on Martian crews via Mars analog habitats." Researching the effects of what?
  • Reference: books should either all have publisher locations or none should.
  • "and notable members and former members" → 'and notable current and former members'.
  • "chapters in Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe, etc". Etc doesn't really work. Is it possible to give a full list? Or end with 'and x other countries'?
  • "The Mars Society's founding conference" - give the year.
  • Link Mars Direct.
  • "a panel made by the Obama administration" → 'a panel set up by the Obama administration'.
  • "During a testimony". Delete "a".
  • $20 bn is not "one-twentieth the cost" of $250–500 bn. Perhaps 'less than one-twentieth the cost'?
  • "conference had happened" → 'conference took place'.
  • "as a spiritual successor". Delete "spiritual".
  • "Some of the invited were from the Mars Underground and those who had written to Zubrin" → 'Some of those invited were from the Mars Underground or had had written to Zubrin ...'.
  • Section heading: "Earlier activities". You shouldn't use "earlier" without saying what it is earlier than what. Perhaps 'Historical projects' or similar.
  • "on Devon Island." Where is that?
  • "The construction cost for FMARS is jointly shared by the Mars Society and the Haughton–Mars Project team. Part of the funding also came from commercial sponsorship such as the Discovery Channel." The second sentence contradicts the first.
  • "FMARS was first occupied in July and August 2000". It can't be first occupied on two dates.
  • "In mid-2001, the Mars Society received a US$5,000 check from Elon Musk for a fundraiser event." That is not what the source says. Possibly you mean 'at a fundraiser event'?
  • "Musk joined the Mars Society's board of directors". I cannot find this on the pages cited. It is discouraging that the one cite I have checked seems to have two errors.
  • "invited aerospace engineers whom he had met beforehand at Mars Society-sponsored trips". Delete "beforehand".
  • "Since then, Musk occasionally kept contact with the Mars Society". This needs rewording. Maybe 'Since then, Musk has occasionally worked with the Mars Society' or similar?
  • "as evident by his presentation". Either 'as is evident in his presentation' or 'as is evidenced by his presentation'.
  • "The first four-month-long mock mission was done in 2007" → 'The first four-month-long mock mission took place in 2007'.
  • "Shorter missions were done in 2009 and 2013" → 'Shorter missions were carried out in 2009 and 2013'.
  • What is a "field season"?
  • "The money that had been donated by Elon Musk". Delete "that had been".
  • "MIT": In the last paragraph of Earlier activities you use MIT twice, then give the name in full. Is there a reason for this?
  • What is a "student university"?
  • Is "MarsVR Project" a computer program? If so, say so at first mention.

That's it for my first run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, thank you so much for your kind comments! I've implemented most of your suggestions to the article. As for "Musk joined the Mars Society's board of directors", it can be verified with this quote, around page 100-110: "Musk took to the Mars Society right away and joined its board of directors." I need to find the page number for the print version though... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my epub, the print edition page number for that quote is 100. Unless I own a hardcopy of the book, I really don't know what's wrong with the citation here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have sorted it. If you think I have done anything wrong, could you flag it up here. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: Bishop, 2011 needs a page range.
  • "Field season" is not the same as "fiscal year".

Looking good. Just the two minor points above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild Done. As a side note, all three citations to Bishop, 2011 have attached {{rp}} CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bishop: I know, doesn't matter. If a source is a part of a larger work (eg a chapter of a book or an article in a journal) its page range needs to be given along with the other details on how to find it. Note the tweak I gave. Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Graham Beards[edit]

The article has improved by leaps and bounds since its first FAC coming up to two years ago. I think it satisfies the FA criteria. I made a couple of tiny edits rather than list them here. Well done. Graham Beards (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards, would you mind taking a look at the article again? I've made some addition to the article from the source that TompaDompa has suggested. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: "degree" should be "degrees" and you should say if they are university or college degrees. Here " with certain influences from science fiction", you don't need "certain". Here " The first convention also saw the signing of the Founding Declaration of the Mars Society" the "also" is redundant. Graham Beards (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback! I've made my first copyedit pass through the article and fixed the issues that you've addressed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review[edit]

Image placement and ALT text seems fine for me. Regarding File:Elon Musk at MSC 2006.jpg, I kinda wonder why the Flickr images are so lacking in EXIF details. I am not sure that the licence statement on File:FMARS Station Construction 2 2000-07-21.JPG means that it can be re-used by other. Source review wise reviewing this version. Looks like we are working mostly with major news sources and specialized sources here. Spot-check:

  • 3 The fee thing is on the other page. OK otherwise, although you may want to alphabetize the countries list.
  • 4 Can I have copies of the pages in question?
  • 8 OK
  • 10 OK although I wonder if this is somewhat detailed information for a Wikipedia article.
  • 13 OK
  • 14 Mostly OK but where is it said that it was a "successor"'
  • 15 OK
  • 17 OK
  • 18 OK
  • 19 OK
  • 20 Where is "temporary foundation for his publicity projects,"?
  • 22 OK
  • 24 OK
  • 25 OK
  • 27 Can I have copies of the pages in question?
  • 28 OK, but it's interpreting the reasons why these sites were chosen.
  • 29 OK
  • 33 OK, some paraphrasing of "propulsion module, heat shield and landing engines" may be warranted.
  • 35 Need a copy of this webpage.
  • 36 Where is "the training part has an attached cost for the public"?

Not source or image related, but the article is conspicuously lacking in any outside review or commentary on the organization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review. About the images, I will email to the Mars Society to confirm that these images are indeed made by them. As for the reviews that you're talking about, sources available for TMS are very scant, even more so for external commentaries. I tried my best to layout critical commentary of the organization at Mars_Society#Philosophy_and_propositions.
Addressing source concerns... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the IRS filing information, I think it's appropriate to put it into the article. The organization is really small by many standards and there's no official member count for the TMS. So the next best thing is to assess the revenue and spending of the organization. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Ok, this is frustrating... I haven't received an email from TMS for 3 weeks now. I guess that I will remove the FMARS pic for now pending reply. As for the sourcing concerns, I recall that I've sent an email to you but you didn't respond. I don't know how to use wikipedia's email system so may I just send quotes from the book instead? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Have you and Cacti been able to reconnect on this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CactiStaccingCrane? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: hasn't been active in twelve days 750h+ 12:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the nominator isn't acting and the sourcing hasn't been vetted fully, archiving the nomination. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:02, 23 May 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) 22 May 2024 [2].

Michele Scarponi[edit]

Nominator(s): Craig(talk) 22:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today (22 April) marked the seventh anniversary of the death of Italian cyclist, Michele Scarponi. His greatest success, at the 2011 Giro d'Italia, came as a result of another rider's results being expunged eight months after the conclusion of the race. His career was not without its problems, with two separate doping suspensions. The article has been a GA since 2022 and went through GOCE last year; WP:CYCLING currently has only two biographical FAs – Tom Simpson and Bernard Hinault – so if this article was to be promoted to the highest level, it would be in rarified company. Admittedly, I am a first-time nominator at FAC, so looking forward to going through the process. Craig(talk) 22:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has attractted no interest at all. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: When the majority of the other FACs were picking up interest, I became more and more concerned, and it was sadly inevitable that it is liable to be archived. The welcome to the FAC process (on the talk page) was very much appreciated, and when (rather than if) this is archived, I hope to bring back at a later date – cannot do any worse than my first attempt though... Craig(talk) 22:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if you are right. It may or may not help, but below is my standard boilerplate on finding reviewers, which might assist for next time around.

Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.

Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Appreciate the tips that have been provided – definitely given me food for thought for future instances, how to better engagement and the QPQ aspect. Craig(talk) 21:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A month in and no indication of movement towards a consensus to promote, so I am going to archive this. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 22 May 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) 21 May 2024 [3].

Katherine Sleeper Walden[edit]

Nominator(s): Dionysius Millertalk 14:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an environment activist, journalist, community organizer, postmistress, innkeeper, and conservationist in the small town of Wonalancet, New Hampshire. She led the effort to revitalize the town, pioneered northern Appalachian eco-tourism, was among the first female journalists in Massachusetts, and saved thousands of acres of old-growth forests from deforestation. Dionysius Millertalk 14:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drive by comments:
    • You have three block quotes in there, (one of which shouldn't be a block quote). None of them have citations. Block quotes also shouldn't have quote marks.
    • "Timber Baron" shouldn't be capitalised
    • The word "famously" shouldn't be in any article
    • There are a couple of WP:LQ errors
    • There are some duplicate links
    • Nutfield Genealogy is a blogsite: what makes it reliable?
    • FN24 is shouty caps
These are from just a very quick skim. I'll try and be back for a proper review shortly, but I have a couple of others to take care of first. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving to oppose. I've now managed to read this, rather than just glance at it, and there are some problems with the prose that mean this is not ready for FAC at the moment. A good copy edit and then a visit to PR should help matters. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

I'm afraid I'm not sure this one is ready for FAC. A few things that stick out immediately:

  • People should not generally be referred to be first name only, with a few exceptions that don't really apply here: we use their surname, ideally (MOS:BIO) as they did at the time of the events under discussion.
  • Large amounts of the article read as WP:PROMO in tone: see as examples but not an exhaustive list:
    • In 1898, to further encourage tourism and improve the area, Katherine successfully formed the Wonalancet Out Door Club (WODC), saying "Its purpose shall be the building and maintenance of paths, to improve the place and develop its natural beauties for the attraction of summer guests.
    • In 1898, to further encourage tourism and improve the area, Katherine successfully formed the Wonalancet Out Door Club (WODC), saying "Its purpose shall be the building and maintenance of paths, to improve the place and develop its natural beauties for the attraction of summer guests.
    • Arthur also greatly contributed to the farm's popularity. His sled dogs and their breeding program gained national renown and attracted hundreds of visitors to Wonalancet. Interested visitors often received personal, in-depth tours from Arthur.
    • Wonalancet quickly grew to be the foremost year-round tourist hub in the White Mountains, earning widespread fame.
  • There are grammatical and MoS errors throughout: few serious, but generally not giving confidence that the article has been copyedited to the level required.
  • Image licensing seems sketchy: few of the images provided have any information as to their publication date or authorship. One has a watermark through the middle.
  • The formatting of the references is inconsistent, and some appear not to meet the standard for WP:HQRS. There might even be a question-mark as to whether the subject meets WP:GNG, once those sources (in particular, Roing 2007) are removed: I don't think there's a serious case for deletion, but it does illustrate that we don't appear to be working from a huge supply of scholarly material here.

Oppose for now: I am open to revisiting that if the situation changes, but the above should be taken as an indicative sample rather than an exhaustive list. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Based on the above this does seem underprepared so best the concerns are addressed outside the FAC process. I agree PR should be the next stop after that, and/or FAC mentoring. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 21 May 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) 21 May 2024 [4].

Troika (1969 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The debut feature film by avant-garde artist-turned-filmmaker Fredric Hobbs. Troika marked the start of a short but colorful career for Hobbs and the acting debut of Golden State Warriors Hall of Fame Nate Thurmond, briefly released in 1969 and given subsequent airings on television, it became largely forgotten for decades. Its rediscovery and short screening in 2022 helped gain the film minor recognition for its portrayal of ideas and attitudes popular in the 1960s. After working on finding only the best and most reliable sources, passing Good Article status in 2023 and a Peer review in 2024, I believe this article meets the standards of Featured status. I look forward to hearing any comments and criticisms on this this current effort I put in.Paleface Jack (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts on the Troika are commendable. It makes me also interested in watching this movie. Mcx8202229 (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be difficult, considering it has never gotten a release on home media and the copy of the film is under lock and key at the University.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "the director Hobbs attempting to gain financing for a film of the same name" - same name as what? Himself?
The film was named Troika. I changed it to make it appear less confusing.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Troika was first conceived by Hobbs after working" => "Troika was first conceived by Hobbs after he worked"
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Functioning as an "expressionist documentary" of student demonstrations within the late 1960s. " - this isn't a complete sentence
Did a minor revision.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Within the classroom, students covered in white face paint recline upon toilet seats and chaise longues in place of chairs, various college professors present their lessons to the students, who view the presentations with downcast emotions." - this also isn't a complete sentence. I think you need "while", "and", or similar before "various"
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a procession of the title "Blue People"" => "a procession of the titular "Blue People""
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ends with a shot of Rax as it merges with the Three Thieves" - what's "it"? Rax? Earlier you referred to Rax as "he"
My bad, changed to "He".--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each segment for the film as a series of increasingly bizarre shorts" - should that last word be "shots"?
Shorts is accurate, he was talking about the film structure rather than the narrative of each segement.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So each segment of the film is itself a series of shorts? That's how it currently reads...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest changing it to "the segments of the film as a series of increasingly bizarre shorts" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I redid the sentence to clarify that is was the narrative structure and not each segment.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hobbs, also starred in the film" - no need for that comma there
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as one commentator described his role as a Christ-like figure" - no need for the word "as"
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gordon Mueller in addition to his duties as the film's editor, stepping in " => "Gordon Mueller, in addition to his duties as the film's editor, stepping in "
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Art Institute photo caption needs a full stop
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "began firing a Nike missile's" - no reason for the 's at the end there
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph beginning "while the film's visuals", quotes from critics swap between being in single quote marks and double quote marks
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hobbs' continued to work" - no reason for apostrophe on his name
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both films were critical and commercial failures,[39][41] combined with behind-the-scenes conflicts with producers of both films caused Hobbs to grow discontent with the film industry, who subsequently retired from filmmaking" - there's some words missing here. I would suggest changing it to "Both films were critical and commercial failures,[39][41] and this, combined with behind-the-scenes conflicts with the producers of both films, caused Hobbs to grow discontent with the film industry, and he subsequently retired from filmmaking"
Did a little rewording.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date formats in the refs are inconsistent. Within the same ref I can see "October 12, 2022" and "2022-10-12"
Interesting. I think another editor did that cause I never really use that date format. The format is fitting with my style and more consistant.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did edits on it and the format remains the same. Not sure what is causing this. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it by removing a parameter from the {{use mdy dates}} hidden template -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Odd how these hidden parameters are set up to irritate me. Thanks for the fix.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

I have done some light copy editing while reading. If I have messed anything up, could we discuss it here.

