Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2025

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Matterhorn logistics

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the logistics of Operation Matterhorn, the use of Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers to attack Japan from bases in China during World War II. As part of some work on Operation Matterhorn, I spun the section on logistics off into its own article, since this was my primary interest. The challenges of conducting operations from remote bases in China supported only by air were formidable, and only partly overcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this article at ACR and can support. Matarisvan (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

In the second paragraph of the End of Matterhorn section, War Department should link to United States Department of War. XR228 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Normally disambigs get highlighted, but this was set index article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial B-29

[edit]

Yo, acc. Worldcat, Haulman is 'Tannenberg Publishing: San Francisco, 2015'. Also I'm getting a 404 on Romanus, although that could just be me. No mention of the Burma Rd reopening? Nice article, cheers! SerialNumber54129 14:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaargh. The Center of Military History has been moving stuff around, and the URLs have changed slightly. I have corrected them. And added a sentence on the reopening of the Burma road. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. It's a really good read, and provides interesting background on why the US wanted the British Empire to disassemble after the war. Cheers! Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 10:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]
  • The $3 billion cost of design and production (equivalent to $51 billion today),: why not use the inflation template to get a dynamically updating year? Would seem both more durable and would reassure readers that the information remained in date (some Wikipedia articles are twenty years old). UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Used the {{Inflation/year}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creation of bases for the B-29s in India, Ceylon and China and their maintenance: this is a little ambiguous: was it difficult to maintain the bases or the aircraft? The former seems more likely, so "creation and maintenance of..." would be better.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should explain the term "staged" per WP:JARGON.
    Piped to staging area Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need some convincing that the design process for the B-29 is appropriate material (under DUEWEIGHT) in an article on a particular operation involving them. We don't start the article on the Battle of Agincourt with a description of the invention of the longbow. Was this the first use of B-29s in action, or some other milestone that obviously feeds in from their development?
    Rewritten the first paragraph to highlight the key points from a logistical point of view. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Netherlands East Indies, which were the source of ninety percent of Japan's oil supplies. : I understand the desire not to spend half the article explaining the fundamentals of the Second World War, but I think it's germane here to say that they were under Japanese occupation at the time, since the name gives the impression of their being under Dutch control.
    Deleted the bit about alternative basing in SWPA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the war against Germany had priority: link (and perhaps briefly explain) Europe first?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the only line of communications with China was over "the Hump", as the air ferry route to China over the Himalayas was called: could cut as indicated? Seems fairly obvious that a line of communication with China would end up in China.
    Deleted as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until the Burma Road could be reopened by the ground forces, all the fuel, ammunition and supplies used by American forces in China had flown over the Hump.: were these American forces limited to the B-29s we just discussed? It sounds here like there was more involved. If this was the only American presence there, I think it would be good to explain that briefly when we talk about the decision to put the B-29s in China.
    It was not; added a bit about the Fourteenth Air Force. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • with a target date of 1 May 1944: as we have WP:TIES to the United States, the US date order is preferable.
    Per MOS:MILFORMAT: articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage
  • China-Burma-India Theater : dashes, not hyphens (or spaces?).
    It is the form used in all the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Twentieth Air Force: can we introduce who these people were and what their stake in the operation was?
    Oops. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No full stop needed on the "Black Jack" caption.
    deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When US Army Engineers: engineers should be LC here.
    De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To save time and concrete, dispersal areas were omitted: not knowing much about the business of constructing airfields, this went completely over my head.
  • Is it the US Army or the U.S. Army? The article varies.
    Used U.S. form consistently. The MOS favours inconsistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a tank farm : What's one of those?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Navy tanker delivers fuel. Master Sergeant Gerino Terenzi (right) is the section foreman, constantly checking his pumping stations and storage tanks.: Is this (and similar) the original caption? It reads a bit like a propaganda release, especially with the "constantly checking..." (and, honestly, naming the individual). This should be clarified if so; if not, we should rewrite with a more encyclopaedic tone.
    Yes, it is the original. Tweaked the caption a little. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • thin, light-weight, "invasion-weight" pipe: perhaps better as "thin, lightweight pipe, known as "invasion-weight", as "invasion-weight" doesn't add or change anything from "thin" and "lightweight" (is the hyphen normal in AmerE? It isn't in BrE).
    Changed to "lightweight", but the AmerEng sources use the hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "And the contractors' personnel policies, if they can be so dignified, were blends of inefficiency and time-honored skulduggery.": this quote seems to come out of nowhere. Who said it?
    There is a footnore. Added that it was from the American official historians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaking 100-octane gasoline could be dangerous: leaking any sort of gasoline is dangerous, isn't it?
    100-octane is more volatile than 80-octane. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but would it be safe to have a leak of 80-octane gasoline? We've implied that it would. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five days later, a vapor explosion set fire to thatched houses in the village. Seventy-one people died in the ensuing conflagration.: conflagration may not be quite encyclopaedic in tone (sounds more like journalism to me): simply set fire to thatched houses in the village, killing seventy-one people?
    I think that is just too matter-of-fact. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He personally reconoitered: reconnoitred, but I would also cut personally as potentially WP:PUFFERY.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the black market an American dollar fetched up to 240 Chinese yuan: as phrased, it's difficult to see the comparison here. Suggest "at the official rate of one dollar to 20 yuan".
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur N. Young, the American financial advisor to the Chinese government was critical: comma after government.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • averaged about 25 Chinese yuan per day (worth about $1 in 2023: this doesn't smell right: if the official exchange rate was $1 to 20 yuan, this implies that the US dollar is worth more now than it was in 1940.
    Ooops! Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transliterated Chinese needs to be in a transliteration template, not a lang template (use that for writing in Chinese script).
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Men, women and children shaped them : this is the first time we've mentioned that the workforce included all three groups; I would have done so when we talked about the assembly of the workforce a few paragraphs ago.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither was well-situated for the proposed B-29 missions: no hyphen in "well situated" here.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sea-air service: endash needed here.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cargo ships usually went to Calcutta and troop ships to Bombay, which was safer: what was safer, exactly -- was the crime rate in Bombay lower?
    Added "as Calcutta was within range of Japanese bombers". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow, hopefully. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do a bit more:

  • there remained critical shortages in some military occupational specialty codes,: This is slightly military-ese, I think: it's not the code that was in short supply as the people holding it. Suggest "shortages of certain specialist personnel", with a link to MOS if you wish.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • moved from the port at Calcutta to Assam by rail and barge, from whence they had to be flown across the Hump: not ideal structure with the from whence, given that the antecedent (Assam) is on the other side of a big block of meaning ("by rail and barge"). Grammatically, at least, we could be implying that they were flown from the barges. Suggest "barge; from Asasm, they had to be flown..."
    Tweaked the wording slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 90-days' temporary duty: no hyphen here.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the temporary-duty ATC pilots continued to fly them until they had to return to the United States: the pilots or the aircraft?
    The pilots. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • would receive 1,650 tons out of the first 10,250 short tons: is tons different here to short tons? If not, would cut it: if so, would find a clearer way to say this.
    Added another conversion template. Short tons is an unusual unit, but was used by the ATC for convenience in calculation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • one crewman was wounded. In turn, they claimed to have shot him down, but all the aircraft involved landed safely: Would clarify they as the Japanese; it's a bit tricky in context.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were no supplementary rations, no additional personal or orginizational equipment, no clothing: typo. What do we mean by "personal or organizational equipment" -- anything that isn't strictly military? Would "personal or administrative" be clearer and accurate? I also have a slightly bizarre image in my head of these people working in the nude.
    Changed to "spare clothing" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd Air Transport Squadrons: typo in piped link.
    Looks okay to me. Oh, I see. The page was moved. It is not a typo though; just the official name, which in in American English, which we don't use on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In late 1944, the Japanese Operation Ichi-Go offensive in China probed relentlessly toward the B–29 and ATC bases around Chengdu and Kunming.: not sure about this adverb: a probing action is, by definition, hesitant, at least by comparison with a regular offensive, while relentlessly implies a high level of pace and aggression.
    Changed to "advanced". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That month, the Burma Road was reopened, and the inaugural convoy reached Kunming on 4 February 1945.: I'm not sure you can have an inaugural convoy on something that is being reopened.
    Changed to "first". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chennault considered the Twentieth Air Force a liability: might consider reintroducing Chennault; it's been a while.
    Changed to "his Fourteenth Air Force". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final quotation is a long chunk of a non-free primary source: these are generally discouraged under a whole range of PAGs. How strong is the encyclopaedic argument for including all of it? It strikes me that most of it (from "Because Japan...") restates factual material that has already been stated in the article.
    Paraphrased it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and MoS: I am not qualified to pronounce on the content or sourcing, but can see no issues there either. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]
  • Lede solid throughout.
  • The cumulative effect of so many advanced features was more than the usual number of problems and defects associated with a new aircraft Might just be me, but this sentence is a little confusingly worded. Maybe something like "The large number of advanced features resulted in more problems and defects than what was usually associated with a new aircraft"?
    Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "shek" in Chiang Kai-shek is generally lowercased.
    Yes it is. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink B-17 at first mention.
    Wikilinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the 653rd Topographic Battalion under? Might be helpful to link.
    The 653rd Engineer Topographic Battalion was a mapmaking arm of the USAAF in CBI, stationed in India. The battalion produced maps for a host of military situations, including the major USAAAF activities in and around China. The battalion also produced "walk-out maps" for the Office of Strategic Service. Unfortunately, it has no article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luftwaffe Henschel Hs 293 radio-controlled, rocket-boosted glide bomb I feel this is excessive detail; you can just say a Luftwaffe bomb.
    Changed as suggested.
  • I'm kinda confused if this uses American or British English; I'd swing towards the latter here, and if so it should be totaling, not totalling.
    American English. Corrected spelling of "totaling". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a military nerd, but reconnoitered was a very unfamiliar term to me; maybe worth wikilinking (perhaps to wikitionary)
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were many double spaces and a couple typos - i went through and fixed these, but feel free to double-check.

@Hawkeye7: That's all from me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! And the corrections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

I kinda wonder about the zigzag image placement. I know MOS:SANDWICH is frowned upon in FAs and I am not sure if there are browser settings for which the images would end up sandwiching the article text. A fairly pedantic question but does File:Rows of fuel drums in front of B-29 Superfortress 42-6281 in China.jpg need both the raw URL and a source template? File:AAF-V-map5t.jpg has a broken URL. File:Building B-29 bases in China February 1944.jpg, File:B-29 airfields in Ceylon.jpg, File:C-109 Liberator Express tanker unloading.jpg, File:B-29 Princess Eileen in China.jpg, File:Boeing-B-29-Superfortress-20BC-Andy's-Dandy-under-going-engine-repairs-in-India-16th-Mar-1945-01.jpg and File:Hundreds of Chinese laborers pull a roller to smooth a runway for an airstrip.jpg have a raw URL. File:Kharagpur Area Airfields.jpg and File:Chengtu Area Airfields.jpg might need some more information on what the source is. ALT text is OK as is image placement. What makes https://www.cbi-theater.com/ a high-quality reliable source? Sources seem OK. I suspect this is a topic on which there won't be (m)any Indian or Chinese or Indochina sources, but did anyone look for them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I use zigzag placement in all my FAs, per MOS:SANDWICH: "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left." Added URL to the map. Raw URLs are normal on commons because there are no citation templates there. I made use of Li, who uses many Chinese sources. One Indian source was used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, any come back? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be much more to add. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 January 2025 [1].