  • "utilizing various sets in and around California." A "set" is artificially constructed scenery, so I don't see how this squares with "The film was shot on location".
Reworded to "The film was shot in early to mid-1969, utilizing various locations in and around California."--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film's score was composed in collaboration with Hobbs and editor/co-director Gordon Mueller" doesn't really work grammatically. Perhaps 'The film's score was composed in a collaboration between Hobbs and editor/co-director Gordon Mueller'?
Reworded to "The film's score was composed as a collaborative effort between Hobbs and editor/co-director Gordon Mueller". Might do minor tinkering if this is not up to snuff.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Troika initially had a preview screening on October 12". Does "initially" add anything?
Other than serving as a screening prior to the official premiere, no. Removing it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with select reviews being mixed to positive." What was "select" about the reviews?
changed to "existing".--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film has currently not been released on home video, with Hobbs being unsatisfied with the current print of the film, refusing to grant distribution rights up to his death in 2018" seems a little clumsy. If Hobbs' dissatisfaction with the current print is the reason why it was not released on home video, say so.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Hobbs being unsatisfied with the current print of the film". "current print" suggests that there are other prints; is this so?
Redid to existing print, as he was not satisfied with the quality that he was in ownership of (the only one we know of).--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "refusing to grant distribution rights up to his death in 2018". Ok, so why has it not been release since 2018?
That I have not figured out. Since that one festival screening, all news on the film has mysteriously stopped.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest deleting "Note". (Just the single word, not the actual note.)
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be rebuffed and insulted by the producer." Who is "the producer"?
Goodloins. Changed it to make that more obvious.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed italics.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crafting an alchemical brew in a large vat". Really a vat, which is a type of barrel, or a cauldron?
Existing plot synopsis' call it a vat.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A seemingly crazed Chef ... as the Chef uses pieces of it ..." Why the upper-case Cs?
Character name, lower cased it now.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Still not satisfied with ..." Why "Still? There is no mention of any earlier or initial dissatisfaction.
Removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "covered in similar ritualistically painted symbols". Similar to what? This is the first mention of ritualistic symbols.
Changed to Ritualistic face paint.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they both dance to a tango". Either 'they dance a tango together' or 'they both dance to a tango tune.
The synopsis found in the book by Stephen Thrower states "the chef then dances a tango with a heavily painted woman".--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a short while". Delete "short". Unless you wish to argue that a long while exists.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section title: why "Alma Mater"?
Plot synopsis lists this as the title accourding to sources.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "present their lessons". Suggest 'present their lectures'.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who view the presentations with downcast emotions". Are there any visual or other indications that their emotions were downcast? If so, what are they? If not, how do we know?
Plot synopsis is vague: "The sequence cotains footage shot at a student sit-in, taken both inside the college abid tired or downcast students". I changed the sentance a little differently for flow--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the frustrated students boo their dunce-capped teacher". Why "their"? Were the other five not "their" teachers as well?
Another vague portion of the plot synopsis I had to use to contruct everything on: "The surrealistic classroom.. is populated by students with thickly painted Caligari-esque faces who eventually boo the dunce-capped teacher out of class."--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by a feral Warrior". Why the upper-case W? What makes or indicates that they are "feral"?
Plot synopsis just lists them as a "Savage". I changed it a but with lower case to fit that description.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pushing a large sculpture with her". Delete "with her"; if she is pushing it you have established that it is "with her".
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Attenuated Man". Guess?
Listed name for the character in the end credits so Caps seems more appropriate here.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "induces a vision of three thieves (a sculpture depicting three corpse-like beings) who emerge from the ceiling of the cave." So is it three thieves who emerge" or 'a sculpture of three thieves which emerges. How is it known they are thieves?
The sculpture was a piece by Hobbs named the "Three Thieves" and is listed as such in the synopsis. I changed it a little so that title is not present there so to not confuse the reader.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the titular "Blue People". You have not mentioned any titles.
Changed that a bit cause the segment is titled "Blue People", yet "Titular" upsets the flow.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont remember the exact reason why that is quoted. I removed the quotes anyways.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "populated by Blue and Purple people" ...
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "same train he departed from at the beginning". As at the beginning he arrived this is a little confusing. Perhaps 'same train he disembarked from at the beginning'?
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Three Thieves". The upper-case issue again, plus inconsistency.
Changed from earlier critisism.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Bachelor of Arts in History." Why the upper-case initial letters?
Apologies. Was trying to avoid unnecessary redirects so I left it as such, as with most of those unnecessary capitals. The official title of the degree is in caps. I removed the degree he got from the article as it seems unnecessary--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After serving as a United States Air Force Officer in the Korean War". Why the upper-case O?
Fixed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "throughout the late 1950s and early 1960s". He graduated in 1953, so unless he produced acclaimed work prior to this "throughout" is inaccurate.
Changed "throughout" to "in".--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a series of acclaimed art pieces ... an art piece of the same name". Could you be more specific? Were the art pieces oil paintings, sculpture, performance pieces, a mixture?
Changed to paintings and sculptures.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I am going to oppose, the prose is not up to FAC standard - criterion 1 a - nor MoS compliant - criterion 2. I was hoping that things would improve once I was past the plot, but they haven't, and reading ahead they don't. I suggest withdrawal to either give it a thorough copy edit or to put it through GoCER. I hope that the comments above give an idea of where I feel that improvement is needed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep it in the review and make the fixes accordingly. For character names in the casting section, I placed them in quotations as the film credits them as such. In terms of character names or capitalized names, Blue People and others are always capitalized in all the sources I have, which is why it's better to keep it that way as it is the character's name title.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2[edit]
  • "a recent sculpture of the same name". By Hobbs?
Modified for clarity.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he began to develop the film into", "the film" being "Trojan Horse"?
rewote to "Hobbs became fascinated with film as an art form and began to develop the concept for Troika," to clarify he was going off on his own to make a movie.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with its name taken from the Russian word for a set of three, referencing the three overlapping stories." The lead is a summary of the main article, could you point out where this information is in the main article?
It is mentioned in the release section.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hobbs has expressed dissatisfied". Is not grammatical.
Changed--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It has currently not been released on home video, as Hobbs has expressed dissatisfied with the print and refused distribution rights." This implies that Hobbs is still alive and is still is still refusing distribution rights. Why has it not been distributed during the past six years?
I have no idea why it has not been released. It seemed there was a huge build up for that possibility but after the festival screening there has been no new mention of the film anywhere.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there citations in the infobox. Are these items not covered in the main article?
The citations on the cinematographer are not.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is cite 3 on a new line?
Removed the citation as it was in the body.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "with the main story centering around an artist–Fredric Hobbs portraying a fictional version of himself– as he attempts to convince". This uses en dashes - the first unspaced and the second partially spaced. See "Punctuating a sentence" in MOS:DASH for correct usage.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a series of increasingly desperate encounters with Goodloins, Hobbs tries to pitch the idea for the film". Are these the opening scenes of the film? If so, say so.
revised this.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also covered in ritualistic face paint." "covered" suggests all over; "face paint" suggests just her face. Which is the case?
Changed to "Covered in painted symbols.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "composed of four stories ... The film is structured in three segments". Does the scene with the Hobbs pitching the film count as a story, a segment, both, or neither.
    Butting in....yes was wondering about that. Ceoil (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From all my sources (Only two give details on the plot) it it its own sequence but is not titled or credited.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that the three sub-section headers are the titles of the "three segments"? This needs making clear. Where do these titles come from? Eg, the film itself, Hobbs, a HQ RS, you?
How so?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current text says, breaking the fourth wall, "This plot synopsis and chapter titles are adapted from an interview of Hobbs in the non-fiction book Nightmare USA: The Untold Story of Exploitation Independents written by Stephen Thrower, and an article for the Daily News". I think the sections should be merged, its fine to separate each in the text as "what Hobbs decribes as..." or something, but they cannot be used as sect titles". Ceoil (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Splitting it into "Hobbs called" or "Hobbs described" for the titles instead of just having titles breaks the flow of the plot section. By keeping the titles in there it adds more flow and clarofies its structure as an Anthology for the readers. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the GA review they just had me do it that way. I am also going off of something similarly doe with the plot synopsis of Tetsuo: The Iron Man.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the word "chapter" to "segment" in the explanatory paragraph of the plot section. Each segment title is reffered to that by Hobbs. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They dance to a tango". The word "to" alters the meeting here. I am just checking that you mean to convey that they dance to a tango tune, but do not perform a tango dance?
Plot synopsis only says ""The chef then dances a tango with a heavily painted woman".--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Exiting the train, a tall insect-like humanoid named Rax (Morgan Upton), who journeys into the nearby coastal hills." this is not grammatical.
Any suggestions.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... who journeys into the nearby coastal hills. Making his way there ..." Remove the repitition.
Changed to "On the road".--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dispersed throughout the segment is a procession of the blue people". Do you mean something like 'Dispersed throughout the segment are clips of a procession of the blue people'?
Yes. Changed to clarify.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a seven-foot-tall shaman known as the Attenuated Man (Nate Thurmond) ... as Rax, alongside the attenuated man" Upper-case initials or lower case? Be consistent.
Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the segment ends with a shot of Rax as he merges with the sculpture of the three beings." The segment ends or the film ends?
Film. Changed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have got less far than I did with my first run through, and I am not sure that I have fewer issues. I want to be sympathetic to a first time nominator and I am aware of the difficulty of writing engaging prose to a professional standard. Nevertheless the article is still under-prepared for FAC and I feel that to go further would create a WP:FIXLOOP. So I am stopping here and my oppose on criteria 1 a and 2 stands. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gog, but on the optimistic side, its a short article and the review is almost exhaustive. My main concern is that the film is very fringe -hard core art horror fans only- there are just not that many sources that describe the plot (see my note above). My preference would be to gut that section. Paleface are you up for that? Ceoil (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. The most detailed plot synopsis is found in the book Nightmare USA and that is very detailed on how theg were split into the parts, i too the liberty of removing fluff that would be too much. Additional details I got from a review, filling in some of the gaps so I think is good as it stands. I have made a lot of adjustments with a few questions to clarify some criticisms. Other than that we can either wait till those questions are answered or we can fail it. Either way I am fine.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, almost a month in this nom is still far from consensus to promote, so best we work on it outside of FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Gog, who is usually right about such matters. Its a really great article that would love to see promoted eventually (sharing a passion for this type of cinema), but it needs polish. On prose only. Paleface you need to haggle some copy editors; suggest a GA nomination, and a peer review after. Am up for helping on both, and look forward to seeing you back here after. Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is already GA so that would be pointless. Copy editing perhaps. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I should do more research. Can this be left open for another week and will have a go at copy-editing? As mentioned have an interest in this type of gothic. Ceoil (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to let that happen if you could teach me how to actually do it myself. It seems prose is my weakness.Paleface Jack (talk)

I'm down with that as the page is otherwise outstanding. Lets take it to article talk. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, there has been extensive copy editing, might ask Gog to revisit by the end of weekend if thats fine. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Implementing some minor fixes until then. Either you or I can get in touch with Gog on the weekend. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I have done some pretty extensive copy edits to the article in the past 2 weeks and I hope these have cleared up any of the issues you have mentioned.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:25, 14 May 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) 14 May 2024 [5].

The Sims Online[edit]

Nominator(s): ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims Online is a massively multiplayer online game released as a short-lived and interesting chapter in the history of the Maxis game The Sims, developed by Will Wright. The game was a hotly-anticipated release that, whilst failing to recreate the commercial success of its predecessor, introduced a genre of MMO aside from the fantasy theme of its contemporaries. Discourse around the problems with interaction and communities in the game - harassment, abuse and sex - are obvious and direct precursors to those later had in 'real-life' metaverse interactions and online spaces such as Second Life. Coming across a largely barren article, the well publicised nature of the game's anticipation, disappointing critical and commercial performance and post-release problems made this a pleasure to research and write about.

I'm mindful this article has received a less than rigorous GAN process (with no disrespect to the reviewer) and no input on a peer review, so I understand some work to get this to standard may be needed. I look forward to receiving any feedback and comments to improve this article, and thank you in advance for your time.ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEclipse (Media review)[edit]

There are only two images (which are fair use) in this article and they have sufficient rationales. Support on media. I'd recommend adding an image of Wright to the Development and release section. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 13:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unfortunately there seems to be significant verifiability issues, particularly in the Gameplay section - a lot of references on spotchecks failed to verify the entirety of the content they are placed to support, and the strategy guide references are lacking page numbers. This is a significant enough issue that I would suggest withdrawal at this point, since significant re-referencing will be needed. Once that's done there are additional issues around prose and style that will need to be considered. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine and I agree and completely understand, although I'm disappointed these weren't picked up either at PA or GAN. Are there any barriers to re-nominating for FAC once withdrawn or failed, similar to there being none for GA? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vrxces, after the nomination is withdrawn and archived, there's a two-week cooling-off period during which you can't renominate any article at FAC. After that you can nominate it again any time. Sorry to hear things were missed at GAN and that you got no input at PR -- sadly, we have a chronic shortage of reviewer time. You can help by thoroughly reviewing other folks' articles yourself, which will free up others to focus on the content you're working on. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will archive this nomination. Given the limited feedback it received the two-week hiatus will not apply in this case. But do try to make sure that all such issues are picked up before its return. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 14 May 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) 14 May 2024 [6].