Metaphysics

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the basic structure of reality. Some of its main topics include the categories of being, the concepts of possibility and necessity, the nature of spacetime, and the relation between mind and matter. It is relevant to many fields, ranging from other branches of philosophy to the sciences, which often implicitly rely on metaphysical concepts and ideas. Thanks to 750h+ for their GA review and to Patrick Welsh for their peer review! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima's comments

[edit]

Mark me down for a prose review here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima and thanks for taking a look! I was wondering whether you had some initial comments. Please feel under no obligation if now is not a good time. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my delay on this, Phlsph7! I knew I was forgetting something.

  • Lede is very solid throughout.
  • For ontology, in definitions, you need to italicize using the em template or em tags per MOS:EMPHASIS (I think this is for accessibility concerns.)
    • Same with bare particular, Haecceity, red, coming before, being next to, etc. later on. There's just a lot of these. The only time you shouldn't be using the em tags/template is for foreign language term, which should use the lang template.
      Done. I'm a little confused about which cases fall under MOS:EMPHASIS and which ones under MOS:WORDSASWORDS. For now, I used the em-template for all cases that do not use expressions like "the term...", "is called...", "means...", etc. I hope I got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should ontological deflationism be bolded, or redlinked? I feel if it's a possible split in its own right, itd be better to redlink it (especially as the bolding is a bit distracting so far into the article).
    You are right that having bold link target so far into the article can be confusing. I can't add a red link since we already have a redirect with that name. As an alternative, I put an anchor right to the paragraph where the bold terms appear and changed the redirect targets so they don't link to main section but right to the anchor. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, not really any prose issues through the thing. I wasn't confused at any points,
  • Yay, a Deleuze mention. Love that guy.
  • All images are properly licensed. They also have alt text which is nice to see.

@Phlsph7: Not much here to fix! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for reviewing the prose and the images! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeyness

[edit]

Another amazing article on a core topic in philosophy! Here are some initial comments from my first read through Shapeyness (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shapeyness, it has been a while. Thanks for reviewing the article! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is sometimes characterized as first philosophy to suggest that it is more fundamental than other forms of philosophical inquiry. It is probably best to attribute this idea, e.g. "Some philosophers, including Aristotle, designate metaphysics as first philosophy to suggest that it is more fundamental than other forms of philosophical inquiry."
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Universals are general repeatable entities that characterize particulars, like the color red. Would suggest simplifying or rewording this sentence a bit for the general reader
    Done. It's probably still not ideal but I hope it's better now. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that's better! :) Shapeyness (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • metaphysics was once declared meaningless, and then revived with various criticisms of earlier theories and new approaches to metaphysical inquiry. imo this is a bit vague and awkwardly worded
    Done. The new version is hopefull less awkwardly worded but I'm not sure I can do much about the vagueness without making it longer. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's clear enough now, don't need to make it any longer. Shapeyness (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phillips 1967 and Haack 1979 are relatively old sources to be using for the sentence about Strawson
    I found a newer source to replace them. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Should the MacDonald source be citing page 18 instead? Shapeyness (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, page 18 supports our text more directly. I changed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Veldsman 2017 and Heidegger 1996 - are these appropriate for the etymology section? On that note, the sources for "Metaphysics got its name by a historical accident" could maybe be better, I would expect them to be from historians/historians of philosophy focusing on Aristotle or etymologists, but maybe I'm missing something?
    I removed Veldsman 2017 and Heidegger 1996 since the paragraph is already well-covered by the remaining sources. I found a source on the history of metaphysics for the part about the historical accident. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have the quote you are using from that source? Shapeyness (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From Hamlyn 2005, p. 590: The term ‘metaphysics’ originated, however, as a title given to some of Aristotle’s works in the catalogue of the edition of them produced by Andronicus of Rhodes in the second half of the first century bc (although it may have come from an earlier library classification). It meant simply the works which followed those on physics in the catalogue. But those works, which were concerned with being, both as such and in respect of various categories of it, especially substance, contain discussions concerning matters which have an obvious continuity with later metaphysical theories. Hence it is reasonable to see Aristotle’s Metaphysics, untidy though it is in the form in which it has come down to us, as the first systematic treatise in metaphysics... Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I was wondering if it used the term historical accident. It doesn't use that phrase but paints the same picture as the other sources. Potentially could attribute "historical accident" phrasing but I'm not sure if that is necessary or not. Shapeyness (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I weakened the claim about the historical accident. The exact term "historical accident" is found in the other sources. This became an issue during the DYK nomination since one of the suggested hooks used that expression. See Talk:Metaphysics#Did_you_know_nomination for the discussion and more quotes. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metaphysicians often regard existence or being as one of the most basic and general concepts Very minor one but Gibson 1998 and Vallicella 2010 are slightly weaker inclusions in the citation here imo
    I removed them since the other references should be sufficient. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • exist outside space and time This is often used to get the idea across, but really "outside" is an inappropriate concept to use here as it is a spatial concept. The sentence is also quite long, although I didn't have any issue parsing it.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part on the problem of the many could do with some rewording so it's as clear as possible for the general reader
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For instance, it raises the issue of whether a dust particle on a tabletop is part of the table. I think this could still do with some motivating, or the reader might just think "why would anyone think a dust particle is a part of the table?" I've not read the cited sources and whether they use particular examples, but could be worded in terms of atoms maybe, not sure what the best way to do it simply is. Shapeyness (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used a different example about a coffee cup and a printer. Another common example focuses on the boundary of a cloud and whether a cloud is one or many. We could also use something else if you have a different idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to remember what example I'd heard before and it is the cloud one you mentioned. I think that is a more intuitive hook into the question because it it clear that the boundaries of the cloud are ambiguous, and hence that the question of which molecules of water it is that compose the cloud is also ambiguous. Shapeyness (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, I hope the cloud example is more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They belong to modal metaphysics, which investigates the metaphysical principles underlying them This is a bit weirdly worded
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A possible world is a complete and consistent way of how things could have been This is also a bit weirdly worded
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I read through the sources and I think the wording I'm finding strange is "a way of how", but I guess this is an attempt to avoid close paraphrasing? I would word it A possible world is a complete and consistent way things could have been. I don't think "way things could have been" being a shared wording with some of the sources should be a problem per WP:LIMITED and the fact that a few different sources all seem to use the same wording as a kind of standard definition. Shapeyness (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A possible world is a complete and consistent way the totality of things could have been might also work. Shapeyness (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used your second suggestion. I agree that for the short definition itself, WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE shouldn't be a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • McLaughlin 1999 - should this have a chapter/entry?
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Züricher 2021 - is this a high quality source for metaphysics, it seems to be a psychotherapy handbook
    Replaced. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imaguire 2018 - this is a bit more specific compared to the other sources in this citation, I think it isn't needed
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because there exists a red tomato as its truthmaker - as far as I'm aware, truthmakers are generally not identified with ordinary objects like tomatoes, they are usually identified with facts, states of affairs or tropes. Slightly nitpicky but also quite important to the debate I think (I can provide sources if useful).
    I think you got a point that various truthmaker theories focus on facts. I tried to reformulate it in a way that leaves either option open so both thing ontologists and fact ontologists can read it the way they want. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't this still say that the red tomato is the truthmaker? A truthmaker of a statement is the entity whose existence makes the statement true. For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because of the existence of a red tomato as its truthmaker. The problem with the tomato being the truthmaker is that there is a possible world where the tomato is not red, so the tomato doesn't necessitate the truth of the statement. My understanding is that truthmaker theorists will generally say that the truthmaker is "the tomato's being red" or "the redness of the tomato" or "the fact that the tomato is red". Shapeyness (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the expression "a red tomato" refers to a particular. The question is probably whether the expression "the existence of a red tomato" can refer to a fact.
    The issue of necessitation most likely also depends on how we interpret the expression. Interpreted in a simple manner, a red tomato can't be blue at the same time, so we would be on the safe side. However, if "a red tomato" means "a tomato that is red in the actual world" then the tomato could have a different color in another world.
    Our source, Tallant 2017 p. 1–2 (chapter 1. An introduction to truth-making), says: that ‘a tomato is red’ is true is due to there existing a red tomato. ... when we say that ‘ “the tomato is red” is true,’ we say this because there exists a red tomato.
    Some alternative formulations:
    • For example, the existence of a red tomato or the tomato's being red acts as a truthmaker for the statement "a tomato is red".
      This version covers several variations.
    • For example, the statement "a tomato is red" is true because of the fact that a tomato is red as its truthmaker.
      This version focuses on facts. It might sound too tautological to some readers.
    I'm also open to other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about For example, the fact that a tomato exists and that it is red acts as a truthmaker for the statement "a tomato is red"? It mirrors the kind of language the Tallant source uses for other claims (except I explicitly added the word "fact"). I think maybe there isn't a perfect way to reflect the nuance here in a way that will be picked up on by the someone who doesn't know anything about the topic without being overlong. Fwiw I'm drawing from thoughts similar to those in these overviews:
    • Take an alleged contingent truth about a certain rose, say that <The rose is red>. Clearly, the rose itself cannot be the truthmaker for this proposition, since given that it is contingent that it is red, it is possible for the rose to be another colour. But if it is possible for the rose to be another colour, then the rose itself does not necessitate the truth of <The rose is red> and so it is not its truthmaker. (Rodriguez-Pereyra 2006)
    • The existence of such an object is not sufficient to satisfy [the truthmaker principle], however. The existence of something which happens to satisfy ‘x is a rose and x is red’ does not entail the truth of 〈The rose is red〉, since the object in question—a rose, which, as it happens, is red—might not have been red, and so there are possible worlds where that object exists yet 〈The rose is red〉 is false. (Beebee & Dodd 2005)
    —Shapeyness (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. I implemented the suggestion and added these two sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ryckman 2005 - why is a book on philosophy of physics being used as a source on phenomenalism
    Replaced. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The transcendental method is... do we need the sources other than Stern & Cheng 2023?
    I also kept Pihlström 2009 since it has a section explicitly dedicated to the transcendental method but I removed the others. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should label Hume a skeptic in Wikipedia's voice when that is a matter of controversy. According to the most recent philpapers survey only 37% of philosophers label Hume a skeptic vs 55% that call him a naturalist (when you filter by those specialising in 17th/18th century philosophy, that goes up to 63%)
    I think it uncontroversial that Hume has a skeptical outlook about metaphysical knowledge but I changed the term to "critical outlook" to avoid problems. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking more about the discussion in the criticism section but I guess you're right that there's a difference between being skeptical of metaphysics and being a skeptic full stop. Do the sources generally phrase it using the term skepticism? If so then there's probably no problem. I don't have access to all of the sources used for those sentences. Shapeyness (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From Rea 2021, pp. 210–211: A priori theorizing about the world ... has long been viewed with skepticism ... One of the most well-known expressions of this sort of negative attitude toward metaphysics comes from David Hume
    From Koons & Pickavance 2015, p. 4: A number of significant thinkers began to sound a new note in the late eighteenth century, raising doubts about the right of metaphysics to stand as a science among other fields of knowledge. David Hume, the great philosopher of Scotland, stands out as pre-eminent among these new antimetaphysicians.
    I can look for more, but I think they should be sufficient for the way it is currently worded. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep they should be good. Shapeyness (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • New scientific discoveries have also influenced existing and inspired new metaphysical theories I think this should be something like "New scientific discoveries have also influenced existing metaphysical theories and inspired new ones."
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • History - do you think there is room for a sentence on Locke to fill out the major empiricist philosophers
    I found a way to mention him in relation to Hume. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the turn of the 20th century in analytic philosophy, philosophers such as Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) and G. E. Moore (1873–1958) led a "revolt against idealism" Maybe this can be explained slightly (e.g. why? how?), obviously we don't want lots of detail
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shapeyness, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Have left some final comments below Shapeyness (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to those Phlsph7! Some more below, should hopefully be the final set of comments. Shapeyness (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A related mereological problem is whether there are simple entities that have no parts, as atomists claim, or not, as continuum theorists contend. I think it would be clearer to list both options here, e.g. "A related mereological problem is whether there are simple entities that have no parts, as atomists claim, or whether everything can be endlessly subdivided into smaller parts, as continuum theorists contend."
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history of metaphysics examines how the inquiry into the basic structure of reality has evolved in the course of history. Imo this is redundant and the following sentence would be a stronger start
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The American Heritage Dictionary Entry: Existence" Believe the title should just be "Existence"
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieved date seems to be used inconsistently unless I'm missing something, not sure if that needs to be consistent per 2c or not
    I removed them from all Google Book links, where they don't really belong. Did you spot other inconsistencies? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not sure what the logic behind which have a retrieved date and which don't but this is such a minor point anyway. Shapeyness (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the sources have urls linked from the book title that I think should be linked from the chapter title
    I think this happens for cite templates that use the parameter "url". For all templates that specify a chapter, I changed the parameter "url" to "chapter-url". I hope this solves the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chen 2023 - is this a high quality source for history of philosophy?
    This is one of the sources by a non-Western publisher. For them, I'm usually a little less strict since they can be hard to find. But let me know if you think otherwise. The sentence is covered by the remaining soures and this one could be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duignan 2009a - why is this 2009a and not just 2009?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goffi & Roux 2011 - this is missing editors
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kind 2018 - I think part of the book title should actually be the series title
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Macnamara 2009 - is this a hiqh quality source for philosophy?
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mumford 2003 - this is missing editors
    Mumford is given as the editor in the template. I didn't add an author. The author would usually be Russell since the book is mostly a selection of Russell's writings but the passage in question is a comment by Mumford. I'm not sure if this is the best practice. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops no that was a mistake from me. Shapeyness (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poidevin et al. 2009 - this is an edited collection, should an individual chapter/chapters be cited?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more general comments: reading over the overview sources, there aren't any major areas that aren't covered although a few cover social metaphysics a bit more (having said that, some don't mention it at all). Also, the article mentions truthmakers, but it doesn't go much into theories of truth - a few of the overviews have truth as a high level section. Obviously there can never be a completely comprehensive article so fine to leave out if you think these would overexpand the article. This might be a reflection of the discipline across history, but I also can't see any philosophers mentioned that aren't men.
    I added a sentence on theories of truth. In principle, it could be expanded, but I'm not sure that we should. I found a way to mention Hypatia. I'm open to more suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a broad enough knowledge of the history of philosophy to know which female philosophers would be the best to include sadly, but Anscombe might be worth a mention in relation to the idea that causation can be non-deterministic. Her SEP article has a good section if she isn't mentioned in any of the sources in that part already. Shapeyness (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a footnote to the section on causality. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: While I think it would be nice for there to be more representation of philosophers who aren't men in the main body of the article, and perhaps more discussion of social metaphysics, I don't think either of these prevent the article from meeting the FA criteria. The article is as accessible as possible throughout, covers all major areas to at least some extent without delving into too much detail, and is well-structured, illustrated and cited. Shapeyness (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will review once the above leaves their final comments. 750h+ 23:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 750, I think we are ready for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry will get to this 750h+ 13:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have too many comments as I reviewed this article as a GA. Feel free to refuse my suggestions with proper justification. Will begin tomorrow (it's late night in Australia at the moment). 750h+ 13:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
definition
topics
methodology
  • metaphysical systems by drawing conclusions from these ==> "metaphysical systems by concluding from these"
    I kept the original formulation to avoid misunderstandings since "concluding" can also mean "bring to an end". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
criticism
relation to other disciplines
history