Heptamegacanthus[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fifth featured article nomination for parasitic worms (3 pass, 1 fail), which were chosen as they are the first animals listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala...). This article has went through an excellent and thorough GA review by User:Esculenta. I believe I've captured all relevant literature (there is not much), but am ready to make any and all suggestions here. Thanks in advance! Mattximus (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting[edit]

Hello again. I didn't say anything at the GA candidacy about citation formatting because it's not part of that criteria, but I can nitpick about it here:

  • need to pick a consistent style for author names; currently, there's a mix of full name, abbreviated first name with period, and abbreviated first name without period.
  • Done - I believe everything is now consistent with author names
  • It's unusual to give et al. after the first author; why not list them all (there's only 3) - Done
  • need to pick either sentence case or title case for article titles. I usually go with sentence case for articles and book chapter titles, and title case for book titles, but the particular style doesn't really matter as long as it's consistent. - Done (sentence case applied)
  • One journal name is given in full; another is abbreviated (unnecessarily, imo). - Done

Esculenta (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Esculenta[edit]

  • have you thought about redrawing any of the Heptamegacanthus images from the original paper? They all seem to be paper + ink, and could be readily recreated. Figure 1 and Figure 2 (male & female worms) could be combined into a single image for the taxobox, and an image of the proboscis (figure 3) would really benefit the article, as it's difficult to imagine what this looks like from text alone. WP:Graphics Lab might be able to help if you're not confident redrawing them yourself.
  • Thinking about this some more, this might not have been a good suggestion, as there could be copyright issues (redrawing an image essentially creates a derivative work). This may be a better suggestion: how about contacting the author and asking her to release the images under a Wikipedia-compatible license? Who knows, she might be delighted to have one of her obscure species being discussed and potentially featured.
  • Interesting proposition but I would feel bad contacting her unless I could say exactly what needs to be done to give licensing, of which I'm completely oblivious. Mattximus (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice the article doesn't use Kennedy's 2006 work Ecology of the Acanthocephala as a source, which seems to be the major recent-ish general text about the topic of spiny-headed worms. Has this book been consulted to see if it discusses this species? Esculenta (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the life cycle section and found it quite similar to what I wrote, except worded far better than I did. Unfortunately nothing new, or if new just a general statement about acanthocephalan life cycle in general. Could not find any reference to Heptamegacanthus. Mattximus (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the article doi:10.1654/1525-2647-85.1.95, Smales et al. discuss a specimen of Oligacanthorhynchidae they found in a South African rock monitor, not identified to a specific genus or species, which they compare to Heptamegacanthus, noting a difference in the number of total hooks (40–45 vs. 24). I don't know if this a worth a mention in this article, but since the literature is so sparse on this topic I thought I'd mention it. Esculenta (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat[edit]

  • Just a passing comment, but most of the paragraphs are long and densely filled with information, but only sourced to one source with a wide range of pages, which makes it difficult to check that the information is adequately cited. Looking at the first paragraph of the Hosts section, could you point to the pages where the worm measures between 38–60 μm in length and 19–26 μm in width? Can you also give the page ref to support "in a process called molting"? Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, p 136 for all measurements (as the article is only 7 pages long I didn't think I need separate references for each point, should I do this?). And the molting I fixed by putting the ref directly beside that molting statement. I also added more refs to that large paragraph you mentioned. Refs should be more clear now, what do you think? Mattximus (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completed first round of edits, if not marked with done I've posted a comment/question. Thank you! Mattximus (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM[edit]

  • Will have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above comment that some paragrapgs are too dense and should be split up. The intro could be split in two, and so could Taxonomy and Hosts.
  • Broke these all up, and rearranged a bit to keep paragraphs consistent. How does this look?
Good, but now the first para under taxonomy needs a citation. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC) - Done[reply]
  • I wonder if the frame around the taxobox map can be removed somehow, maps in taxoboxes usually don't have them. - Done
  • Why are measurements in parenthesis? It's pretty crucial information.
  • I believe this was suggested by a reviewer, I removed parentheses around body length, would you recommend removing from all measurements?
Hmmm, never seen it done like that, where was it suggested? Seems unnecessary. Also inconsistently done now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do measurements only have conversions in the intro and not in the article body?
  • If conversions were given, the entire article would be a mess of numbers. Would it be preferential to simply remove conversions in lead and keep it metric? I would prefer to give the conversion in the lead only (as it is now) but I'm not fixed on this idea and will change if you recommend complete removal.
Perhaps if others suggest it too it should be done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review! Mattximus (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link and explain all widely unfamiliar scientific terms, such as proboscis.
  • Found several instances and added links.
  • "The species was formally described" Genus and species, it seems. - Done
  • "from a live sample" Multiple specimens?
  • Yes 5 males and 5 females, is this worth mentioning? I added this and fixed it to make it plural.
  • I would give the binomial in the first sentence. "The genus and species Heptamegacanthus niekerki was formally described in 1990 " - Done
  • "is a monotypic genus of acanthocephalans (thorny-headed or spiny-headed parasitic worms)" Each of these points should be covered under taxonomy too. That it is monotypic, that its an acanthocephalan, and the explanation of what that is
  • I think this is what you suggest.
  • I have found only one and removed it. I thought that the links should be first instance in each section? I could be mistaken...!
A term should only be linked at first mention of the article body as well as first mention in the intro (and in the first image caption it is mentioned). So yes, there are a lot of duplinks now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Various terms are linked at second instead of first mention.
  • Found two instances and fixed.
  • "This is unusual for Acanthocephalans" Shouldn't be capitalised in its common form, look for this throughout. - Done
  • "The host range is very limited, being an endangered species" This reads as of the range is an endangered species. Either say "host's" or add the name of the host.
  • Where were the samples sent to the museum taken from? A single golden mole? Could be mentioned already there.
  • Give scientific name of the host too at first mention in the article body?
  • Link Acanthocephala in image caption.
  • Is it known how widespread they are among golden moles?
  • "originates on body wall" Missing "the"?
  • "In the male, the testes are" Could say "The testes of the male", as it otherwise reads like the female could also have them.
  • "close the posteriorly end" Posterior end.
  • "and feeds into the bursa" Links to a city.
  • "Saefftigen's pouch is club-shaped, 832–877 μm long and 236–365 μm wide, and feeds into the bursa." Both the first and last term could need explanation.
  • "is that is large" Stray "is".
  • Could give the occupation of Mary E. Spencer Jones.
  • "a proboscis armed with hooks which it uses to pierce and hold the rectal wall of its host, and a short, wide trunk. The proboscis is armed with 40 to 45 hooks" Repetitive. Seems these two consecutive sentences could be consolidated.
  • "as those in second ring" Missing "the".
  • "The worms are about 4 millimetres (0.2 in) long and 2 millimetres (0.08 in) wide." You could state there in the intro that the male is slightly larger.
  • "The life cycle of H. niekerki remains unknown" Should also be stated in the article body, the intro should not have unique info.
  • The intro should mention how limited the range is, now it reads like it's found all over South Africa.

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review it within a few days, at a glance it looks like it could be a support when I'm done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus, you could "advertise" this nomination by notifying relevant Wikiprojects and pinging relevant editors that may be interested in reviewing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I think Esculenta may not have noticed my comments and might reply. By advertising do you mean posting on the talk page of wikiproject animals? Mattximus (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and any other Wikiproject that may be of interest, like Tree of Life. FunkMonk (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the comments, but don't really have anything more to add, other than I really think the article would benefit from an image/images of the species. Have you seen Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission? Little effort required (write and send friendly email) for potentially very useful return ... Esculenta (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, advertised in both project, and completed a first round of your excellent comments, thank you. I await your replies. Mattximus (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but a month after nomination there is little sign of movement towards a consensus to promote, so I am going to archive this. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple small things[edit]

  • "for the broader order Oligacanthorhynchidae" should either change the rank to family, or the name to Oligacanthorhynchida
  • Done and also noticed this sentence was unsourced! Added source. Mattximus (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Taxonbar link is to the Wikidata item for the scholarly article where this species was described, not the item for the genus (I've changed the link at Wikidata and added some IDs; you might also want to create an item for the species and add IDs) Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I've addressed all comments and await replies, thanks for everyone reviewing! Mattximus (talk) 13:58, 12 May 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) 13 May 2024 [7].

Interstate 40 in North Carolina[edit]

Nominator(s): NoobThreePointOh (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the routing of Interstate 40 through North Carolina. It explains the route description of the interstate through North Carolina's three regions, the history, and the exits it passes through. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Passing comment: I think it would have been best if this had continued through its GA nomination that you opened a couple of days ago. There are some unsupported statements, unfinished sentences ("where I-95 and I-40 currently meet at. [47][48]"), a couple of circular links and the entire Exit list is unsupported. These need to be sorted out if this is going to have any chance of success. - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I withdraw this nomination then? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your call, but it would be my suggestion. A good GA nomination can rough off many of the edges of an article and get it into a better shape for a run at PR, then back to FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat There we go. I withdrew it and put it back in GA nomination. I hope someone can close this. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: Could you do the honours to start the withdrawal please. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 13 May 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) 9 May 2024 [8].

Nonmetal[edit]

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

​​​​​​ From at least the 16th century of the modern era, when a distinction was made between metallic and nonmetallic substances, it's been hard going getting a handle on the chemical elements that are not metals. Add "metalloids" into the mix and the result can be somewhat murky.

Since the article was last at FAC in October 2023, it's undergone considerable refinement including with respect to prose, the definition, history, tables and images. Much of this work was discussed at the nonmetal talk page, onwards from the section Outstanding items from FAC7 nomination. I have pinged FAC7 reviewers. Sandbh (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in past and current FACs of the nonmetal article: Double sharp, YBG, Dirac66, Graham Beards, Doncram, Michael D. Turnbull, Petergans, Mirokado, ComplexRational, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Buidhe, Hog Farm, Materialscientist, Nick-D, CactiStaccingCrane, SandyGeorgia, Reaper Eternal, UndercoverClassicist, Smokefoot, Ajpolino. Are you able to comment per novum or further to this now older nomination(?); there's no obligation. Thank you — Sandbh (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

Driving by, at least for now:

  • The lead image is a big <citation needed> for me. On whose authority are the judgements based about whether an element is always/generally/maybe considered a nonmetal, or whether its status is or isn't confirmed? Come to think of it, what's the cutoff between "usually" and "sometimes"?
  • With images in general, the MOS (MOS:COLOR) discourages situations where colour is the only means of discerning information -- many of our users cannot see or make use of it. This is a problem throughout the article.
  • Why have we got a dubious AI image to illustrate Aristotle when countless well-known human-made depictions of him exist? File:Aristotle Altemps Inv8575.jpg is the most famous, but File:Aristoteles Louvre.jpg is another good option -- both are descended from near-contemporary portraits that could conceivably have been taken from life. The other 'obvious' candidate would be Raphael's depiction in The School of Athens
  • Per WP:NOTPAPER, the names of elements should be spelled out, even in footnotes.

UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Done. I've added citations to the lead image. I've relied on the 16th edition of Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary; the 5th edition of Steudel's monograph on nonmetals, incorporating the literature up to 2019; and a 2013 survey of 194 lists of metalloids. The "usually" and "sometimes" differentiation arises from the fact that some authors count metalloids as nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colour in images: Done I've either changed the colour schemes in appliable tables to b/w or adjusted relavant headings/text.
  • AI image: Done, replaced with File:Aristoteles Louvre.jpg
  • Names of elements: Done (unless I missed some)

--- Sandbh (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YBG[edit]