No problems here.

As always great work on the article @Phlsph7: I do apologise for the late review. 750h+ 11:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 750h+ and thanks for your help with the article both in this review and the earlier GA review! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Thanks for the article. 750h+ 13:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass

[edit]

The alt texts are not always particularly helpful -- for instance, we have "Painting of Immanuel Kant" for, well, a painting of Kant. The point of an alt text is to substitute for the visual image for a reader who cannot see it -- can you, here, describe what Kant looks like in the picture? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UndercoverClassicist and thanks for the image review! I add some information to the alt texts but more could be added. I'm not sure what the right amount of detail is since the different aspects of body posture, dress, and background are not really relevant to the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to try and think: "what do I expect a viewer to take away here?". After all, I included that image for a reason, not just to break up the text or to make the article look prettier. For Kant, for example, most readers will clock that this is an eighteenth-century, old-ish, posh, white guy, so I might write an alt text to that effect: "An oil painting of a European man in his seventies, wearing eighteenth-century formal dress, leaning on a table with pens and ink." UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I gave it one more try. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good for the portraits, but doesn't seem to have been done for the other images. Same principle applies: what visual information (so: not the name of the artist, because you can't see that in the picture) should the reader take away from this image/diagram? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the alt-texts of the images of Aristotle's metaphysics, the dualism-monism diagram, and the yin-yang symbol. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I am not certain that I can possibly comment on the "comprehensive and thorough" part of the FAC criteria, so keep that in mind. Also a whole lot of sources, which suggests comprehensiveness, but means I might miss some bad sources. What's the logic between some sauces having retrieval dates and archives and others not having them? Why are some references linking to Google Books pages and others aren't? Looks like we are using major albeit mostly Western publishers, and the few I didn't know I checked the sources up a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for doing the source review! I added retrieval dates for "cite web" templates. For the purpose of verification, this may be relevant in case the website changes so reviewers know which version to look for. Retrieval dates are also automatically added if an archive link is added to a template, which also makes sense so reviewers know which version is archived. I don't think there are any other templates in the article with retrieval dates but I may have missed some. As for the archives, InternetArchiveBot has not been working for me recently, so I can't add any new archives. One solution for consistency would be to just remove all archives. I'm not sure if that is desirable.
I usually link to Google Books pages if they provide a page preview to make it easier for reviewers to assess verifiability. However, not all Google Books pages offer page previews, so this is not always possible. The overrepresentation of sources by Western publishers in the article reflects the general prevalence of Western publishers regarding high-quality English-language sources on the subject. It can be challenging to track down sources from other regions that fulfill the FA high-quality requirements, but I could try to find some more if it is a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to keep in mind is that Google Books tends to be geolocked and personalized. So a link working for you doesn't mean that it will work for anyone else. Thus I generally don't think that putting links to Google Books pages is useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these links are not ideal and that it is preferable to use non-commercial sources. However, other sources often do not provide page previews. Without simple previews, the problem is that running to a library or buying a book is a significant barrier to verification, especially if it's just about a single sentence. Clicking on a link to verify a sentence, on the other hand, requires very little work. Overall, I think the links are worth having in cases where no non-commercial alternatives are available. This matter is also discussed at Wikipedia:Google Books and Wikipedia. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus anything further to add to the source review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that links that are only useful to a fraction of readers (unlike a paywalled link, I don't think there is a way for a Google Books link to be usable) are necessary, so I wouldn't keep the Google Books links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Google Books links are common in FA articles. For example, each of the most recent TFAs (Apollo 12, Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims, Algebra, Len Deighton) has Google Books links. We could try to resolve at WT:FAC whether they are acceptable in principle. However, I presume there have already been various discussions without any consensus in favor of a hard rule against them. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you think that the article can pass the source review without removing the links to Google Books? If not, I would ask at WT:FAC whether their use is prohibited by the FA criteria. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly could. There are a fair amount of things I see in FAC that I don't like seeing in FAs but which I am unsure about challenging at FAC b/c it's not always clear what's just my preference and what's an actionable issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Could someone take a look at the nomination? It just entered its 3rd month and has 3 supports, a source review, and an image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PJW comments

[edit]

Hi Phlsph7,

Great work here, as usual. I wasn't planning to review this again, but I was pinged by one of the coordinators seeking the opinion of someone with a philosophy background. (That is just to say, sorry for coming in so late and raising new issues.)

Other editors should please feel free to interject—especially if you think I'm being overly pedantic or otherwise unreasonable.

I want to raise one general issue, which I don't intend to pursue too far — since it seems not to be shared by previous reviewers — and a handful of specific issues that I think should be fairly easy to address.

The general issue:

Many metaphysical positions are named without any sort of context. There's some stuff that I know goes back to antiquity, and other stuff I'm pretty sure didn't emerge until the 20th century. In some cases, though, I don't know, and I find that disorienting. Is this something that was argued over in the Roman Forum and has been ever since? Or was it first presented in the pages of Noûs? This makes a difference to me, and I suspect it will also make a difference to other readers who, like me, are not experts, but who have enough existing knowledge to be actively trying to organize and assimilate new information from the article.

In some cases this would probably just be awkward or distracting, but I think there is room for improvement. For instance, I was grateful to read The regularity theory of causation, inspired by David Hume's philosophy, states... just because I knew we were somewhere in the modern period. More of these kind of contextual clues is what I have in mind, wherever feasible.

If it would be helpful, I could flag instances with inline maintenance tags for your consideration.