I will add notes here gradually as time allows. YBG (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) @Sandbh is a self-taught WP:EXPERT with peer-reviewed articles in this subject who rightly refuses to claim any extra authority based on this. Collaborating with him for many years I have come to greatly appreciate his efforts to improve coverage of WP:ELEM. I have no reason to believe that any of the fifteen or so WP:SELFCITEs fail to comply with WP policies, but it would be good for an editor less involved than I am to evaluate this. YBG (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smokefoot Would you have time to think about and comment on WP:SELFCITE? This concerns the two Vernon works which are cited 15 times in eight ref notes. Thanks. YBG (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist, Ajpolino, Mirokado, and Gog the Mild: Pinging all other contributors to this page. All - not just Smokefoot - are welcome to answer my inquiry above. YBG (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the article has 337 citations, drawing on 315 sources. As two of these sources, my articles are:
  • Vernon R 2013, "Which elements are metalloids?", Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 90, no. 12, pp. 1703-1707, doi:10.1021/ed3008457
  • —— 2020, "Organising the metals and nonmetals", Foundations of Chemistry, vol. 22, pp. 217-233, doi:10.1007/s10698-020-09356-6 (open access)
According to Google Scholar, the first has 62 cites and the second 10. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(2)[resolved] Normally, one expects FAC to improve articles, but so far the article has gotten worse. Please restore the color. Changing to B&W does NOT make it satisfy MOS:COLOR. As written above, it merely discourages situations where colour is the only means of discerning information. The solution is not to remove color, but to ensure that color is not the only means of discerning information. This could mean ensuring that the colors are colorblind safe. It could mean adding additional non-color cues. It could mean adding descriptive text to assist blind readers. It does not require changing color schemes to B&W. YBG (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having inadvertently inspired this change, I'll register my general agreement here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I've reverted the lede image to its colored form. Would you prefer that the density (D) and electronegativity (EN) be likewise reverted? --- Sandbh (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. YBG (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is better than the previous iteration, but still leaves the original problem, particularly with the lead image. Good alt text, setting out which element is in which list, would help. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist and YBG: Done. Lead image adjusted; D/E table colours reinstated; all images now have alt text. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have expanded the alt text of the lead pic so that it can be grasped even by blind readers. I may work to improve the other alt texts also. YBG (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(3)[resolved] The 1st pic column headers read 1, 2, 3-12, 12, 13, ..., 18. The 3rd column should be labeled "3-11". YBG (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Resolved. YBG (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(4)[withdrawn] The 1st pic could be narrower by combining columns 2 and 3. The header would be 2-12 and the entries (blank), Be/Beryllium, Mg/Magnesium, Ca-Cu, Sr-Ag, Ba-Au, Ra-Rg. If you opt for this, I will make the corresponding change to the alt description. YBG (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I feel it's somewhat more important to retain a semblance of the overall structure of the periodic table. Thus, s-block on the left (2 columns), p-block on the right (6), with d-block in the middle (9+1). --- Sandbh (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Withdrawn. YBG (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(5)[resolved] I suggest adding this as note to the "sometimes" legend entry:
These six elements, boron, silicon, germanium, arsenic, antimony, and tellurium, as the elements commonly recognized as metalloids, are sometimes considered to be a subcategory of nonmetals and sometimes considered to be a category separate from both metals and nonmetals.
If there are no objections, I’ll add it myself. YBG (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Pls proceed. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Ok, I inserted it. Not sure if after the ref is correct or if it should be before. Please advise. YBG (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: It looks good now. After the ref is good, too. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(6)[resolved] There are instances of this or similar text:
<hr style="color:white;background-color:white">
This is only visible to the reader as extra leading, which seems to be the reason why it is used. But the markup is cryptic markup and confuses other editors. To provide extra separation, better to use the self-explaining padding or margin style the CSS box model provides. This is cleaner and easier to read and makes intent obvious. Plus, the amount of leading can be finely adjusted. YBG (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Indeed YBG, I've used a horizontal rule on five occasions for extra leading. I suspect we are venturing into non-FAC criteria here. The choice of a rule for extra leading v CSS padding or margin style, is surely a personal stylistic difference. For the five occasions I never saw a reason or requirement to use something else. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Would you object to me trying to change it? In addition to improving the clarity of the wiki text, I’d like to fine tune the amount of leading. YBG (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Please feel free to do so. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated the hr which were all white-on-white. (I have no objection to hr per se, only to invisible ones used merely to create extra vertical white space.) YBG (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(7)[resolved] "Colour" is used quoting Elliot 1929 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A (obviously a British source), so almost certainly correct. "Colorless" is used quoting Wibaut P 1951 which is published in New York, and so is suspect. YBG (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: "Colourless" is indeed used in the text despite being published by Elvesier, New York. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Interesting. Thanks for checking. I wonder if the author is from outside the US. YBG (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(8)[resolved] I added a wikilink to Proceedings of the Royal Society A; other bibliography entries should be linked also. Even link multiple occurrences; entries are not read consecutively, so this is not over linking. YBG (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some red links - mostly getting brackets and single quotes ordered properly - but also two errors that would it have been caught otherwise. Thanks! YBG (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
… that would itnot have been caught otherwise. Ain’t autocorrect great. NOT!! YBG (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(9) Note [p]: Should polarized atom be linked to polarizability? Or should it be mentioned at all, since the topic of this note is homopolyatomic ions? YBG (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Chemical polarity is better and I've wlnked that accordingly. Sandbh (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems ok, although from a quick scan, that article seems to be about polarized molecules, not polarized atoms. YBG (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I’m still wondering about mentioning the capacity to form polarized atoms in the note, since this (1) does not distinguish metals from nonmetals, (2) is not mentioned in the text, (3) is not mentioned elsewhere in the note, and (4) is not obviously related to homopolyatomic ions, the topic of the note. YBG (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: You seem to be missing the context for the note, which is, "Examples of metal-like properties occurring in nonmetallic elements include...just over half of nonmetallic elements can form homopolyatomic cations.[p]" As the note says in part, "This is unusual behavior for nonmetals which are better known for their capacity to form negatively charged anions or polarized atoms, whereas metals are better known for their capacity to form positively charged cations or polarized atoms." The main body of the nonmetal article distinguishes metals from nonmetals in this passage, "In metals, the impact of the nuclear charge is generally weaker compared to nonmetallic elements. As a result, in chemical bonding, metals tend to lose electrons, leading to the formation of positively charged ions or polarized atoms, while nonmetals tend to gain these electrons due to their stronger nuclear charge, resulting in negatively charged ions or polarized atoms." The article about polarized molecules is relevant since metals and nonmetals can form what are called polar covalent bonds, when the electronegativiy differences between the atoms being bonded is not large enough to sustain an ionic bond. I have further added links to "ions" and "polarized atoms" to make the distinction clearer. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might finally understand. Consider the phrase "polarized atoms" in the two clauses of the last sentence of the note:
  1. metals tend to lose electrons, leading to the formation of positively charged ions or polarized atoms
  2. nonmetals tend to gain these electrons due to their stronger nuclear charge, resulting in negatively charged ions or polarized atoms
In (1), "polarized atoms" describes H in the polar molecules H2O or HF, and in (2) it describes the O in H2O or the F in HF. That is to say, in (1) the "polarized atom" is an atom which is the locus of a positive charge in polar molecule and in (2) the "polarized atom" is an atom which is the locus of a negative charge in polar molecule.
Have I understood correctly? YBG (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. HF is a good example. The bond has a significant degree of polarity due to the high EN of fluorine (−ve) compared to hydrogen (+ve). --- Sandbh (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: What would you think of changing note [p] to read like this:
A homopolyatomic ion consists of two or more atoms of the same element bonded together and carrying an electric charge. Most homopolyatomic ions of metals are positive ions (cations), but most homopolyatomic ions of nonmetals are negative (anions). However, positive homopolyatomic ions are known for carbon, nitrogen (N+
5 ), oxygen(O+
2 ), phosphorus, antimony, sulfur, chlorine (Cl+
4 ), selenium, tellurium, bromine, iodine and xenon.[101]
Thoughts? ——— YBG (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: The suggested change introduces too many unncessary topics, namely homopolyatomic ions of metals and homopolyatomic anions of nonmetals. The paragraph refers to metal-like properties occurring among nonmetals. Cation formation is a metallic property. However, if the positive charge of the cation can be shared by one than one nonmetal atom of the same kind, then cations as in homopolyatomic cations of nonmetals become more feasible. The current footnote says what it needs to say, including that the formation of homopolyatomic cations of nonmetals is unusual, and no more. I have however rearranged the sentences in the footnote so that mention of the unusualness of homopolyatomic nonmetal cations occurs earlier. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think my note introduced new topics not mentioned in the body text. Nevertheless, if this is the standard, please remove the mention of polarized molecules. If it took you multiple paragraphs to get me to understand this, surely it it would be confusing to the average reader. YBG (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Good; I've removed the mention of polarisation. The footnote reads more straightforwardly now. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I've had a brief look and it seems better, but I want to have a deeper look, trying to figure out if it would have eliminated the confusion I had previouysly. YBG (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(←) @Sandbh: I’ve had my deeper look. Removing the mention of polarizability has, I think, eliminated what confused me. But I think this note needs more to explain why something that occurs in over half of nonmetals should be considered unusual for them. The key to this, IMO, is that most (all?) elements have multiple homeopolyatomic ions. I don’t know how to explain this without saying that nonmetallic homopolyatomic ions are usually (mostly? almost always?) negatively charged and metallic ones are usually (mostly? almost always? always?) positively charged. Also, I think for the general reader it helps to define "homopolyatomic" itself rather than "homopolyatomic cation". YBG (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Footnote (p) at the end of this sentence, "just over half of nonmetallic elements can form homopolyatomic cations" addresses your concerns. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. How is this statement different from "Just over half of nonmetallic elements are in groups numbered 16 or less. This is unusual for nonmetals since such group numbers are normally associated with metals." If something is true of over half of nonmetals, why wouldn’t we consider it the norm? What exactly do Engesser & Krossing say? YBG (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: The topic sentence says, "Examples of metal-like properties occurring in nonmetallic elements include...". The bullet point in question notes that just over half of nonmetals can form cations, and that this is unusal behaviour for nonmetals since cation formation is normally associated with metals. I've now added, "and nonmetals are normally associated with anion formation". I've also added the qualifier, "In extreme conditions" to the start of the bullet point (which is what Engesser & Krossing mention: "It still is one of the tough challenges in inorganic chemistry to selectively synthesize pure homopolyatomic cations of the non metals." Homopolyatomic cation formation by non metals is very far from the norm. --- Sandbh (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(10)[resolved] The pic of buckminsterfullerene is difficult to comprehend. Perhaps it could be cropped? Or replaced with a better better macro picture? Or replaced with another allotrope? Or just deleted? Or use File:Diamond and graphite2.jpg instead? YBG (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I've expanded the caption to make it clearer as to what the image of C60 is showing (same for diamond, and graphite). C60 is sufficiently astonishing to warrent inclusion. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I had no idea this was a micrograph. What is the magnification? It is still far from ideal; due to the dark background it really doesn’t fit with the other two images. Maybe file:C60 SEM.jpg??
i agree that C60 is astonishing and worth mentioning, but nothing in the picture or caption really makes it seem astonishing. It is really the spherical structure which makes it astonishing. Maybe you could get include three photos and three models together like the graphite-and-diamond pic referenced above. YBG (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: No information is provided as to the magnification. The three images together are remarkable since they show C as 1. an insulator; 2. a semiconductor; and 3. a semimetal. That is a nice gradient. The astonishing thing about C60 is that, of all things, is has a brown appearance (partly influenced by the C60 spheres). Who would have thought? The caption to the image explains well enough what is being shown, including that the image of C60 is a micrograph. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added a header and captions to accentuate the remarkable contrast. I’m not super happy about using "blackish" in place of "gray-to-black", but it seemed the best way to avoid the unsightliness of an extra line in either mobile or desktop. If this is unacceptable, then maybe simply "black".
I removed the added verbiage re C60; it didn’t really help understand the picture, The issue, I believe, is the black background. Editing it to whitewash the background seems problematic; cropping it so there is no black background might help. But if that is hard or unacceptable, I’m fine leaving the picture as is. YBG (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: The gallery of the three allotropes, and its caption, now looks very schmick. Thanks. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(←) @Sandbh What would you think about cropping the C60 pic to eliminate most of the black background? YBG (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I'd be interested to see what that would look like. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I've created a cropped image and used it instead. Check it out at § Allotropes YBG (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I didn't spend too much time thinking about how to crop it; feel free to crop it differently if you think you like. YBG (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: It look very nice, thank you. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(11) @Sandbh - Is the chunking really needed in the table at special:permalink/1220665759 § Suggested distinguishing criteria? Now that I've squeezed out some of the excessive white space, I think it is not needed. I did change it from a single line (from <hr>) to a double line (from an empty row), which I think is slightly better. But I still don't think it is needed. If you still think there is a problem, would you consider using row striping instead? YBG (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I've removeed the chunking. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had also added a divider after the headers and before the footer. I think those are helpful visually. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I can't see any difference. And the article history has no record of adding a divider after the headers and before the footer, that I can see. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I added them at the same time as I changed your single-line hr to my double-line empty rows. Would you like me to restore them so you can see? YBG (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: No need; I've adjusted the spacing. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by Comments Ajpolino[edit]

Just a few things in passing. Can't promise the time to really go through this article, though I applaud your substantial work.

  • "Sometimes counted as a nonmetal" (lead image caption) references sources from 1844 and 1897. Is there anything more recent that could support that claim? I'm concerned about conflating "this sometimes happens" with "this used to happen". For example I could write "Syphilis is sometimes treated with mercury salts" with an 1896 source, but the world changed and my sentence would be untrue.
@Ajpolino: Many thanks. The "sometimes counted" box has 1844, 1897, 1976, 1993, and 2006 cites. My intent was to show the "sometimes" status has a recurring history. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next line "status as nonmetal or metal unconfirmed" cites six sources. Three are called out as verifying the claim about Cn, Fl, and Og. Are the other three all for At? If so, perhaps two can be cut?
I've adjusted the footnote to make it clear that the first three refer to At. The 2013 cite was the pivotal one, predicting that At would be an fcc metal on relativistic grounds. The two other cites, which can be hard to find in the literature, are there to show that it was earlier expected that At would be a metal. Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a similar question as my first regarding "There is no widely-accepted precise definition" referenced to works from 2020, 1957, and 1892. What do the earlier works do for us here?
Those three were included to show that since Mendeleev published his 1st periodic table in 1869, the lack of a widely-accepted precise definition has been an ongoing phenomenon. Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 2 and 10 appear to be the same and can be merged.
Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nonmetals closer to the left or bottom ...this occurs in... phosphorus[32]" Are the four sources necessary to support this statement for phosphorus? Also is there a system for when you include quotes in the reference? You do so for just a few scattered throughout.
P is often thought of as being white P whereas the most stable form is black P. The thought of P having some metallic character seems most peculiar, but there it is. The four sources all bring something different to this perspective. I include quotes with references when I feel this would add value to the citation. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: trimmed one redundant cite. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto iodine in the same list (ref 37). At a glance the quote suggests Steudel 2020 would suffice?
Iodine is another oddity. Who would think that iodine, a halogen, would have some metallic character, yet it does. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Redmer, Hensel & Holst, preface" (ref 41) and "Criswell p. 1140" (ref 222) consider adding the year for consistency with your other refs.
Done --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo in ref "Smith DW 1990, Inorganic Substances: APprelude to the Study"
Fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The number of compounds formed by nonmetals is vast." cited to two different textbooks. Are both necessary to support this relatively simple statement?
Done. Trimmed the older cite. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo in ref 204 "Baja, Cascella & Borger 2022..." should be Bajaj.
Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They have significant roles in biology" referenced to "Crawford 1968, p. 540; Benner, Ricardo & Carrigan 2018, pp. 167–168:[quote]" assuming the quote comes from Benner, that seems to plenty cover the cited text. Is Crawford needed?
Crawford is important in that they refer to the other nonmetals (H, C, N, O, P, S) as biogens, which is impressive for the time. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bertomeu-Sánchez et al. 2002 - you usually spell out three-author refs, but this one gets an "et al." Any particular reason?
Yes, all three authors have double-barreled surnames. I felt that the resulting cite would be clumsily long. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bertomeu-Sánchez et al. 2002, p. 249" is twice, currently as ref 280 and 281.
Fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Bodner GM & Pardue HL 1993" used anywhere?
Done. I checked for redundant refs just before FAC submission, and evidently missed this one. Thank you, --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reinhardt at al. 2015" typo for et al. (I assume)
Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the notably reactive halogen nonmetals—fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine" is backed up by 9 references. Are these all necessary to support this claim?
There was some controversy among WP:ELEM members as to whether "halogen nonmetals" was a legitimate term rather than "halogens". This was partly fuelled by uncertainty as to whether At was a nonmetal or a metal. The first three references show contempary use of the term. The rest of the cites show alternative terms for the set F, Cl, Br, I. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Csele 2016 - page numbers would be nice. Unless it has examples of each nonmetal sprinkled throughout (I didn't look)?
Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the two Glinka textbooks the same? Is there an edition number to separate them?
Fixed. One textbook was redundant. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graves 2022 - I haven't read his book, but a geneticist's memoir seems an odd source to back up statements on boron and silicon reactivity. Not demanding it be changed, but if you have something from a more established source in the chemistry world, that would be nice.
Graves was referring to the absence of silicon-based life-forms on our planet. The mention of boron was missing its separate cite; now addressed. Thanks for that. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gregerson 2023" (ref 206) is this supposed to point to Gregersen 2008 "Radon"? I didn't check to see which spelling and year are correct.
Yes, 2008. Fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the notably reactive halogen nonmetals—fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine;" similar to above, this is supported by three sources, then two alternative names with three sources each. Is this necessary?
I addressed this point earlier. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just checking that Jones 2010, a book called "Pluto: Sentinel of the Outer Solar System" is indeed what's intended here. Didn't read the book. Just surprised the author has a due opinion on distinguishing nonmetals.
Jones was discussing classification science principles, in general. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lémery 1699, p. 118;" points to a 1714 paper. Not sure which is correct.
Fixed --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in his classic[289] and influential[290] textbook" I think classic and influential mean the same thing in this context. I'd just pick one.
I feel that Lavoiser's textbook had so monumental an impact on chemistry that two epithets are deserved. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In table "List of properties suggested for distinguishing metals from nonmetals" Was Martin JW's 1969 book a serious attempt to distinguish metals and nonmetals? A contemporaneous book review suggests the book was targeted at "sixth formers and undergraduates" rather than a work in conversation with the field. Putting my concern another way, is Martin's entry in that table due coverage?
The title of Martin's book is Elementary Science of Metals. It was a part of the Wykeham Science Series of books. The aim was, "To broaden the outlook of the senior grammar school pupil and to introduce the undergraduate to the present state of science as a university study..." For its time it was quite topical. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arsenic is stable in... semi-noble metal." I think the footnote within a footnote is stretching the bounds of due material. If it can't even be squeezed into a first-level footnote, perhaps it should be trimmed from the article?
The first footnote has one reference to each of the six metalloids. Arsenic merits some closer attention given its susceptibility to react with air. I felt that this would be easier and clearer if it was mentioned in a second-level footnote rather than trying to squeeze it in to the first footnote. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Oderberg's opinion (which I'm sympathetic to) due here? Is he considered an important player in this debate?
There is no ongoing debate as such, there is only a lack of agreement in the literature. Since attempts to distingush between metals and nonmetals deal with classifications science, Oderberg's view is a worthy as any other attempt to shed light onto the question. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oxford English University 1989" Is there a reason for the ref to say this instead of "Oxford University Press" or "Oxford English Dictionary"?
Fixed.
  • "Radon shows some cationic behavior" do we need both Pitzer and Stein to support this relatively simple claim?
I felt that the notion of radon, a noble gas, showing some cationic behaviour is so mind boggling that it warrented two cites. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rosenberg 2018, p. 847" I assume refers to the citation "Rosenberg E 2013..." but I'm not sure which year is the typo.
Fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be my ignorance talking, but footnote [af]: "Exceptionally, a study... tiny amounts of uranium." seems like an undue factoid. Do others comment on the exceptional nature of the finding?
Yes, I felt that the thought of F, the most reactive element in the periodic table, being found in native form is so extraordinary that it warranted a mention. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

Full review later (I hope), for now just any points as I notice them.

  • Chemical properties by element type, current note be: Arsenic trioxide reacts with sulfur trioxide, forming arsenic "sulfate" As2(SO4)3. Any reason for the scare quotes around "sulfate"? They do not appear in the reference provided. -- Mirokado (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mirokado. Fixed. Arsenic "sufate" is a covalent compound rather than a "true" ionic sulfate comprising a crystal lattice of arsenic cations and sulfate anions. The footnote's been adjusted accordingly. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Smokefoot[edit]

I am not a fan of this article as FA because I am not a fan of classifications within chemistry. (for example, chem editors are constantly tamping down or moderating picky drive-by edits that carbonates, HCN or such is an organic compound. Huge effort and anxiety focused on this tiny unimportant facet of a definition of a huge, huge important area).

Some possible warning signs: The article is essentially the work of one or two editors. Almost exclusively. Very few or no regular chemistry editors have contributed. That lack of diversity suggests a lack of buy-in by other experts. Most of the commenters above have never or very rarely contributed anything seriously technical to chemistry articles, so their views might be discounted. Nice people no doubt, but how on earth would they know if this topic is suitable?

Some possibly problematic details - nitric acid (which might not even be a compound) is "nitrogen-rich"? Arsenic's "chemistry is predominately nonmetallic"? The discussion of valence electrons influencing properties seems confusing, maybe emphasize localized bonding (octet rule). Some hefty WP:TERTIARY references needed to support the lede and justify the claim that this classification is supported by the wider world.

The article represents massive effort. So we must salute the dedication of the main editor Sandbh. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I finally read some more, focusing on the Properties section. Based on that section, this article is not only not ready for FA, it is not very good by Wikipedia standards. This is the predicament when an article is basically written by one author with no buy-in. The Properties section contains incorrect, misleading, and even inappropriate content, written poorly. Here are some examples: "The colored nonmetals (sulfur, fluorine, chlorine, bromine) absorb some colors (wavelengths) and transmit the complementary or opposite colors. For example, chlorine's "familiar yellow-green colour .." Yes, colored compounds absorb in the visible. The point being? (BTW Wavelength is not a synonym for color.) More pertinent might be to say that for this collection of elements, the heavier di- and polyatomic members are more deeply colored. (It is a fun question about at what AW does an atomic gas start to absorb in the visible. Apparently radon is colorless, and Og is a solid)

"Bromine, the only liquid, is so volatile that it is usually topped by a layer of its fumes." News flash: All liquids are topped by a layer of fumes! that is how the world works. Liquid-vapor equilibrium. Maybe what is intended is that liquid bromine samples are topped by a visible (brown) layer of gaseous Br2.

"The gaseous and liquid nonmetals have very low densities," Relative to what? At 3.1 g/mL, bromine is quite dense BTW.

"The solid nonmetals have low densities" Again, relative to what? By most chemist's standards, I2 is also very dense at >4 g/mL.

next section "Over half of the nonmetallic elements exhibit a range of less stable allotropic forms..." That statement makes no sense. If more than one allotrope exists, then it is certain that the two will not be identically stable.

"... each [allotrope] with distinct physical properties" yes, allotropes have distinct physical properties. That is how the world works, right?

"For example, carbon, the most stable form of which is graphite, ...." (at one atm)

I doubt that the picture of elemental boron is correct.

Section "Definition and applicable elements" "Unless otherwise noted, this article describes the most stable form of an element in ambient conditions" what is this statement conveying? Isnt this the default? why isnt the term Main Group Chemistry discussed or even mentioned? The field (books, journals, awards) is mainly dominated by Main Group as a label.

The applications section is confusing. Are these applications of the elements or compounds derived from these elements. How does the classification relate to application?

So, even though this article has been previously considered for FA, it still demonstrates a shaky grasp of basic chemistry. And in terms of writing and presentation, the article is confusing because it oscillates between various classifications from nonmetals to metalloids. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In April 2023, Smokefoot and I had a polite (and entertaining) discussion largely about the same matters, here.
@Smokefoot: Thanks for your critique. I appreciate the time you've taken to evaluate some parts of the article, highlight possible concerns therein and offer feedback. I’d like to address your points to clarify my approach, and the content.
1. Concerns re classification in Chemistry: The distinction between metals and nonmetals has been a fundamental part of chemical taxonomy since the early 1800s. This is discussed extensively in the History, background, and taxonomy section. Included are more than two dozen cited definitions based on physical, chemical, or atomic properties. Although the classification might seem arbitrary, it’s deeply rooted in chemical literature and widely utilised.
2. Editorial diversity + expert review: As the primary editor, I’ve been involved in developing the article over the past decade. Feedback has been incorporated through two GA assessments, one pre-FAC Peer Review, and seven FAC assessments. Along the way, the article picked up supports from half-a-dozen editors. Any controversies, particularly those related to chemistry, were resolved with input from members of WP:ELEM, ensuring that the content is robust and well-vetted. I’m especially grateful to YBG; Double sharp and ComplexRational in this regard. In contrast, and unfortunately, when I asked WP:CHEM in April 2023 for copyediting help I received no offers.
3. Description of fuming nitric acid: The term "nitrogen-rich" refers to the presence of dinitrogen tetroxide in red fuming nitric acid, which is responsible for its distinct color.
4. Arsenic's chemistry + discussion on valence electrons, The article mentions valence electrons briefly in the context of their role in determining physical properties. The octet rule is mentioned in the chemical properties section. Re arsenic, I've listed multiple literature references on the nonmetal talk page that confirm its predominantly nonmetallic chemistry.
5. Colour of nonmetals: The explanation of the colour of some nonmetals is contextualised in the article by a preceding mention of why colorless nonmetals are colorless, and a succeeding mention of why shiny nonmetals appear shiny.
6. Bromine fumes, + low density of nonmetals: Thanks for your suggestion regarding the description of bromine fumes. I’ve adjusted the article. On density, the literature generally refers to nonmetals having low densities, as noted towards the end of the "Suggested distinguishing criteria section," along with several supporting citations.
7. Allotropes: The mention of allotropes aims to be accessible to general readers, emphasizing that less stable allotropic forms usually have distinct physical properties e.g. graphite = semimetal; C60 = semiconductor, diamond = insulator.
8. Picture of elemental boron, + definitions: It's well recorded in the literature that amorphous boron has a brown appearance. The "most stable form in ambient conditions" is required since white P, the most common form, is the most unstable form, making it unsuitable for comparative purposes. Some folks also have the impression that diamond is the most stable form of carbon when it's in fact graphite (in ambient conditions).
9. Main Group Chemistry: Google Ngram shows that the term nonmetal is over 1,000 times more common in the English corpus.
10. Applications section: Thanks. I’ve clarified this section to note that it pertains to both elements and their compounds, following common literature practice.
11. Confusion due to oscillations between classifications from nonmetals to metalloids: Consistent with the literature, the article starts with the broad characteristics and then proceeds to the finer details.

--- Sandbh (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A very active defense of your territory, indeed. For applications, your plan is to reproduce or summarize the applications sections for the articles on the individual elements.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smokefoot: Thanks. For applications, yes, that would seem sensible. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: May I have the opportunity to address Smokefoot's comments before any archiving action? Thank you. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. (Assuming that this will be in a timely manner.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I feel it may be time to archive this nonmination given the dearth of support for its promotion. Will the usual two-week pause before renomination apply? --- Sandbh (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, and yes it will. I am not sure what to advise to take this forward, it seems to be stuck in a cycle. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 9 May 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) 8 May 2024 [9].

Design effect[edit]

Nominator(s): Tal Galili (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a way to measure how well a sample of people may represent a larger group of people for a specific measure of interest (such as the mean). This is important when the sample comes from a sampling method that is different than just picking people using a simple random sample. When researchers use complicated methods to pick their sample (e.g., for surveys), they use the design effect to plan, check and adjust their results.

This article was recently published in the Wiki-journal of Science after going through rigorous peer review: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Science/Design_effect.

Tal Galili (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Large areas of this are unreferenced - whole paragraphs and entire tables without any citations at all, means this is not going to be a featured article any time soon. Can I suggest you withdraw and spend a couple of weeks ensuring every part of it is supported with citations to reliable sources, and then re-nominate? - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Echoing what SchroCat has said here a little bit, but this has broad ranges without citations. Additionally, I feel that large parts are overly technical; I understand this is common in mathematics-focused articles, but as someone without a background in statistics, I have no idea what this article is even about - I know the nitty gritty is going to be impossible to explain without getting into pretty serious math, but the introduction and lede should be written in a way that someone without a background in the field can understand it. I would echo calls for withdrawal and suggest that you get this through a GA review and possibly a peer review from some established mathematics editors first before you take this back to FAC. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I would echo the comments above that this is not the right place for this article at this time. Peer Review or GA would be a much better forum for it at the moment: in particular, unreferenced text and bare URLs in the text are heavy weights against FA status, and I would take some serious convincing that the structure of headings and subheadings is the best. On a more nit-picky point, there seems to be something wrong with the mathematical formatting in those subheadings, which causes them to display incorrectly in the ToC: an editor experienced with mathematical articles may be better placed to advise. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks everyone for the feedback. I'll start a GA review first, and will see where it leads. Tal Galili (talk) 15:20, 9 May 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) 4 May 2024 [10].

Tulsa King[edit]

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa King is a streaming television series that is notable for being Sylvester Stallone's scripted television debut. The series is pretty well known for Stallone's performance. It has also set a few viewership records and has been the subject of a little controversy during second season production. In 2023 the series was nominated for a Creative Arts Emmy. Throughout the last few months I have put quite a bit of work into this article expanding it from a lower end C class all the way to GA. I believe it's now comprehensive enough to meet FA requirements. This will be my third FAC, and hopefully my second successful FA. I look forward to addressing any comments or concerns. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unfortunately at this point the article's prose needs significant improvement - I would suggest running it through GOCE and/or PR. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h[edit]

Oppose - sorry :). Prose needs a significant shape up. But I'll leave some comments nonetheless.

  • "Terence Winter served as the series showrunner for the first season but was demoted ahead of the second due to "creative differences"." WP:SERVEDAS: "Terence Winter served as the series" ==> "Terence Winter was the series". Also there should be a comma before "but" in WP:AmEng.
  • "Upon release, his boss sends him to Tulsa, Oklahoma, to establish criminal operations there." why is there a comma after "Oklahoma"? Unless that's just me being the Australian i am.
  • "The following February, Winter was announced to have stepped down as showrunner due to "creative differences", with the search underway for a new showrunner, but would remain on the series as an executive producer." sentence could be more concise or split.