More specific notes:

  • Kant distinguishes transcendent metaphysics, which aims to describe the objective features of reality beyond sense experience, from critical metaphysics, which outlines the aspects and principles underlying all human thought and experience. Kant does not use the term "critical metaphysics" (or at least not in the Critique of Pure Reason or Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science). If it comes from Allen Wood, it's fine, but if it's not from a Kant scholar, we should figure out something better. (Some very quick research turns up A841/B869ff. as a strong primary source from which to take guidance, should that be useful.)
    This is the term used in Loux & Crisp 2017 p. 7 and Bengtson 2015 p. 23, but the exact expression is not important here, so I reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applied metaphysics is a relatively young subdiscipline. Can this be made more specific? It's unclear what counts as young in a 2,500+ year discipline.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To exist means to form part of reality "To form" reads strangely to me, and it might also be a problematic formulation since form is, itself, a metaphysical concept. I would be fine with just "to be". Another option would be "to be a part of reality".
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Descriptor for Meinong?
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plato held that Platonic forms, which are perfect and immutable ideas, have a higher degree of existence than matter, which can only imperfectly reflect Platonic forms. Maybe a footnote on the scholarly disagreement about how much of what he put in the mouth of his Socrates character Plato himself actually believed?
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless Wikipedia has its own conventions, "e.g." needs a comma just like the English equivalent "for instance".)
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you expand the footnote on individuals? Or, maybe better, just remove the claim that it's interchangeable with "particulars"? In the German philosophy I know, particularity (Besonderheit) is logically distinguished from the singular (Einzelne), which is further distinct from the philosophical term individuality (Individualität) introduced by Leibniz. I see no reason to introduce this kind of confusion into such a general article.
    I removed the claim about alternative terminology. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Causality is the relation between cause and effect whereby one entity produces or affects another entity. I think that "affects" is indeed correct here, because "effects" would be redundant. But maybe change it to "changes" or "alters" so that readers don't get distracted trying to figure out whether it's a typo?
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to idealism, everything is mental, including physical objects, which may be understood as ideas or perceptions of conscious minds. The three most famous idealists are probably Berkeley, Kant, and Hegel. This description is at best tendentious as a characterization of Kant and it is false of Hegel. Maybe a footnote on the distinctions between subjective, transcendental, and objective/absolute idealism? The idealism article draws heavily on a recent work by two excellent scholars. You might be able to crib something from there.
    I remember we had a similar point for the article Mind. I adjusted the terminology and added a footnote to inform the reader that this position is not necessarily true for other types of idealism. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew we'd discussed this before! Just couldn't remember where.
    My ideal version of the article would go into a little more detail, but I think the footnote is fine. Interested readers can follow the Wikilinks or look at the sources. Patrick (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Criticism" section would benefit from a paragraph on the first Critique probably highlighting the Transcendental Dialectic. I could draft something if you want.
    I think a full paragraph is too much since the criticism based on limited cognitive abilities is already discussed in the first paragraph. I added the example of Kant there. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I need to push back on this one. Feel free to say so if you think I'm unduly influenced by my own philosophical sympathy for the tradition of German Idealism.
    The current version of language is precise and accurate. It is misleading, however, to present Kant's arguments as an extension of Hume's, to whose skeptical arguments they were explicitly a response.
    Kant uses the language of faculty psychology, but he claims to be defining the a priori limits and contradictions of pure reason itself. He took himself to be overthrowing over a thousand years of allegedly "dogmatic" metaphysical thought, and many philosophers in his day and ours have at least partially accepted his contention.
    Even in the 21st-century United States, it's basically mandatory to have someone who can teach Kant in even small philosophy departments—and it's not unusual for larger departments with graduate programs to have more than one Kant specialist. His influence is much larger than that of logical positivism or Heidegger/Derrida, which both have their own paragraphs, and I do not think this is only because he has century on them. Patrick (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The current version does not present Kant as an extension of Hume. It says that according to one type of criticism, humans cannot aquire metaphysical knowledge. It gives Hume and Kant as two examples of this position. The sentence on Hume is a little longer than the sentence on Kant so we could add a little extra information on Kant. Do you have something specific in mind?
    Looking at Van Inwagen, Sullivan & Bernstein 2023, § 5. Is Metaphysics Possible?, it has one sentence specifically on Hume, one sentence specifically on Kant, and roughly two paragraphs on logical positivism. Since this source is quite short, we could have a look at more sources, but I'm not sure that Kant is significantly more important in this specific context than Hume or logical positivism. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not say that Kant is an extension of Hume, but it is misleading to describe as presenting as "a similar objection" a book that explicitly claims to refute the basic position of Hume.
    The content I have in mind is what I have already described, which is found mostly in the Prefaces to the first Critique and at the overview sections at the beginning and end of the Transcendental Dialectic. This material will feature prominently in any general introduction to Kant and will also be included in any general introduction to Western philosophy.
    I'm afraid, however, I must beg off any sourcing debates, as these have been non-productive in the past. I'm going to give either support or weak support for promotion depending upon whether I think you've adequately addressed the concerns I raise. Just please take what's useful. Patrick (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I reformulated the introductory clause to avoid the term "similar" and I expanded the explanation of Kant's position to include ideas from the Transcendental Dialectic. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still find the paragraph on computer science to be off-topic—even under the header "Relation to other disciplines". It's perfectly well-written and appears well-sourced, but it's just not what's described in the "Definitions" section at the beginning. Maybe another reviewer could weigh in so that there is a consensus of at least two in either direction? It's hardly a deal-breaker for FAC, but I think this article would be stronger without it.
    This topic is discussed in Hawley's 2016 article "Applied Metaphysics" as one of the main sections, so I don't think it's off-topic. The question would probably be more whether our article gives too much weight to this topic. The paragraph currently stands at 165 words. On solution might be to reduce the length. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a good middle ground. Maybe though give other editors at least another day to weigh in on entirely keeping or removing it? If I'm off-base here, I'd rather just be overruled than make a compromise that leaves neither of us quite happy. Patrick (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting in the 4th century BCE, Hellenistic philosophy explored the rational order underlying the cosmos and the idea that it is made up of indivisible atoms. This is true, but atomism predates the Hellenistic period. I would consider leaving that part out and maybe just expanding on the conception of the universe as an ordered cosmos.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It maybe just seemed too obvious to mention, but the influence of Christianity on Medieval thought merits at least a sentence or two.
    I included this in the first sentence of the paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • William of Ockham (1285–1347 CE) proposed Ockham's razor, a methodological principles to choose between competing metaphysical theories. Unless he actually did name it after himself, I would find some way to reword.
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add some kind of description of the social context marking the beginning of the modern period. For this article, it would probably be enough just to say something about the Scientific Revolution.
    I mentioned the Renaissance instead since this is how Hamlyn 2005 proceeds. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hobbes is mostly known as a political philosopher today, but he took a very strong metaphysical stance that scandalized many at the time. I'd give him a sentence along with the others in that paragraph. (Nice to see Wolff included, by the way—massively influential, even if no longer read by non-specialists.)
    Which specific position of Hobbes do you have in mind? Hamlyn 2005 does not mention him and Hancock 2006 only has two sentences: "Thomas Hobbes, for example, argued that the accidents of body, such as shape or hardness, are the very "manner of our conception of body." To ask for a description of body apart from its accidents would be, for Hobbes, a senseless request." Phlsph7 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking of the first seven or so chapters of Leviathan. I haven't studied Hobbes closely enough to have a position on him that would be OR, but I don't recall what I read that left me with such a strong impression of his controversial materialism. In spite of his professed Christianity, he was widely regarded as an atheist not to be associated with. A very quick skim of the SEP entry seems to support this. Patrick (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep the idea in mind in case I come across an overview source that gives more attention to Hobbes but the ones I checked so far don't seem to give him a particularly prominent role in the history of metaphysics. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) developed a comprehensive system of philosophy that examines how absolute spirit manifests itself. It's just spirit that manifests itself; what's absolute is just a certain form of its self-knowledge. It might be best, though, to find some less cryptic way to describe Hegel. Readers who don't already know are unlikely to correctly guess much of what he means by "spirit".
    I removed the word "absolute" but I'm also open to other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The centerpiece of Hegel's metaphysics is his Logic, in which spirit is mentioned only incidentally. What about something like this: "Hegel's idealistic contention is that reality is conceptual all the way down, and being itself is rational."
    Sources:
    • Houlgate, Stephen (2005). An introduction to Hegel: Freedom, Truth, and History (2nd ed.). Blackwell. p. 106
    • Stern, Robert (2008). "Hegel's Idealism". In Frederick C. (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Hegel and Nineteenth-Century Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. p. 172
    Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Dialectics,_speculation,_idealism could also be mined for alternatives. Patrick (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good, I replaced the sentence with your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heidegger's philosophy inspired general criticisms of metaphysics by postmodern thinkers like Jacques Derrida (1930–2004). I would nix "postmodern thinkers". Aside from the issues with this being an American term applied quite sloppily to a disparate group of French philosophers, the main thing that actually does (at least kind of) unite them is disillusionment with Marxism, not any metaphysical commitments.
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am following and will try to respond promptly to queries. I do not expect to propose any changes beyond those above.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Patrick and thanks for answering the call to take another look at the article! Concerning the general issue, I don't think there are hard rules about how much historical context to provide. If a position can be traced back to a single author, this is often easy to do without distracting from the main point being discussed. In cases where the historical context is more complex, I usually find it better to focus on the position itself and leave the discussion of its historical evolution to the history section or the child article dedicated to the topic. If you have some specific cases in mind, you could list them here and we could have a look at how feasible it is to briefly mention their historical context. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that historicize everything, which would indeed quickly become unmanageable. More historical markers, however, would help orient readers who have a little knowledge of the history of philosophy (which is probably not unusual among those who read past the lead). This would also assist such readers with their comprehension of the subject matter because they would be able to supply background context not possible to include in the article.
The first section where I became confused was the opening paragraph of "Particulars". The language of "substratum" made me think of Aristotle and hypokeimenon, bundles made me think of Hume, and haecceity is Scholastic. Even if there's no specific philosopher to whom substratum theory can be attributed, it would be nice to at least have some indication of the period in which they were synthesized into a unified theory (this, of course, on the assumption my associations are correct). This could be as general as "in the modern period" or "analytic philosophers, building on a lengthy tradition, formulated".
"Mereology" is a daunting word, but it would be easy to mention that the topic goes back to at least Plato. (Incidentally, I've pretty much only seen what the article calls the "problem of the many" called "the problem of the one and the many". Follow the sources, obviously, but readers looking for more would probably have better luck searching for the longer name.)
In the next section, "Universals" a clause could be added to mention that the nominalist—conceptualist debate began in the Middle Ages or that it is Scholastic in origin.
Wherever it's not possible to include this kind of information with the addition of a simple clause or a very short sentence, I agree that it should be omitted.
If you're set against this, I'm not interested in arguing the point. But I don't think it would take long or noticeably add to the length of the article to go through add such information where this can be done in a way that will not distract readers from the actual topic of discussion.
Oh, and a Happy New Year to you and the other editors who have been working on this!
Cheers, Patrick (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found ways to include your suggestions, either as brief remarks in the text or with help of footnotes. I think the terms "the problem of the many" and "the problem of the one and the many" are both used, possibly with slightly different meanings. Our explanation follows the Stanford Encyclopedia article "The Problem of the Many", so in terms of terminology, we should be on the safe side. Happy New Year to you as well! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great. I would have continued to go through and include more historical markers. But, although I think this would further improve the article, it is a matter about which reasonable people may disagree editorially and philosophically. I'm not going to insist.
Just a few final point:
  • According to the orthodox view, existence is a property of properties I missed this when transferring my markup of the article to this page. "Orthodox" is quite strong. Are the sources strong enough to support it? If in doubt, perhaps chose a different word or add some kind of qualification or attribution.
  • Should "substratum theory" wikilink to Substance theory? If so, would it be worth also creating a redirect?
  • Since no one has spoken up about the computer science material, perhaps just shorten it a little, if possible?
Otherwise, I have reviewed your edits and am satisfied that my concerns have been addressed.
Cheers, Patrick (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Casati & Fujikawa use the term "orthodox view" in their lead section. I changed it to "traditionally influential view", which I hope gets the same message across. I added the wikilink to substance theory and I reduced the computer science paragraph to under 100 words. Thanks again for your review! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome!
I've now read the article from start to finish several times. It was in great condition when I started this review, and I hope that my comments have further improved it. Although I have not responded to all responses here (because I'm trying to work quickly and there are a lot of separate threads), I have individually reviewed all edits. Even where the nom proceeded differently than I would have, I understand and accept their rationale.
For these reasons, I am happy to add my support to the promotion of this article. Patrick (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • I ran (just) the draft TFA blurb past a philosopher of my acquaintance. She was happy apart from querying "some theorists view it as an inquiry into the fundamental categories of human understanding", as she would have considered this epistemology. She did not read the article, so would I be correct in assuming that 1. this was a misunderstanding caused by her missing the significance of "categories", and 2. that this is still a view held by a significent proportion of theorists? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Gog and thanks for the draft of the TFA blurp! The alternative definition is discussed in our article in the 4th paragraph of the section "Definition". From Loux & Crisp 2017 Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction p. 1: [The aim of metaphysical knowledge] is to delineate the most general structures at work in our thought about the world. This Kantian conception of metaphysics continues to enjoy popularity among contemporary philosophers, who insist that metaphysics has as its aim the characterization of our conceptual scheme or conceptual framework.
    Your philosopher acquaintance is right that there is a connection to epistemology since one of the reasons for this definition of metaphysics comes from epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and some philosophers argue that we can't know ultimate reality but we can know the conceptual framework of human understanding, which is why they define metaphysics this way. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I replaced "fundamental categories" with "conceptual framework" to avoid misunderstandings about the term "categories" and to stay closer to the language in the source. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 159: Remes 2014 should be 'pp.", not "p.".
    Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ásta 2017, any reason why her full name is not given? (Ásta Kristjana Sveinsdóttir)
    In the book, the author is simply given as "Ásta" and our article says that she publishes as "Ásta". I'm not sure what the best approach is for this type of case. An alternative would be to give her full name and cite her using her last name "Sveinsdóttir". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an Icelandic name; the last name is a patronymic. Icelandic people are generally referred to by their given name only, even in formal/written contexts, unless there's some potential ambiguity with another person of the same name. If you did want to distinguish her in this way, you'd call her "Ásta Sveins".UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah. :-) I believe the usual treatment of Icelandic names is Sveinsdottir as the lastname and Ásta as firstname. Ambiguity: try Professor John Smith. My favourite is [2].
Not quite: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Iceland/Style advice. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a few other publications like [3] and [4]. They also just use "Ásta", so I think we are following the established practice here. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: where a source is a chapter or similar of a book or similar the page range should be given.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 January 2025 [5].