This isn't every comment i have, but some possible suggestions. Recommend taking this to WP:PR or WP:GOCE. This has the potential to be Featured, so I wish you luck. Best, 750h+ 15:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the comments above I am archiving this for off-FAC improvement. I would also recommend that the article be taken through GoCE and then PR prior to renomination. In any event, the usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was on my way to ping a coordinator and ask to withdraw the nom based on the comments. I'll hopefully bring this back around in due time. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:18, 4 May 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) 2 May 2024 [11].

Marshlink line[edit]

Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love travelling on the Marshlink line; it's an interesting idiosyncrasy on the rail network in South East England. Instead of high speed, high volume, electric commuter services, it's a picturesque run through rural Kent and East Sussex that still fills an important gap in the local rail network. We're lucky the line exists at all; in the late 60s it was almost certainly going to be closed, but it never quite happened. And there's always the hope of running high speed rail along it at some point.

I've been working on this article for years now, and combed through a large collection of sources that talk about the line in depth. I think it's finally ready to ask the community if it's good enough to meet the FA criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • I'll definitely do a full review of this one, but in the meantime as a placeholder I will drop in that there is some grammar disagreement in "this once allowed [....] but were removed for safety reasons"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I was wondering how to write that better, I've given it another go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of iterations of 'political importance' / 'significance' in the lead. Definitely investing in popcorn futures though  ;) ——Serial 14:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mid-19th century fights between railway companies is something incredible to behold. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I intend to review this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 21:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since it's mentioned the origin of the name "Marshlink", is it known how the railway came up with this name?
It took me some time to find a source explaining the name, and I've not seen any source that mentions why the specific name was chosen. I can only assume it was some random marketing department somewhere that has been lost to the midsts of time
  • I'm struggling to see how we get to "The nearest equivalent is the A259 from Hastings to Folkestone via Rye" in the article from "In his speech, the Honourable Member for Rye referred to: the inadequacy of the roads (including the Folkestone to Honiton A259 trunk road) in the South East" in the source
This is one of those awkward things that I think needs to be fixed, but simply removing the text probably isn't the answer. We could mention the vehicle road from Ashford to Hastings, and cite any local Ordnance Survey map, but saying it's "closest" just from a map is going to invite criticism and accusations of original research. I'll have to think about this one some more.
  • From what I can tell, the Marshlink line is contiguous with the East Coastway line - shouldn't the connection between the two be mentioned in the route section unless I'm wrong?
I think it wasn't mentioned because it wasn't in the source given. I've dropped a source in now
  • Any information on how the difficulties in the Romney Marsh soil were mitigated
I've gone back to look at Gray's "The South Eastern Railway" and rewritten this. The principal problem was bad weather, and the specific term used in the source is "heel over", which is not the same as "tip over".
  • "and funded with a £2,800 capital." - this would not be grammatically correct in American English - is it okay in British English?
Copy edited
  • I don't think "The line is strategically important, as electrification and junction improvements would allow High Speed 1 trains direct from St Pancras International to Hastings." and "Despite its relative unimportance in the national rail network, electrification could allow High Speed 1 services to be extended to Hastings and Eastbourne." are entirely saying the same thing. It seems that the lead is saying that the line is unimportant but would still allow for the expansion of High Speed 1 services, while the body seems to be saying that the line is important because it would allow for expansion of High Speed 1
I've rewritten all this (both by addressing the comments here and other later on).

I think that's it from me for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick holding reply, most of these issues would benefit from a review of the original source material, most of which is held in reference-only books in my local library. Unfortunately, while I've got time to visit it today, Wednesday is early closing. I'll get back to you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As implied above, I did pop into the library today and checked a book source, that allowed me to address the comments you've made so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when this has passed the source review and I'll take another look. Hog Farm Talk 18:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I did that, and it completely screwed up the infobox formatting, rendering the article completely unreadable. (See history) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that type was not set. This works fine, although you could use another type if you prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to work well. I remember wrestling with the images on the table for listed structures some time ago. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "the line is then double-track" vs "After the tunnel, the line is double track" - inconsistent hyphen use
  • Doleham image caption needs a full stop
  • Ore station is linked in multiple places. Check for overlinking generally.
  • "On 5 August 1873, the SER were authorized" => "On 5 August 1873, the SER were authorised" (UK spelling)
  • "Work began on 8 April 1881 and opened to Dungeness on 7 December that year" => "Work began on 8 April 1881 and the line opened to Dungeness on 7 December that year" (it wasn't the work that opened)
  • "following in the Railways Act 1921" => "following the Railways Act 1921"
  • Winchelsea image caption needs a full stop
  • "The local member of parliament for Rye, Bryant Godman Irvine made" => "The local member of parliament for Rye, Bryant Godman Irvine, made"
  • "In 1969, Railway Magazine announced the remainder " => "In 1969, Railway Magazine announced that the remainder "
  • "and the figures did not consider" => "and that the figures did not consider"

That's what I got as far as "announced plans for British Rail to start electrification by 1995" - will pop back and do the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed these issues as reported so far, though in some cases I've gone back and copyedited the original sentence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2015, Amber Rudd, Member of Parliament for Hastings [....] The aim is [...] This requires" - verbs are in the present tense, but 2015 was nine years ago.
  • "In May 2018, the Department of Transport allocated £200,000 for further electrification design, with the possibility of completion in 2022 when the existing track life-expires." - 2022 was two years ago, has anything actually happened?
  • "In October, a proposal was chaired" - October of which year (2019, I think.....?). Again, has anything actually happened? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Again, has anything actually happened?" No, but more frustratingly, nothing's been reported in high-quality sources. Electrification and improvements have been talked about for decades, and I'm pretty sure we'll see parliamentary candidates campaigning about it at the next election, but like many things, the COVID pandemic slammed the brakes on everything and it got so far down the priority list, everyone (apart from a few local campaign groups) has forgotten about it. The only recent bit of news I can find is regular hourly services to Winchelsea and Three Oaks, which is covered in the article. We can only report what reliable sources talk about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ritchie333, have all of Chris's comments been addressed? If not, could you. If so, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, they've been addressed (either by fixing the article or expanding on the issue - in this case, that sources have dried up for the future of the line since Covid). ChrisTheDude Can you check your comments to see if there's anything else that needs doing? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I'll definitely re-visit this one tonight. The wife is going to be out and I don't think there's anything good on the telly so I should have plenty of time :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the nominator wasn't even here for a month, I don't think anyone should rush themselves... Thursday night telly or otherwise! ——Serial Number 54129 16:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given it another review and made a few little tweaks which it was easier to just make than to raise here but I have one remaining question. In May 2018, the Department for Transport allocated £200,000 for further electrification design, with the possibility of completion in 2022 when the existing track life-expires. - 2022 was two years ago, so has the track by now "life-expired"? If so, what did this lead to.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple answer is we don't know - all the source material has completely dried up. The simple fact is when I travelled on the line yesterday, it wasn't electrified. A search for sources doesn't come back with anything beyond 2022. So writing anything else is original research. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

Hey Ritchie! My FA reviews are mostly prose/grammar and style pedantry. I do review most criteria but 1a tends to account for the majority of comments. These are usually nice and easy to fix though so a long list is not necessarily a reflection on your writing!

  • East Coastway line towards Eastbourne Surely Brighton is the primary destination in that direction?
Good question. The line is described in sources such as Mitchell / Smith to Brighton, but official network timetables and other documentation only extend to Eastbourne. As sources aren't consistent, I've gone with "Eastbourne and Brighton".
  • Services are provided by Southern. I wonder about the wisdom of including something as ephemeral as a TOC so prominently in the lead. But I suppose it should be mentioned and I can't think of a better way of doing it.
I had a look at some related articles, such as Hastings line, South Eastern Main Line, Chatham Main Line and Ashford–Ramsgate line, and while none of them are GA, let alone FA standard, they don't mention the service operator in the opening paragraph of the lead, so I've taken it out. (The inconsistency with caps in the titles might want sorting out at some point....)
  • and was considered strategically important how? To say it and not elaborate arguably makes it a peacock term.
Changed to "as a priority for military traffic" (as mentioned in the body, cited to Gray 1990)
  • painting the name on selected rolling stock It's not clear who the subject of this clause is (Tony1 calls it "noun-plusing") and it doesn't strictly make sense
Changed to "Some trains had the name painted on the side."
  • The change was one of several in the region, including the "1066 line" 1066 line was one of several changes in the region?
Changed to "The line from Tunbridge Wells to Hastings was branded the "1066 line" at the same time."
  • Services run from Platforms 1 and 2 southwards Would "southwards from Platforms 1 and 2" make more sense or is it just me? And are we confident in "Platform" as a proper noun?
Changed. Regarding caps, looking at a random source, it would appear correct.
  • freight-only branch line operated by Direct Rail Services pedantic, but doesn't DRS operate the trains, not the infrastructure?
According to "Who Wrote That", this text was added by Peter Shearan (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2005 (diff). While I don't have the source in front of me (see above comment to Hog Farm), I'm reasonably confident that fails verification, and so I've removed it.
I've now found a source for DRS and added in the "Services" section. Regarding the original point, you're correct, Southern run the trains, not the line and infrastructure which is run by Network Rail.
  • On 27 July 1846, the LBR and BLHR amalgamated with several other lines I think the exact date is possibly excess detail considering it's not directly related to the line
  • complained about a lack of sufficient progress redundancy? Sufficient progress wouldn't be a lack, a lack is clearly not sufficient.
Removed "sufficient" (sounds like Tony1 exercise)
  • was granted on 24 July 1882, with the line opening on 19 June That's not strictly a grammatical use of "with"; you're using it and the comma to connect two clauses (which also forces the tense change). Better to use a semicolon or split it into two sentences.
  • numerous Army camps were established since we haven't specified an army, I wouldn't treat it as a proper noun
Removed "Army" as I think it's obvious from context that "World War I" and "camps" is within a military context
  • On 23 February 1966, the Ministry of Transport confirmed the branch to New Romney would close to passengers, which it did on 6 March 1967 I think both exact dates is excess detail; suggest culling the announcement date to just the year.
I have to disagree. Closure dates, especially related to the Beeching Axe seem to be well-known in rail enthusiast circles; for example Waverley Route mentions not just the date, but the specific times. So I think these dates need to be there to meet 1b.
  • In 1969, Railway Magazine wrote the definite article is part of the RM's name—The Railway Magazine; also suggest linking
Done
  • taking a longer journey, buying their tickets same problem as "painting" above
Reworded
  • The line was single tracked between You've used the term multiple terms above but this is the first time it's linked; it's also hyphenated on every other use so far that I've spotted
Should be "single-track" with a dash
  • However, the Marshlink line continued to attract criticism "However" is a word to watch; I haven't criticised your use use of it so far but I feel this one is editorialising—you're disputing the preceding statement in Wikipedia's voice rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.
In this case, the only sourced information is an opinion from Norman Baker. So this can be easily fixed by removing the entire sentence and just leaving Baker's opinion to sit in a neutral manner.
  • Ashford International to Brighton, with Marshlink services only extending same ", with" problem as above
Changed to "Southern announced services to Brighton would terminate instead at Eastbourne".
  • The company defended the decision "defended" is editorialising (it implies that the decision was wrong/controversial in Wikipedia's voice without explicitly saying so). You could put the criticism before the defence or just use a more boring verb like "stated".
Changed to "the company said", the aim here is to present the POV of both the rail company and the local council.
  • would improve capacity between Eastbourne and Hastings, and removing a 2 carriage diesel service Sorry, several problems here: the numeral should be a word (MOS:NUMERAL), "two carriage" is a compound adjective and needs a hyphen, and you've changed tense for no apparent reason (I'd lose the comma and go with "remove" and you should be fine).
Done

Will be back with more later. Ran out of time before work! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell I've addressed everything so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the listed buildings section. Is there anything to say about the buildings on the line (listed or otherwise) as a group? Do we know if the railway employed an in-house architect? Do the buildings follow a consistent architectural style? I have a few books on railway architecture (actually, probably all the books) so if there's nothing in your sources I'll see if mine have anything.
A number of the stations were designed by William Tress as part of a group, so that can be mentioned, though I'd want to go and consult the book sources in the library to double-check if I can. The other buildings date from different time periods and were assessed at different times.
  • Spell out diesel multiple unit on first mention.
Done
  • Isn't DMU train (in the caption) a bit of a tautology?
Done
  • In November 2017, it was suggested [by whom?]
Clarified
  • Is Damian Green's statement noteworthy? Don't local politicians endorse any suggestion that plays well in their constituency, regardless of how plausible it is?
No, now that the "Future" section is more developed. (Amusingly, if I google for "Damian Green Marshlink", I get this FA review in one of the top ten hits).
  • Suggest moving the link on St Pancras to the first mention (if you keep Green's statement)
Having tidied this up, the first mention of St Pancras in "Future", where it is mentioned
  • This required remodelling Ashford would have required? I'm guessing nothing came of it?
What extra context does "would have" add? As I mentioned above, the problem is this is one of several proposed over the last 20 years or so that keeps cropping up with the same detail again and again.
  • That October, a proposal was chaired [by whom?] and what does "chair" a proposal mean?
The Marshlink Action Group; however, the information here (new platform at Ashford) can be taken from the Network Rail source, which is a bit more authoritative.
  • Both proposals required closing the Ore Tunnel I'm guessing the proposals would require major engineering work on the tunnel but it would be nice to elaborate on what that was if it's supported by the source material.
Unfortunately, the source says "Ore Tunnel closed for 6 months" without any further comment. I'll hunt around to see if any other sources are available, but this is one of the few reliable ones in this decade to say anything on the subject.
  • If we're being pedantic, you don't seem to be treating books consistently—some are cited in full in the footnotes but most use sfns linked to the bibliography.
No problems with being pedantic if it makes the article better. Done.

I think that's it it from me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review so far! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a thumb through the most comprehensive books. The best is Biddle's Britain's Historic Railway Buildings. The Queen's Road bridge gets a mention (I do like me a railway bridge! I sense my to-do list getting longer!) and there's a good write-up on Rye station. There's a fair few column inches on the Hastings line stations but nothing on the Marshlink ones as a group. If any of it's useful I'm happy to send it over but the picking are slimmer than I'd hoped. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot on Rye railway station (East Sussex), which is a GA like this one currently, though most of that comes from the same sources as this article uses. Still, might be worth adding a sentence or two from Biddle's source if it's not already mentioned here, plus it would be useful for expanding Hastings railway station, which could be improved to GA at some point, having an interesting history as a centre point between the SER and LBSCR's rivalry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see a bit more on the architecture if there are any sources that discuss it but I'm happy to take you at your word that you'll incorporate anything you find. I'll send over what I've got on Hastings and Rye stations in case it's useful for this or other projects. I made one copy edit from above that I assume you missed. I think that resolves everything for me so I'll support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Well over three weeks in and this has received a fair bit of attention, but no indications of support for promotion. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. That would be a shame, as far as I know I have addressed every comment on the review in one way or another. (I was going to comment on the lack of activity somewhere at some point, but wasn't sure how long I should have left it). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and get back to this in the next few days with a view to supporting. There are no glaring issues as far as I can see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the principal issue is there hasn't been an in-depth spot check of the sources. There's been a de-facto one where I spot-checked the sources and made a few corrections, but not from someone independent. I believe that's blocking at least one other support at the moment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the sourcing still under review and this now nearly three full months in, I'm archiving the nomination. I recommend to the nominator getting the sourcing hammered out on the talk page before renominating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Don't know how I have managed to miss this FAC till now. I know this line, as I have a good friend in Rye and use the route a fair bit. I am pleased to support the elevation of the article to FA. I have given the text two slow and careful readings and have found nothing to carp at. I note the comment about the lack of a source review, and will volunteer do one if nobody else steps up, though I am not the world's greatest source reviewer (see under useless and bloody awful). – Tim riley talk 21:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviewish[edit]

Reviewing this version, is a spot-check needed? Southern is inconsistently capitalized. I see a fair bit of British local newspapers used, I presume we didn't unintentionally pick up any unreliable outfit? I kind of wonder about the usage of Hansard - using it to cite announcements by ministers seems fine, but I am not sure uses for statements of fact like #94 and #101 are OK. There are a lot of company-affiliated websites, press releases cited, but for technical information so I think it's fine. I confess that I can't tell much about the books cited, not being familiar with British railway literature - nothing jumped out as inappropriate but I wouldn't know any of them from a hole in the ground. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Southern is inconsistently capitalized." - apologies, I can't see where, can you specify?

    1. 17 and #18 are about the same source but have different capitalization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being dense - I've double checked all the web citations, and I can't see any obvious difference between the two. Sorry :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hansard is, in my view (and backed up at WP:RSP) okay in moderation, but the risk of straying into original research is significant, so should be taken with care. Taking the Hansard references in turn, using citations numbers from that diff:

  • [76] is an opinion of Bryant Godman Irvine, indicated as such (and backed with a secondary source, albeit a local newspaper)
  • [78] appears to be redundant and can be removed
  • [82] is an opinion of John Morris, Baron Morris of Aberavon
  • [83] and [84] are used to cite the general claim "The decision to close was delayed several times and continued for the rest of the decade." I'm going to remove this claim as it doesn't really tell us anything that the text around this section doesn't (and indeed, a large important section of the entire article concentrates on this fact - it was supposed to be closed by Beeching but never was).
  • [85] is an opinion of Michael Heseltine
  • [94] is an opinion of Charles Kerr, 2nd Baron Teviot, using the text "British Rail has tried to upgrade the railway between Ashford and Hastings, because Ashford is the town where everything is going to happen" to cite "By the 1980s, British Rail had started to modernise the route".
  • [95] is a discussion in parliament, citing the text "though electrification was rejected in preference to improving the South Eastern Main Line from Tonbridge to Ashford." This is factually incorrect - electrification of the SEML to Ashford took place in the 1960s, not the 1980s, and reviewing the source gives me the impression the debate was about both lines, and specifying that the Tonbridge - Ashford line was earmarked for improvements, but saying nothing about Ashford - Hastings.
  • [97] is an opinion of Roger Freeman, Baron Freeman
  • [101] is an opinion of Norman Baker, but I'd like to find another source for "However, the incoming franchisee is taking service improvement seriously, and South Central Ltd is investing £5 million in measures to improve the quality and perception of customer services." which is used to cite "In 2000, Southern took over management, and pledged to invest £5 million in improving customer service across its network."
  • [117] is a speech by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport on an accident on the Dungeness goods branch on 26 April 1984.

Of that list:

  • Those that are obviously an opinion of a specific MP, and attributed as such are probably okay.
  • Those that attempt to synthesise specific opinions into something more general are straying into original research, and going against FA criteria 1c.
  • That leaves the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport. As this is a primary source close to a specific event, the chances of novel synthesis are low. It's probably okay, but it would be helpful if a contemporary news source could back this up.

A general note, is the Hansard reports are probably used as citations because the book sources focus on the 19th and early 20th century, and dry up around the 1980s. However, that also implies that the article should talk less about the line from this period, reflecting the general coverage of sources.

I'll go and fix the obvious problems now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the use of Hansard - I actually think that primary sources often are more reliable than news reports, as the latter often present the same information as the former but secondhand - but for certain claims we need more than "an MP claimed this". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've gone through and removed or re-sourced the Hansard citations that appear to be used beyond a basic personal view of something. Is there anything else specific that needs addressing? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jo-Jo, as Ritchie333 is a first-time nominator, both a sources spot check and a plagiarism check will be needed. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK; spot-check (with plagiarism check included) on this version:

  • 18 Broken URL, and since it's almost eight years old I don't think we can put it in present tense.
I've replaced it with a current timetable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 21 This source doesn't seem to add anything, but #22 seems to say "half-hourly" not "hourly". The source also implies that the service may have been reintroduced.
The source appears to have changed. I don't believe half-hour services are possible given the layout of the track, and Southern's official timetable makes no mention of them existing at all. Consequently, I've moved this out of the current services section and into history. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 33 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 34 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 39 Can I have a copy of this source?
    This checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 42 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 43 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 45 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 49 Can I have a copy of this source?
    This checks out, although you may want to say in the article what the conclusion of this accusation was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 51 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 55 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 67 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 72 Don't think the "less than 10,000 passengers" thing is on the pages given.
The source says "Maps 1 - 9", which is this one. Map 1 marks the line as "between 5,000 and 10,000 passengers, while map 9 shows it as proposed for closure. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 86 Peyton does not explicitly say that the policy change was the reason for the review?
This source appears to be dead / unavailable at the moment. Bit worrying for Hansard. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is back up. This looks like a difference in interpretation over "in the light of his recent announcement about future railway policy. and whether or not that implies said announcement was directly linked to the line's future. I've rewritten this sentence to stick closer to what the source says, and explicitly attribute it as an opinion (good for Hansard, as previously discussed). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 111 OK
  • 120 Can I have a copy of this source?
  • 123 Does "Class 171" (article) mean "diesel train" (source)?
Yes, the paragraph above says "Class 171 "Turbostar" Diesel Multiple Units", so I felt an additional description here was redundant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 126 Needs an archive

A bit uneasy that almost every accessible source has a discrepancy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, that does not sound good. Anything further since you last looked at it, or is this looking like a SR fail? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the sources I marked as "Can I have a copy of this source?" - for spotchecks, I insist on having a screenshot or photo of the pertinent page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I could have done all this last Saturday. I'll have to get back to you, the library has reduced its opening hours. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)A general comment about the book sources - they all came out of my local public library. Some can be loaned out, a number are in the "reference only" section. However, unless someone can get access to the same library (or a similar one) to independently get the books, then I can't see any easy way that any of the information can be verified, beyond me having a look myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't know where you live, but if you're in the UK the public libraries offer a service called "inter-library loans". For example, my local public library belongs to Oxfordshire County Council (OCC). and using my OCC library card I can borrow a book from any library in Oxfordshire (and also Reading, Berkshire), but if the book that I want isn't in stock in the libary that I visit, I can request it. OCC will then check their catalogue to see if there is a copy in any OCC library. If so, they'll transfer it to my local public library; if not, they'll check with other county councils until a copy can be located, which will then be sent to OCC and then on to my local public library. All this is done for a fee, and can take a few weeks. But it does mean that if the only copy in the UK happens to be in Ritchie333's local library, I can still request to borrow it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Afraid that I live on the continent. Going by Worldcat most of these books don't exist in my country, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way is probably for Ritchie to take photos of the requested pages and email them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also noting that that's exactly the same thing that reviewers and responders traditionally do... and are expected to do. It would be odd if a reviewer were able to abrogate responsibility for their use of sources simply by telling the source reviewer they must work it out for themselves! ——Serial Number 54129 12:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ritchie333, how is the source review coming along? Has Jo-Jo received photos of the requested pages yet? FrB.TG (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to get to the library and sort all of this out this week, but I haven't been in a position to do so. Hopefully, I will be able to get it sorted at a lunchtime next week. Unfortunately, a whole bunch of circumstances, not least the pandemic and then moving house have meant that I'm no longer in the position to pop down to the library in 5 minutes and get the answers. I hope you can be patient, but if not then the review might have to be closed as "can't verify". Hopefully it doesn't come to that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can wait. Obviously, the FAC coordinators get a vote too in this regard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the source review is successful and the nomination still needs eyes on the prose, let me know and I'll be happy to review. Anarchyte (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus I managed to get into the library and get camera copies of some of the sources used here. Send me an email and I'll reply with them attached. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay, the zipped camera copies are too big to send via email, I'll see if I can reduce the size down so they are still visible, but an acceptable size to send. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've sorted out the camera copies. Unfortunately, I didn't grab the right pages, so I'll have to go back and have another look. Unfortunately, I only seem to be able to get ten minutes of time in the library at the moment, which makes it difficult to grab the source material. Still, reviewing what I did get has allowed me to make a few corrections. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked off some things above as per the stuff you sent me. I'm afraid tho' that the incomplete figures from Mitchell & Smith 1987 can't be easily matched to a reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to get camera copies of Mitchell & Smith now, and I'll package them up and send them over in a mo. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:03, 2 May 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) 2 May 2024 [12].

Castle in the Sky[edit]

Nominator(s): TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayao Miyazaki's long and decorated career at Studio Ghibli has become the stuff of legend within animation circles, but Castle in the Sky (1986) – the studio's first work – was where it all started. Initially met with a lukewarm reception, the film has grown in popularity and earnings, becoming a cult classic with a still-devoted following nearly 40 years after its release. After a peer review from Z1720, an excellent GAN review from Rhain, and some pre-FAC copyediting from Vanamonde, I think it's time to complete my year of work on this article. I look forward to hearing your comments! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am a first-time nominator, so feel free to leave particularly detailed comments; the source review will require spot-checks; all that jazz. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
    Done. —TS
  • File:Laputa_Castle_in_the_Sky_robot_at_Ghibli_Museum.jpg needs a tag for the original work
    Could you elaborate on what you mean by this comment? —TS
    This is a photograph of a 3D work in a region that does not have freedom of panorama. We thus need to account for the copyright of both the photograph and the original work, and the current tagging appears to cover only the photograph. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the explanation. I see no evidence that the original work is freely licensed, so I've removed the image and nominated it for deletion on Commons. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Isao_Takahata_(cropped).jpg: the uploader has had a large number of works deleted for copyright concerns - are we certain this is own work as claimed? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking. —TS
    I'm checking on File:Isao Takahata.jpg, the file this was extracted from. It's been so long since this image has been uploaded that the results are a little muddy, but a reverse image search shows no uses of the file before 2014. Also worth noting is that the file was never mentioned during the many deletion discussions involving Boungawa's other files. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review! I'm working on one and need clarification on another. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Just a reminder that I've addressed your comments. Do you have any further suggestions for improvement? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser[edit]

I liked the article a lot, but I have some concerns. I don't see anything detailing the script-writing process specifically, or any discussion on casting/actors for the original Japanese dub. There's also a lot of content on the design of environments and contraptions, but not so much on characters. Still, my overall impression is good. Will drop prose comments shortly. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to the review! I'll also note that I'm also not super satisfied with § Production, as it lacks the detail one might expect from other film articles. However, this is due to the aspect not being extensively covered in sources, not because this information is simply missing from the article. This was also discussed during the GAN review. At your suggestion, I'll take another look through Miyazaki 2009 to see if I can dig anything out of the interviews, but I don't expect to find much. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose information on casting/actors might generally be more sparse for animated features as well. /DrB
Lead
  • "It was well-received by audiences, being voted as one of the greatest animated films of all time in later years. The film also received several notable accolades." - Both sentences have been shortened at the expense of information. The first one is sorta fine, at least I don't immediately know how to "fix" it. The second one could use an ", including.."
    I've made a couple of additions, would you like to take another look? —TS
    That's better. /DrB
Plot summary
  • suggest "..in a nearby mining town.."
    Nearby to what? I wouldn't consider the town to be near the airship, as the film depicts Sheeta falling a seemingly great distance. —TS
    Ok, can we add something else? I've managed to convince myself that the sentence could use an adjective before "mining town", in order to flow nicely. /DrB
    @Draken Bowser: How about "19th-century"? It's discussed later in the article, and gives a sense of the time period that wasn't present before. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, could we go with "..an industrial era.." since it's a fictional universe? /DrB
    This sounds fine to me, but I need to ask where you propose to remove text — your change would bring the plot summary a couple words above the 700-word limit. —TS
  • "However, Dola's gang and Muska's.." - Might need to add "shortly" after the removal.
    Done. —TS
  • "..the same insignia on Sheeta's crystal.." - Prefer "as on" or "as".
    Done. —TS
  • "Pazu joins them to attempt.." - Prefer "in an".
    Done. —TS
  • "..but is in turn destroyed by the military airship Goliath."
    Done. —TS
  • "Sheeta and Pazu pass through the turbulent lightning storm." - Has been foreshadowed by "violent winds", but the introduction is still a bit abrupt as it is written.
    Changed "massive cloud" to "massive storm" earlier in the paragraph, which should help. —TS
  • "However, [T]he army arrives.."
    Done. —TS
  • "..communicating with Earth.." - A bit unusal, maybe "their headquarters/base camp" (I don¨t remember the plot).
    Changed the whole clause to just "destroying their communications systems". —TS
Themes
  • "..relationship with nature and the role of technology." - Prefer "dependence on technology" if the source allows it.
    Not done. Odell & Le Blanc (and other sources, for that matter) discuss these themes more as a relationship than a dependence. I've adjusted the page range of the citation to include some additional context within the source. —TS
    Sounds good. /DrB
  • Prefer "..young children as the protagonists."
    Done. —TS
  • "..with a younger protagonists generates
    Done. —TS
  • "He considers this a focal point in his endeavors. The theme of innocence is explored more focally in Miyazaki's succeeding film My Neighbor Totoro (1988)." - Replace one or the other.
    Done. more focally → further —TS
Release
  • "..which critics have noted to be somewhat lower than the performance.." - Which would warrant the removal of "also" in the next sentence.
    Done. —TS