I Got That

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2000, American rapper Amil seemed poised for stardom. By this time, she had already been featured on a string of successful Jay-Z singles. Her album, All Money Is Legal, seemed to be the moment to build on this momentum. This article is about that album's lead single, which includes Beyoncé in one of her earliest features outside of her girl group Destiny's Child. However, the single and the album underperformed, and Amil dropped out of the public eye. This song is now just a footnote in Jay-Z and Beyonce's larger careers.

I have always been interested in reading about artists who are seemingly so close to success, but things just do not work out for them. Thank you to @Courcelles: who did the GAN review back in 2018 and to @Medxvo:, @MaranoFan:, and @Heartfox: for their help during the peer review. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated! Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (passed)

[edit]
  • File:IGotThatSingleCover.jpg Recommend providing more detail in the source field, to ensure that we have sufficient detail to find it should it go missing.

Prose comments:

  • Worth mentioning why Eve featured in the music video when none of the other female rappers mentioned appeared?
  • The article does not connect the other female rappers with the music video. The comment about them is a critic's opinion about why this song might have underperformed, as there was was a lot of competition with female rappers at the time, and it even comes after the discussion about the music video. There would be no reason to assume or wonder why anyone else is not present in the music video. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the source just says that Eve makes a cameo appearance in the music video without going into further detail. I would guess that she was included as the song is all about female independence so there was a decision to include more women, but that is just pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crisco 1492: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything both in the image and prose reviews. Let me know if there is anything that could be improved upon. I hope that you are having a great day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • I think chorus can be wikilinked in the article (since we're already linking verse)
  • "Beyoncé's vocals were described as breathy by Unterberger, and as "buttery" by Camille Augustin in Vibe" - why quotation marks for "buttery" but not "breathy"?
  • I did not use quotation marks for "breathy" as from what I have read, it is a more common description for a vocal performance, while "buttery" seemed like a more uniquie description so I kept the quotation marks for that one. Hopefully, that makes sense, but let me know if this could be improved upon further. Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all. Amazing work :) Thanks for pinging. Medxvo (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Medxvo: Thank you for your help and for your kind words. I greatly appreciate it. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if there was something that I either missed or that could be improved upon. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Medxvo (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]
  • "She co-wrote the track with its producers" I think "wrote" should suffice
  • "being promoted as its First Lady" is the First Lady moniker supposed to be in quotation marks?
  • "still a part of the girl group Destiny's Child" inconsistent use of false titles
  • Unrelated but I listened to the sample and this song has "Y2K" written all over it lol, so nostalgic
  • "shopping at stores, including René Lezard" is this French-sounding store notable?
  • Probably not. This store was singled out in the source, which is why I included it here, but since it does not have a Wikipedia article or appear to be notable on its own, I have removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Billboard reviewer" only "Billboard" would do imo
  • I would prefer to keep it if possible. I do understand and appreciate your suggestion, but I was trying to keep the prose consistent as in other instances I used the critic name when it is known so I was trying to avoid going between using the name and work/publisher to just the work/publisher and back if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Says Who of the Michigan Chronicle" is this a pseudonym?
  • I believe that it is a pseudonym. Weirdly enough, the clipping, and the entire newspaper issue, are no longer available on Newspapers.com. I have removed the link from the citation. I still see the preview of it in my clippings on Newspapers.com, but clicking on it leads to an error screen. Do you think I should remove the citation because of this? I was honestly quite surprised by this, but it did help me to find an additional source in ProQuest. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Ippantekina (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ippantekina: Thank you for your help. I believe that I have addressed everything. I have run into some issues with Newspapers.com where it seems like an entire newspaper issue was pulled so I did ask above about what you think the best course of action would be for this. I could not find this article on other newspaper archives or on other places online. It is quite frustrating and odd as I was able to access this just fine only a week or two ago. Apologies for ranting about that. I hope that you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link was archived. Heartfox (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link, and I am sorry for not thinking about checking for an archived version of it. I was just more so surprised and confused by this change. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my comments and kudos to Heartfox for the archived URL. Support on prose. If you are available, I'd appreciate your comments at my latest FAC :) Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and for the kind words. I will look at your FAC in the near future, but please message me on my talk page if for whatever reason, I have not posted anything by this time next week. I hope you are have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

Two reviews on GenealogyBank may be of use:

Heartfox (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

I am not missing another Aoba nom :) comments within the week hopefully! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi! Sorry for the delay, I got a cold and my brain was full of goop that made me stupid. Been slowly working through my backlog of stuff I'd said I'd do, and here I finally am.
  • No need to apologize. I hope that you are feeling better. There has been a lot of cold and flu going around in my area, and it is always best to prioritize your health and well-being first. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as with Jay-Z" - "along with" might flow a little more smoothly
  • Suggest moving the lyrical content earlier, perhaps before the production and sampling details
  • I might revise the sentence about Beyonce a bit. For the first half, I thought it was saying Amil had been in DC, and was surprised to see Beyonce. It might also be worth noting that it was her management lending her. Something like "Beyoncé performs the song's chorus and backing vocals, as her label was trying to assess her viability as a solo artist outside of her girl group Destiny's Child." maybe?
  • That does makes sense. It is better to not bury the subject of the sentence, especially when introducing a new person and making such a strong pivot from one person to the other. I have used your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest trimming the retrospective sentence a bit, perhaps to something like "According to retrospective articles, the song has largely been forgotten or overlooked since its release"? "not well-remembered" is fairly redundant to both of those
  • I reorganized para 2 a bit so it went song info, chart performance, then reception; feel free to revert if you don't like it
  • Thank you for that. It looks much better to me. I have changed some of it as the reviews on Beyoncé are actually all retrospective and not contemporary to the song's release. I have tried to clarify that in the lead, but please let me know if it needs further work. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " would continue to collaborate with" can probably be trimmed to "collaborated with"
  • You could probably trim "during this time", I think it's clear from context
  • Not sure the vocals for "Girlfriend" need to be called out, since DeLuca was also referring to this song
  • I might give some context for Eve, since if you don't know she's an early 2000s rapper, you might think of the Biblical Eve and have lots of questions
  • Agreed. I have added "American rapper" as the description. I was on the fence between that or "female rapper", as her being a woman seems more relevant to her appearance in a music video for a song about female independence, so let me know if that would be a better option. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got! It's a nice tight little article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

Placeholder 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems consistent. I've been told once that the via parameter shouldn't say Google Books, but I am not sure that it is correct at all. Did some light spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the source review. I would be more than happy to remove the Google Books via parameter if necessary. I just thought it would be nice to fully inform readers about the citation before they click on it so they are not surprised by anything, in a similar way to how I have used the Newspapers.com via parameter. But, again, I would be okay with removing it if there is a consensus against it. Thank you again for your help, and I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must confess that I am not sure myself if that parameter use is right or wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

  • I read through the article and didn't notice any prose concerns.
  • I checked the lead and infobox: the only thing that wasn't cited is "Work It Out" as Beyonce's next single chronologically, but I don't think that is incredibly important for this article.
  • I could add a part about this in the article, but that single is quite removed from this particular song so it would feel a bit random. From my experience, song articles really do not cite the information about the preceding and following singles, especially when they are from unrelated albums. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Release and reception" section is a little large, both in the content it covers and its prose size. I suggest splitting this section into two: "Release and music video" (first two paragraphs) and "Reception" (last three paragraphs).
  • That is fair. I had gone back-and-forth with this one. I kept the chart information in the release section as that has always seemed more tied into how a song is released as a single and is promoted as opposed to the critical response. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third and fourth paragraphs of the "Release and reception" fall into the "X says Y" pattern. I think that these paragraphs can be better formatted, and rely less extensively on the quotes. WP:RECEPTION is an essay I constantly re-read for ideas on how to do this.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if there is anything else that could be improved upon. I hope you are having a wonderful start to your new year! Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns have been addressed and resolved. I like the split into "Release and promotion" and "Critical reception" and the latter fixes the "X says Y" concerns. Thanks for your responses. Z1720 (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. I am glad that you liked my edits. I find reception sections to be difficult to write in general so I am always happy when I go in the right direction when revising them. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 January 2025 [6].