That's about it. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Draken Bowser! I have a couple of questions which I've left above. It might take me a couple of days to browse through the source I mentioned for § Production, but I'll keep you updated if I make any additions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the addition of Hahnchen's comments to my extant concerns I'm gonna Oppose on comprehensiveness. Should these problems be addressed at some point in the future I'd be happy to continue the review. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still consider the absence of information on character designs a weakness, especially since it is such an influential animated feature. I don't think casting actually matters, but there should be sources allowing for some info on the actors' contribution to the film.
For comparison, Atlantis: The Lost Empire has info on all three, and Frozen II has info on character design and casting (not so much on the actors approach/performance). For what it's worth, this is a great article and the hard work shines through, I'm only being difficult because what FA-1b seems to demand from an article like this. I guess I could change my stance even without additional info on the actors, but I think there needs to be more on character design, not just on environments and contraptions. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns perfectly, and I also wish there was more to go off of on these aspects, but it's almost certain the sources do not exist — and I've looked very hard for them. Atlantis and Frozen have the distinct advantages of being more modern and being produced by Disney, which essentially guarantees comprehensive coverage of every aspect of the film in secondary sources. However, even looking through the archive volume I discovered recently (which isn't even indexed in some book databases), I was not able to find anything significant relating to the production stage. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the closest I got was a source commenting on how Sheeta's transformation is not reflected in her character design. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser: As we've discussed, I've done what I can to address the comprehensiveness concerns you and other reviewers brought up, and while I was successful in most areas, it seems that sources simply do not cover the production aspect in any more detail than is suggested by that section. You seem to imply that observation in your message as well. With that in mind, could I ask if there's anything I can do to change your mind about your opposition to this candidate? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that a "cursory reading of the litterature" shows that character design is mostly discussed with respect to Miyazaki himself or his general impact on Studio Ghibli's character designs, and only from Mononoke onwards(?) in terms of the individual films. Given that, it seems reasonable to strike the oppose. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. Let me know if you have any further comments or suggestions for improvement. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa[edit]

I'll try to find the time to review this. TompaDompa (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. At a glance, the article seems to rather gloss over the connection to Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels. Laputa is not linked anywhere in the article, for instance, which seems like an oversight. A quick look at Google Scholar seems to indicate that there is at least a decent amount of literature covering this aspect. The film's entry at The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction says that "curiously, references to Gulliver and his travels were [...] removed in the English dub", which makes me think that there is a fair bit more that should be covered here (the article is not overly long at roughly 4,700 words as of my writing this). I see that other reviewers have raised comprehensiveness concerns, and this seems to be another instance thereof. Not enough for me to oppose the nomination outright (at least not without looking into it further), but it does give me some pause. TompaDompa (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: Thanks for your comments. Like you mentioned, taken together with Hahnchen's oppose below, I am thinking seriously about the comprehensiveness side of things with this article. Looking through the sources you've linked, only a couple are reliable enough to include — the others are student work or not published in a peer-reviewed journal. I should be able to incorporate the paper in the next few days. As for the detail of the film drawing from Gulliver, most sources I've looked through mention the connection, but don't go any further, as the floating island in the film bears only a passing resemblance to its namesake. The references to the novel that were removed in the English version are, to my knowledge, only a single single in the original Japanese. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: § Themes now calls out the connection to Gulliver more explicitly, and I've incorporated a couple of new sources as well. Along with my response to Hahnchen below, I hope that now satisfies everyone's comprehensibility concerns. With that in mind, I invite you to continue (or start!) your review, if you're willing. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time permitting, I will. Hopefully next week. I would suggest clarifying in-text that Gulliver's Travels is a novel by Jonathan Swift. TompaDompa (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: Just a nudge, since it's been a few days. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • I know that this is the English-language Wikipedia, but the amount of focus the English dubs get seems disproportionate to me and an example of WP:Systemic bias.
  • There are several quotes that end with periods. If the periods are part of the original quotes that's fine per MOS:LQ, but it might be preferable to move the punctuation outside of the quotation marks anyway if the punctuation is not an integral part of the quote itself.
  • I notice that the article is rather light on WP:REDLINKS. There are a fair number of scholars and whatnot that are unlinked; if these people are notable, I would as a matter of personal preference suggest linking them.
Lead
  • "the first film to be animated by Studio Ghibli" – any particular reason not to just say it was the first film by Studio Ghibli?
  • "Its production team included many of Miyazaki's longtime collaborators" – where they already longtime collaborators or did they later become so?
  • "The young protagonists also provide a unique perspective on the narrative" – this is trying to say something about the themes of the film, I gather. I don't think it works.
  • "earning over US$157 million" – avoid "earn" for revenue like this. Use "gross" instead. This recurs in the body.
  • "It underperformed expectations at the box office, but later achieved commercial success through rereleases, earning over US$157 million as of 2021." – per the body, this figure includes other sources of revenue than box office, making this rather misleading.
Plot summary
  • "Sheeta having seen the crystal's directions and being able to navigate to Laputa, she and Pazu convince Dola to take them there in exchange for temporarily joining her crew." – clunky.
  • "The core of the castle is the epicenter of Laputa's ancient knowledge and weapons" – epicenter?
Development
  • "Following the commercial success of Miyazaki's previous film" – this being the first mention in the body, a link to Hayao Miyazaki would seem appropriate.
  • "he was eager to begin work on an old-fashioned adventure film that would be a "pleasure" to watch." – MOS:SCAREQUOTES, basically.
  • "tentatively titled "Blue Mountains"." – italics or quotation marks, not both (in this case: italics).
  • "Miyazaki's longtime collaborator Isao Takahata" – already longtime collaborator by then, or is that description only apt in retrospect?
  • "Animation writer Dani Cavallaro" – "animation writer" suggests to me a writer of animation (such as a screenwriter for animated films), but our article seems to indicate that Cavallaro writes about animation (perhaps "animation critic" or "animation scholar" would be more appropriate). If that article is anything to go by, it also seems questionable if Cavallaro is the kind of high-quality source a WP:Featured article should rely on.
  • "His experiences reflect in several supporting characters in the film" – I might say that the experiences are reflected in something or other, but saying that experiences reflect in something strikes me as an odd phrasing.
  • "The film had a reported production budget of ¥500 million, equivalent to US$8 million in 2023." – how was this currency conversion and implied inflation adjustment arrived at? The cited source is dated 2020.
  • "support for the in-between animation" – I would explain what in-between animation is in-text rather than requiring the reader to click the link if they are not familiar with the term and concept. This is not an instance where brevity needs to be prioritized at the expense of reader comprehension.
Themes
  • "However, in contrast with the more optimistic conclusions of Miyazaki's previous works, Napier notes that the film ends with an "unsettling view" of the castle flying away, suggesting that humanity may not deserve to exist in the natural world." – I don't think this is an appropriate use of "notes" as it introduces not just a bare observation but also analysis based on that observation. I might write "However, writes Napier, [...]" or something along those lines.
  • "The characters of Muska and the army are used to criticize modern militarism in particular." – what does "in particular" modify here? Is it modern militarism in particular or modern militarism in particular (or something else entirely)?
  • "eschewing the extremes of capitalism and industrialism, as well as radical environmentalism and conservationism" – is that "eschewing the extremes of on the hand capitalism and industrialism, and on the other hand radical environmentalism and conservationism"? Or is it "eschewing the extremes [or perhaps excesses] of capitalism and industrialism, as well as eschewing radical environmentalism and conservationism"? I gather that it is not "eschewing the extremes of on the hand capitalism and and on the other hand industrialism, as well as eschewing radical environmentalism and conservationism", though that parsing is also structurally plausible.
  • "the island of the same name from Gulliver's Travels (1726)" – I would definitely work in a mention of and link to Jonathan Swift here.
  • "the gardens and fauna" – is there a good reason not to write either "the gardens and animals" or "the flora and fauna" here?
  • "Odell and Le Blanc conclude [...]" – this is the first time they are mentioned; the full names and gloss from the next paragraph should be moved here.
Style
Release
  • "In the United Kingdom, it was 2019's eighth-best-selling foreign language film on home video, below five other Studio Ghibli films." – this is a rather oddly specific metric, making it seem cherry-picked.
  • "did not perform well in North American theaters" – see MOS:DOMESTIC about using "North America" in this context.
Music
  • As a result, the American soundtrack is much longer, while the original Japanese version featured just an hour of music for a film exceeding two hours in length." – how long is the longer one?
Reception
  • "Castle in the Sky has been generally acclaimed by film critics in the years since its release." – that's a fairly strong statement that is unsourced, and the text that follows does not really bear it out.
  • "second-place winner" – oxymoron.
  • "Castle in the Sky was the second-place winner in the Reader's Choice award category hosted by Animage in 1986." – should that be Kinema Junpo? That's what the table says. The table also says "Readers' Choice" rather than "Reader's Choice".
Legacy
  • "Castle in the Sky is considered a keystone work of the modern steampunk and dieselpunk styles." – for one thing, this over- and misstates what the cited sources say; VanderMeer and Chambers merely say that it's a good example of airships in steampunk, Reinders says "Laputa is often cited as a key steampunk text", Greenberg says that "Many years after its release, Castle in the Sky was widely recognized as a seminal work in the genre that came to be known as Steampunk", and Boyes says "1984's Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind features airships that are effectively gigantic planes, their aesthetic drawing heavily on the technology of the first half of the twentieth century in a way that's now often called dieselpunk. Even more influential is 1986's Laputa: Castle in the Sky. As well as more dieselpunk aircraft, we now have a wonderful array of airships." For another, this is highly dubious even if the sources had made this exact claim, for reasons outlined above.
  • This section has what feels rather like a laundry-list of people who enjoyed the film. It gives the impression of trying to exaggerate the film's impact. Strive for more substantive things to say about it.

I am regrettably going to have to oppose the nomination at this point. In addition to the specific points brought up above, the prose needs a fair amount of polishing in general (I would suggest enlisting the help of the WP:Guild of copyeditors), and the article has a fairly superficial feel to it (which surprised me, given that the article is not really that short) that makes me doubt its comprehensiveness. I haven't conducted anything approaching a thorough spot-check, but given what I found in the handful of cases where I did look at the sources, I seriously doubt it would pass one. TompaDompa (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thanks for your comments! While there's an outside chance I could resolve the issues you've brought up here, I think it's evident that this candidate needs far more involved work than reasonable during an FAC review. I have a couple of questions about your review, but I'll bring them up on the article's talk page rather than here, as it's clear this article will not be promoted in its current state. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hahnchen[edit]

  • Oppose - The reception section is just a list of American regional newspapers. For it to be comprehensive, you need contemporaneous Japanese responses. It doesn't even include specialist press. - hahnchen 12:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hahnchen: Thanks for your comments. I've done my best to include as many reviews as possible, but — not being a competent Japanese speaker — I've not been able to reliably search for or assess Japanese-language sources. It doesn't help that article, as long as it is, does not seem to have a reception section. Finding news sources from the time adds the additional caveat of looking through newspaper archives, many of which are paywalled. I'd ask for your help in finding a place to start with these kinds of sources, as once I get started, I should have a much easier time alleviating your sourcing concerns. Also, what English-language sources would you consider "specialist press" for this topic area? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Against all odds, a lovely friend from the Ghibli community connected me with an archive volume that contains some newspaper articles that ran around the time of the film's release. I will be incorporating them over the next few days. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hahnchen and Draken Bowser: § Critical response now includes five Japanese sources from the time. With that in mind, would you both be willing to reconsider your !votes and resume your reviews of this candidate? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking the oppose because I'm not giving this a thorough review. The insertion of a Japanese point of view is welcome, but someone with more specialist knowledge shall have to review it as to whether or not it is comprehensive. I think the section is still too heavily American centric. Featured articles should use all the best sources, not just all the best sources that happen to be free, online, and in English.
    Regarding "specialist press", I meant publications that specifically cover film or animation. So publications like Kinema Junpo. They said it was the 8th best film that year, why? - hahnchen 21:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hahnchen: Thanks. I understand if you aren't able to go into depth with your review, but I should note that I've used as many sources from Studio Ghibli 1996 as is within my ability. Though the book contains dozens of newspaper and magazine articles, the vast majority of them are interviews or routine coverage, which are not useful for § Critical response. There are Kinema Junpo articles included in the collection, and the same applies to them. As for commentary related to the film winning the Best Ten, the source verifying this information is just a database, and so includes only the rankings. However, I am currently trying to get a hold of a 1986 issue of the magazine to check whether the primary source contained any more information. Also, the section includes reviews from IGN and The A.V. Club which, while not Japanese, are certainly considered sources that specialize in film. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank all of the reviewers for their time and for providing feedback on this candidate. Hanchen and TompaDompa's reviews indicate to me that there are far deeper improvements that need to be made to the article before it can be promoted. I will seriously consider those comments, and I hope to be back at FAC in time with a much-improved version of this article! @FAC coordinators: I am withdrawing this nomination, thanks. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:19, 2 May 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/May_2024&oldid=1225311419"