Obsessed (Olivia Rodrigo song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 11:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving onto a (somewhat?) bigger hit from Guts to spice things up, here is "Obsessed" from the album's deluxe edition. The song was a major highlight from her Guts World Tour and a fan-favorite long before she finally got around to releasing it as a single. There is something about Rodrigo's music that can make one feel like an angsty teenager no matter how old they are, and this song is a good example of that! I am sure reading it will be just as fun as it was writing it. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.NØ 11:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NegativeMP1

[edit]

I'll review this one as compensation for failing to review Can't Catch Me Now when it was at FAC. I'll get to this when I clear out the backlog of other articles I'm reviewing at the moment, shouldn't take any more than a few days. λ NegativeMP1 22:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I waited for Chris and Medxvo to complete their own reviews of the article before I went ahead and did mine since I knew it'd take a bit, and I think after that there's no prose issues I can really identify. The article looks great, so I'm giving my support. λ NegativeMP1 22:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]
  • "two minutes and 50 seconds long" - "2 minutes and 50 seconds long" / "two minutes and fifty seconds long"—MOS:NUMNOTES
  • "He plays guitar; St. Vincent plays guitar; and Garret Ray plays drums" - "played"?
  • "Obsessed" is also about insecurity, channeling the negative inner voice in teenagers' minds and their persistent obsessive and envious thoughts" - shouldn't there be an oxford comma here? otherwise it's kind of confusing
  • "described "Obsessed" as a "banger" ..... added that it was a "banger" like Katy Perry's song ..." - too many bangers here? :d
  • "Miss Still His 'Closest Friend'" - "Miss Still His 'Closest Friend'"
  • "It concludes with her cleaning up ..." - "The video concludes with her cleaning up ..."
  • "On the Guts World Tour, "Obsessed" appears ..." - "On the Guts World Tour (2024–2025), "Obsessed" appears
  • "the "most badass moment" ..." - "the show's "most badass moment" ..."
  • Why are we not including the certifications in the lead?
  • Check if you can use this source instead of the YouTube reference

That's all I've got, hope the comments are helpful. Best of luck! Medxvo (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the helpful comments! All of these should be addressed now. I hope you are enjoying the weekend.--NØ 06:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Medxvo (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • ""Obsessed" became Rodrigo's seventh song to reach the top 10 on the Pop Airplay chart and ninth on the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart. " - given that these charts don't have "country-specific" names and you just named a load of different countries, maybe specify that these two charts are American.....?
  • "Dan Nigro produced every single track on it" - the word "single" is redundant and can be removed
  • "12 of the 25 songs recorded made it onto the standard edition of Guts" - probably not technically wrong but I always think that a sentence starting with a number written in digit form doesn't look great. Any way to reword....?
  • "St. Vincent played guitar" - link St. Vincent, who hasn't been mentioned at this point
  • "It later incorporates ripped guitars, warped vocals" - not sure what either of these adjectives means in this context, is there a link or an alternative explanation?
  • There is no relevant wiktionary entry on either, unfortunately. I have swapped out "warped vocals" for "distorted vocals", but replacing "ripped" with "shredded" like the Billboard Philippines source states might hurt rather than help so I have kept the current wording.
  • "He and the Official Charts Company's George Griffiths described "Obsessed" as a "banger"" => "He and the Official Charts Company's George Griffiths both described "Obsessed" as a "banger""
  • "it was a good song like Katy Perry's "I Kissed A Girl" (2008) and Charli XCX's album Sucker (2014)." - this wording is a little odd - the writer thought that "Sucker" (an album) was "a good song".....?
  • Not critical to this review, but bear in mind that the various present tense verbs describing her performances on the Guts tour will need to be changed to past tense once the tour ends
  • That is what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

I kinda wonder what File:OlivaRO2150524 (56) (53727618955) (cropped).jpg adds. Otherwise, don't notice anything untoward. I am pretty sure I've reviewed these sources on other articles already, they might be a bit so-so at times but the only one I wonder about is this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks a lot for doing the image and source reviews. I am pretty sure the image is of Rodrigo performing this song (performance), and as a CC image is an appropriate one to accompany the adjacent section about the tour performances. The Forty-Five was discussed by WP Albums very recently and is an extremely high-quality source "created by a collective of female-led music journalists, creatives and photographers".--NØ 12:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved comments
  • Even when sourced within the prose, it seems redundant to list "rock" in infobox when the subgenres pop rock and dance-rock are already there
  • I would omit rock had the same source described the song as all of these genres, but Billboard blanket characterized it as a "rock song" and only that, which is noteworthy and meets our EXPLICITGENRE guidelines.
  • Component charts aren't even half as important as primary charts when the former doesn't represent overall popularity within a nation unlike the latter. I think we can safely take the components out of the lead, and either way singling out the US with a whole sentence focusing on the country feels arbitrary at best when that wasn't even where the song got its highest peak (that instead would be the UK at number 10). Let's not tilt this too far into Americanism.
  • While this might be true in general, "Obsessed" has only entered radio charts in North America and achieved the milestone of going top 10. A Billboard author described it as a "radio hit" in the context of this, so I would prefer to keep it. An artist's home country being the first column in Discography tables is also common practice, and that is not considered to constitute Americanism, so I would make a similar argument here.
  • I get what you're saying here, but my point on Americanism wasn't about mentioning one's home country first. It's actually concerning the fact that the lead puts more detail/emphasis there (especially when going out of its way to mention that debut instead of simply focusing on highest spot reached) than anywhere else. I would've had an easier time understanding the increased focus for cases where a nation has its highest overall peak or perhaps achieves a certain record with their stats in that market. Without components, what I would've gone for was a singular sentence consolidating multiple peaks of primary charts. At least you thankfully did add non-American certifications to balance things out somewhat (therefore it's not entirely US-centric) and aren't just blindly taking an oversimplified stance along the lines of "treat US numbers as most important because America matters the most no matter what". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved things around to place emphasis on the only country where it reached the official chart's top 10, the UK. Hopefully, this is satisfactory.--NØ 11:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking "certification" isn't necessary per WP:OVERLINK when that's a widely known term
  • Removed.
  • What exactly is "if she was cosmopolitan" supposed to mean?
  • Well-traveled, aligning with the Cambridge definition of the word as "someone who has experience of many different parts of the world" and the Collins definition as "a person who has lived and travelled in many countries".
  • I'm not convinced it's relevant to give years for "I Kissed a Girl" or Sucker within "Critical reception". Same goes for the other Rodrigo tracks named under "Live performances".
  • I think it is best to make this information available without readers unnecessarily having to click on links to find it. I could see somebody else not including them, though, and the removal would not be too detrimental to readers' understanding.
  • There's an odd discrepancy with File:Olivia Rodrigo - Obsessed.ogg where the file page says 17 seconds while the article here gives a total of 18 (unless I click to play it). Which total is accurate? Remember that we can only have 10% or less of the total duration per WP:SAMPLE when songs are under 5 minutes long (in this case 170 seconds).
  • I had only uploaded 17 seconds, and clicking play on or downloading the file shows the same duration. This issue remains unresolved for 10 years now...

Overall this looks pretty close to FA material. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, SNUGGUMS. I am glad you are enjoying reading the Rodrigo articles. I feel like I started working on this project so randomly? Lol.--NØ 07:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, and I left replies above. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now support following the article's improvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 January 2025 [7].

Pulgasari

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Pulgasari, an absurd 1985 North Korean/Japanese/Chinese monster movie by a kidnapped South Korean filmmaker. It's been 39 years since its production, and the film has become a cult classic worldwide. I have done some major reworking of this page over the last few months, and so far it has since been listed as a good article and received a copyedit. This is my third time nominating an article for FA. Thanks in advance to anyone who offers any feedback. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
Emerging from the void to offer mt support. Looking over the article, I don't see any issues with sources or prose. The only issue would be making sure the image licenses are fully clarified as free to use and (or) have the right attributions to satisfy the WP:NFCC#8. Other than that, well done. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Pulgasari_poster_japan.jpg has a dead source link and incomplete FUR
  • File:19660529申相玉.jpg has a dead source link and is missing info on first publication
I believe I've fixed the link and FUR problems on File:Pulgasari_poster_japan.jpg and File:Pulgasary.png but there's not much I can do for File:19660529申相玉.jpg, as that one's source appears inaccessible, not dead. Could remove that and Kim's photo and replace them with a non-free one of Shin and Kim together. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just changed File:19660529申相玉.jpg to the Non-free use file File:Shin, Kim Il Sung, and Choi.png from the year of the film's production. I will remove it if its use is deemed unacceptable by anyone. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment about this file's non-free use at User talk:Eiga-Kevin2#File:Shin, Kim Il Sung, and Choi.png for more details, but I don't think this non-free use can be justified per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: @Marchjuly: My apologies for changing File:19660529申相玉.jpg to a non-free use file. I believe I have now done the right thing by replacing it with a fairly rare photo of Shin that is in the public domain in the United States and South Korea. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how is this now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Shin_Sang-ok_(1964).png: when specifically did this become PD in South Korea? Did its publication include a copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's publication did not include a copyright notice. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it known when it became PD in South Korea? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything else about the image, no republishing no nothing anywhere else. It's seemingly PD in the US regardless because it was published without copyright notice and outside the US. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that make it PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the PD template: since it was first published outside the U.S. & "before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States." Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That template requires that all three points be met, including the last: "it was in the public domain in its home country (South Korea) on the URAA date (1 January 1996)". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that image until I can find proof it was PD by 1996 in the US. Do you think all the other images' FUR are fine now by the way? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FURs are fine; Kim image is missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thank you for the swift reply. I've now added the alt text. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seefooddiet - support

[edit]
I didn't look at KOREANNAME, I just went by consulted my Korean friend about the English spelling of them a few times and went by Google Translate elsewhere. I'll do my best to re-write the names based on WP:NCKOREAN henceforth but might need more assistance. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can try this automatic converter [8] to get the Revised Romanization spellings. The converter is sometimes incorrect though; if you give it your best effort I can go through later and correct mistakes seefooddiet (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Google Translate doesn't produce the romanizations we prefer for Korean; see MOS:KO-ROMAN, second row of the table seefooddiet (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not replying sooner, I've been quite busy lately. I'll fix any romanizations that are incorrect over the next few days. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed all of the romanizations now as far as I can tell. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some possible mistakes in ref romanizations. What would make these not mistakes is if you've seen these specific people using this spelling for their surnames.
  • "Moon" -> "Mun" for "Moon, Seok"
  • "Noh" -> "No" for "Noh, Sun-dong"
  • "Choi" -> "Choe" for "Choi, Yeong-chang"
  • For the Kim, Jung-ki ref I'm not seeing the author's name given on the article website. Is his name spelled 김중키 or 김중기? I suspect it's the latter; former is uncommon. If so, it should be "Kim Jung-gi".
Other comment:
  • Cast and production section also need to be romanized per WP:KOREANNAME. These spelling systems will unfortunately vary by person, depending on who is North Korean and who is South Korean. North Koreans use McCune–Reischauer, South Koreans Revised Romanization. If you don't know a person's nationality, I think assuming North Korean by default is fine.
seefooddiet (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "Moon", "Noh", and "Choi" per your suggestions. Kim Jung-ki's name is spelled 金重基 in the source and I've found it hard to directly translate. And for the staff and cast, I've already done some research on most of them and it seems Shin is the only one whose nationality is confirmed to be South Korean (IMDb does claim the film's star, Chang Son-hui, was born in South Korea but I can't find their source for that and a source in this article indicates otherwise). So probably keeping their names as McCune–Reischauer translations would be fine I presume. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[9] 基 -> "gi". Unfortunately "重" can be read either 중 (jung) or 동 (dong). I can't find for certain what his name is through googling, but I suspect it is "Jung-gi". Think it's minimally harmful to put that down.
The MR for the cast and production crew are incorrect; I'll fix them. I'll just leave Shin Sang-ok's name as it is. seefooddiet (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gave it a pass; you'll need to verify that the new spellings are consistent throughout the article although I gave it a solid try.
Notes:
  • I try to avoid putting Korean text glosses in infoboxes; some of the names in there are not in the body of the article and effectively unsourced I think. Once you also put them in the body, you should also move the glosses to the body too.
  • It's possible that 유경애 (Yu Kyŏngae)'s surname should be changed. It's reasonably common for the surname 柳 to be written 류 (ryu) in North Korea and 유 (yu) in South Korea due to dialect (similar to how 李 is 리 (ri) in North Korea and 이 (i) in South Korea), although this is not universal practice. Some South Koreans use Ryu and probably vice versa. South Korean sources sometimes South Koreanize these surnames by default, regardless of the personal preference of the person, although they did give "리" consistently. Tl;dr to be extra correct this person's name could be researched; probably a North Korean poster with Korean writing would work.
seefooddiet (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These translations seem mostly fine but I think Chŏng Kŏnjo should be changed back to Chong Gon-jo since that's what Satsuma and Western sources call him. Also, maybe we could hide the translations within the article's source (using the <!-- --> thing) and use those translations featured on the English-langauge poster instead? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for long answer, romanizing Korean is complicated.
  • Yes you can change back "Chong Gon-jo" if you have know of wide attestation to that spelling, per step #1 of WP:KOREANNAME.
  • For your second use of "translations", do you mean the orig Hangul text? See here for an explanation of why we would want to display Hangul. Also few non-Wikipedians know about invisible comments (<!-- -->), which is why we generally display Korean text in article.
  • It's nice that we have an English-language poster, but some complications. Korean romanization is such a mess that a single attestation is often not enough to be confident in what spelling to use. E.g. on that poster it says "Pulgasary" on top; do we use that spelling? Instead of using the ad-hoc romanizations on the poster and risking confusion, it's often safer to default to a systematic romanization. This is what the community has settled on so far.
  • The above confusion is why we have the steps laid out in WP:KOREANNAME. Chong Gon-jo meets step #1, I'm not sure if the poster is sufficient evidence of step #2; it may be, but often enough romanizations for people names differ by appearance or even across time so it's hard to be sure.
seefooddiet (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright understood;
  • I've changed the co-director's name back to Chong Gon-jo and added sources for this.
  • Yes I meant the Hangul text. I think it's fine to have them on display, and was mostly asking because I'm just not a fan of them being in the infobox if the translations are mentioned elsewhere on the article.
  • As for the poster text, it coincides with how some older sources give the film the English title of "Pulgasary" so I'm thinking of mentioning that in the note for the film's title. And I don't think the name spellings on the poster apply with step #2 of WP:KOREANNAME after checking.
Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds good, thank you for working with me! Romanization of Korean is unfortunately complicated. If you ever run into a similar situation with Korean feel free to poke me.
On another note, I think the footnotes subsection and the citations subsection should possibly be merged; they're functionally the same thing. seefooddiet (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Will notify you if I experience any further problems romanizing Korean. And I've considered merging those sections btw, but the GA reviewer and a friend of mine seemed to like how the References section is formated (also it's something pages like Mission: Impossible – Fallout feature). Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to say—I support this article's FA nom. seefooddiet (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ZKang123

[edit]

If I'm correct, if this passes FAC, this might be one of the first North Korea-focussed article (outside of those related to the Korean War) to be given the bronze star. Let me have a look.

Lead:

  • Shin and his wife had remained in North Korea since 1978, when their kidnapping was initiated by Kim Jong Il, the country's heir apparent. – This wording is a bit odd, probably especially the use of "remained" as though the couple voluntarily stayed in North Korea. I might reword as: Shin and his wife were in captivity in North Korea since their kidnapping by Kim Jong Il in 1978. or another wording, if you prefer. Also wikilink their abduction.
  • Pulgasari was submitted in February 1985 – submitted to who and what for? Did Shin propose the film and submit it to Kim for approval? Also reading later, I would add "The pitch for Pulgasari was submitted..."
  • Its Japanese critical reception was positive... – Critical reception in Japan was positive...

I don't as much comments for the plot and cast list.

Production:

  • A collection of around 15,000[11][32] to 20,000[7][34] titles was reported to be in Kim's possession. New releases from around the globe were typically added to his collection shortly after opening in theaters. – Kim was reported to have a collection of 15,000 to 20,000 titles of Shin's films. Every new release from around the globe were typically added to his collection shortly after their opening in theaters.
  • the film industry there – the country's film industry
  • while a larger studio was under construction for the film. – while a larger studio was constructed for the film.
  • The Japanese crew developed the Pulgasari suit at Toho from April 28 to late May. Nobuyuki Yasumaru was in charge of modeling it – The Japanese crew developed the Pulgasari suit at Toho from April 28 to late May, with Nobuyuki Yasumaru in charge of modeling it
  • loved the reboot so much he sought – loved the reboot so much that he sought
  • Shin recalled that Kim had suggested making the monster resemble a cow. – Shin recalled Kim’s suggestion to design the monster resembling a cow.
  • For the sentence Pulgasari was ultimately set in Goryeo but..., I think it's a bit too long and could be split such that ...was based on the Forbidden City complex in Beijing. The special effects crew...
  • which covered approximately 20,000 pyeong – I think a conversion to SI units might be in order here. Especially for other mentions of pyeong.
  • Satsuma said about the destruction of the palace in the Pulgasari suit for the film, he was "impressed that the Chinese government could allow such an ambitious filming, even if it was just a movie". – Satsuma mentioned he was "impressed that the Chinese government could allow such an ambitious filming, even if it was just a movie" when talking about the destruction of the palace in the Pulgasari suit for the film.

Release:

  • According to many retrospective sources, the film was, however, banned both in North Korea and overseas in the wake of Shin and Choi escaping North Korean supervisors in Vienna on March 12 and subsequently fleeing to the United States. – According to many retrospective sources, the film was, however, banned both in North Korea and overseas when Shin and Choi escaped their North Korean supervisors in Vienna on March 12 and subsequently fled to the United States.
  • On January 21, 1995, Twin released Pulgasari on VHS in Japan – I was initially confused what is "Twin". Might clarify that.
  • but were all turned down. – but all were turned down
  • due to a cultural exchange agreement for the June 15th North–South Joint Declaration – Shouldn't it be "in the June 15th..." or "as part of the..."
  • Johannes Schönherr said contemporaneous publications cited many reasons – "...said... cited..." I might just say Johannes Schönherr cited many reasons or reword in another manner like Johannes Schönherr cited reasonings by contemporaneous publications on its failure in South Korea.

Reception:

  • South Korean reviewers also criticized the acting. – can further elaborate in what way from the source?
  • Shin rejected interpretations the film may have conveyed a message about North Korea's contemporaneous class conflict. – Shin rejected interpretations about the film's messages on North Korea's contemporaneous class conflict.

That's all I have. Great work for this article so far.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just revised everything here based on your suggestions, clarified that Kim's film collection was not just of Shin's movies, and specified what kind of company Twin is. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Additionally, I found another review by a freelance journalist on the film. --ZKang123 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123: Thanks! I've recently added that content from that review btw Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spotcheck

[edit]

Reviewing this version. What makes "レイジング・サンダー・ホームページ""大怪獣プルガサリ", "북한영화를 아십니까", アジア映画にみる日本", Incheon Ilbo, II Maeil Shinmun, www.fromthefrontrow.net and vantagepointinterviews.com a reliable source? The first three non-English sources also need some extra information on who is the publisher etc. Also, not necessarily an issue, but some citations are throwing incorrect "sfn error: no target: " errors. Spot-check:

  • 4 This needs a Japanese reader.
  • 6 Why does our article say republished?
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 This needs a Japanese reader.
  • 12 Doesn't have that much to say about politics.
  • 17 "Satsuma later said he adored Pulgasari and that he fondly remembered performing in it" doesn't show here. Everything else OK, but I note this source says that the film premiered in Osaka and Tokyo, not just Tokyo
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22 OK
  • 23 OK
  • 26 This needs a Japanese reader who has access to the book.
  • 30 Assuming that Google Translate is translating this correctly: Doesn't mention Raging Thunder or the under-1000?
  • 39 Doesn't say that Pulgasari was the seventh.
    OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40 OK
  • 63 This one uses a different page number format than the other sources. OK assuming that Google Translate isn't making stuff up.
  • 65 OK
  • 67 OK
  • 81 OK - I figure our article saying "controversial ideology" is a reasonable reading.
  • 86 This needs a Japanese reader who has access to the book.
  • 87 OK
  • 90 OK I guess.
  • 94 OK
  • 95 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorting out most of these now. The main issue is most of the Japanese publications are out of print. That's why I decided to translate their contents from Google Books. I've been learning Japanese for a while now and tried my best to make these things as accurate as I could. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, "レイジング・サンダー・ホームページ" is Raging Thunder's official website; "大怪獣プルガサリ" is the PDF of the film's 1995 flyer available on the Japanese archival website for movie flyers; "북한영화를 아십니까" is an article from the magazine Cine21 (which is generally conisdered reliable); アジア映画にみる日本" is a book by Takashi Monma (who's a critic and professor at Meiji Gakuin University); many articles also use Incheon Ilbo and Maeil Shinmun as sources because these are major newspapers in South Korea; fromthefrontrow.net is by a freelance journalist and was suggested by @ZKang123: in their review here; and vantagepointinterviews.com is a nonprofit site by very prolific interviewer Brett Homenick. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also just added publisher info for the first few non-English sources. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eiga-Kevin2, is this ready for Jo-Jo to relook at? If it is, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. @Jo-Jo Eumerus please take a look over the references again and my remarks. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marked some, but others still need review by someone who has source and language access. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt that anyone will have physical access to all these sources tbh but ok. I just used Google Books for most of the non-English ones. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus do you suggest I go ahead and remove some of the non-English books I've cited but only could access via Google Books since we can't verify directly? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'd prefer if someone checked them directly. I don't think verification convenience is a good reason to exclude sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eiga-Kevin2, if there are English language sources which cover much the same material as a foreign language source and are HQ RSs you are required to give preference to the English language source. See WP:NOENG "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance." Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that policy is what I had in mind when removing the non-English books yesterday Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eiga-Kevin2 I think you need native or near-native speakers to endorse the non-English sources and translations to pass a source review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eiga-Kevin2, what is the state of play with this? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I've replaced those non-English print sources and what they were used to cite with different content sourced from English books and articles. Also consulted a Japanese friend of mine on the Japanese websites sourced and he said they were accurate. Sorry for the late reply by the way I'm on holiday and lacking internet access this week. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Afternoon Jo-Jo, does this help at all? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tepid OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I shall add "Tepid ok" to the Jo-Jo source quality scale. And many thanks for struggling on through this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "that also depicts an eponymous creature from Korean folklore": the use of "eponymous" is not helpful here since the two films have slightly different names. Suggest "that also depicts the Pulgasari, a creature from Korean folklore".
    Pulgasari is used in North Korea to refer to the monster (based on how the cast pronounced the name within the film) and Bulgasari in the South. Sources on the creature's article suggest it is called Bulgasari. I think eponymous is fine since it isn't inaccurate. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I now realize there are two romanizations used for transliterating Korean, and per Bulgasari (creature) the creature's name can be rendered in the Latin alphabet as Bulgasari or Pulgasari. Are we relying on the cast's speech to pick "Pulgasari" for this article, or does the film have a standard transliteration in reliable sources that uses the "P"? And re "eponymous", since it mean "giving its name to something", I think it's confusing because it's not yet clear to the reader that Bulgasari and Pulgasari are the same creature -- in fact that sentence is how we tell the reader that, but it relies on them understanding that "eponymous" refers to both. You're certainly right that it's not inaccurate, but I think it's not clear to the reader what is meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just the cast saying "Pulgasari" that I'm replying upon here. Western sources covering the film's plot and other details usually say Pulgasari when refering to the legendary creature the monster is based upon as well as the film's title. Sources just covering the legend of the creature itself call it "Bulgasari". I could write "that also depicts the Bulgasari/Pulgasari, a creature from Korean folklore" Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be better than the current wording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who brings to life a metal-eating monster her late father envisioned": judging from the plot summary, he didn't just envision it, he created a figurine of it.
    Changed "envisioned" to "created" Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shin and his wife, Choi Eun-hee, were in captivity in North Korea since their kidnapping by Kim Jong Il in 1978.": Suggest "Shin and his wife, Choi Eun-hee, were kidnapped in 1978 by agents of Kim Jong Il, and held captive in North Korea." It wasn't Kim Jong Il who kidnapped them after all, and I think it's clearer to give the kidnapping and subsequent captivity in chronological order.
    Done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pulgasari was pitched in February 1985": "pitched" is a word from the film industry with the wrong connotations here -- it implies there was a pitch meeting at which a production company assessed the likely commercial success of the movie before deciding whether to make it. In fact it appears the movie was made under Kim Jong Il's direct orders, so there was no pitching involved. However, I do see further references to the pitch in the body of the article. If that's correct, who was it pitched to? Kim Jong Il?
    Changed "pitched" to "put forward" & the source directly says "The project was proposed in mid-February 1985" but never specifies who pitched it and who to. I could change it to say that's when development started. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be worth mentioning in the lead that there are doubts over whether Chong Gon-Jo really did finish the film; currently you say "allegedly" but I think it would be better to make it clear that it's not definite.
    Added "some sources suggest" Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With an estimated ¥200–300 million ($2–3 million) budget": I think the "¥" sign is used for both yuan and yen, so I can't tell what currency this is in, but why isn't it in North Korean won? And is the dollar amount based on 1985 exchange rates or has it been inflated to give the current value? If not I think we should do that.
    Added link to the yen page; source never specifies if the $2-3m is based on contemporary exchange rates or inflated. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is imprisoned and forced to starve for defending his people": "forced to starve" is an odd thing to say: to force someone to do something implies they must actively do whatever they're being forced to do, but starving is not active. Suggest just "is imprisoned and starved to death for defending his people. Shortly before he dies, ...". That's assuming his death is from starvation, as seems to be the case.
    Ok I've changed that. Yes the character dies of starvation in the film. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pulgasari shares a special bond with Ami; after eating a farmer's tools, it turns into a powerful figure." The first half of this sentence appears to be unconnected to the second half; any reason to put these two details in the same sentence?
    Fixed Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The peasants become fed up with being penurious and suffering": "penurious" is too formal a word for this context -- "... with their poverty and suffering" would do.
    Done Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The monster lets itself be trapped and is set ablaze to save Ami". The generals set it ablaze, and they don't do so to save Ami; the monster lets itself be trapped to save Ami.
    Changed to "The monster lets itself be trapped to save Ami and is set ablaze"
  • "which its enemies readily provide for hostilities": odd phrasing -- I think you mean that the weapons are often made of metal.
    Changed to "The king runs into Pulgasari, who wins many battles against his army because it devours their metal weapons." Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After defeating the king, Pulgasari becomes problematic; it starts eating the rebels' weapons and farmers' tools": "problematic" is the wrong word here. It might be easiest to cut the descriptive phrase and just say it starts eating the rebels' weapons and the farmers' tools.
    Agreed, done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kim Jong Il, the heir apparent of North Korea": suggest "Kim Jong Il, the heir apparent to Kim Il Sung, the ruler of North Korea".
    Done Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shin and Miyanishi stated that the film's story is based around Pulgasari or Bulgasari, a creature from Korean folklore." Do we need to attribute this inline? It's not as if there's any doubt about it, is it? Similarly, do we need "Furthermore, according to retrospective sources" in the next sentence? The titles alone and the existence of the folklore creature seem to make this clear enough.
    That's there because Shin nor anyone on the production team said anything about it being a remake, at least as far as I can find. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the sentence doesn't say anything about whether it's a remake; it only refers to the mythical creature, which (at least per our article on it) can be spelt either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. I've removed the "Shin and Miyanishi stated that" bit Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any coverage of why Toho decided to work on the film, despite Shin's involvement, or of the media reaction? I would have thought anyone apparently condoning Shin's kidnapping would be subject to a lot of media criticism.
    Can't find anything as to why they did but Satsuma seemed excited that he was going to work overseas. Nobody seemed to know Shin was kidnapped at the time. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's nothing in the sources there's nothing you can do, but it's surprising. Particularly as I see that the announcement that Shin and his wife had been kidnapped (rather than were just missing) came less than a year earlier; you'd think South Koreans would have been very aware of the situation. Anyway, I've struck the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The planning of Pulgasari was accredited to Shin": I think you just mean "credited".
    Done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shin showed no apparent interest": "showed" is redundant with "apparent"; you only need one or the other.
    Removed "apparent". Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to design the monster resembling a cow": poor syntax. Perhaps "to design the monster to resemble a cow", or "that the monster should resemble a cow".
    Went with the latter. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to set the film in China during the Three Kingdoms period if the historical research and costumes made it match": I don't know what "made it match" means. The Pulgasari is a folklore creature, so what historical research are we talking about? And what would the costumes have to match?
    Idk source spell that out. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does Shin mean by "ask the Chinese side to adjust it accordingly"?
    Source also doesn't spell that out. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For both this and the point above I don't think we can use material we don't understand. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. Removed them. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Through his Japanese office, Shin invited": but Shin was trapped in North Korea, so in what sense could he still be working with a Japanese office? And why "his" -- did he have an independent business in Japan that still existed?
    Shin was allowed to travel so long as he was supervised by North Korean bodyguards. He set up several offices (i.e. branchs of his North Korean company Shin Films that he and Kim set up) in other countries during his abduction. I've somewhat noted he had a branch in Vienna on the article already too. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Satsuma allegedly became the first foreigner to appear in a North Korean film." Why "allegedly"? Is there some doubt about the reliability of the source?
    Changed to "Satsuma believed that he became the first foreigner to appear in a North Korean film". Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The body qualifies the 13,000 extras with "some sources" but the lead doesn't qualify the number. If there's genuinely some doubt about it I think the lead should reflect that, or the number should be removed from the lead. And the body sources the comment about the Korean People's Army and the number of extras separately, so can I just check that the source does say those 13,000 came from the army? I had a look via Google Translate and as far as I can tell it doesn't say that.
    The army contributing the extras was based on Satsuma's statement underneath that sentence. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, since you've cut it from the lead and changed it in the body, but I don't think Satsuma's comment does support it -- rather the reverse, in fact, since he says the army would go and get the people, implying the people they brought were not in the army. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 20,000 pyeong figure needs an inline equivalent in square yards or acres or something similar.
    Will sort that out shortly Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Converted it to sq m & sq ft Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "filmed the Pulgasari suit wandering around a miniature village": the suit containing Satsuma? Or claymation or other animation?
    Unspecified in source Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which the Chinese crew had already been creating": we haven't been told about the Chinese before this -- is this Beijing Film Studio? What was their role?
    Just specified in the pre-production section Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due in part to electrical constraints and equipment theft": what were the electrical constraints? And more details about the problems with theft might be interesting, if the source says more about it.
    Electrical constraints aren't clear but one of those two sources mentions a power outage. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Satsuma named a scene in which Pulgasari rises over a hill while the rebels and king's army fight below the "Marusan", which he said is the name of the mound at which they filmed it." Why is this worth including? Is this just Satsuma's own name for the scene, or is it a famous scene in some way, with the name used by others?
    Not that notable so removed it altogether. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "purportedly reluctant to publicize Shin was the director": I think you mean "reportedly", not "purportedly", and perhaps "reluctant for Shin to be acknowledged as" would be better.
    Done Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm going to stop here and oppose. I'm only halfway through the article and this is a fairly long list of issues. Some are cosmetic and I've suggested fixes where I can see an easy solution, but some might be harder to fix. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Many of sentences you've asked me to change I'd previously changed based on the suggestions of other reviewers here and they seemed fine with them btw. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That has to be frustrating for a nominator, I agree. If you can point me at a couple of examples I'll see if I agree with them or if I can justify why I don't. I've struck a few points above and will go back through and reply to or strike the others, today if I have time. I have also struck the oppose for now since you've been quick about responding and have fixed many of the issues, and I wouldn't want to see this archived while we're going through the remaining points. I do still need to go through the rest of the article too, though I don't know how much time I'll have over the next couple of days. By the way, you might take a look at WP:INDENTMIX -- I corrected the indent syntax for your replies. For sighted editors it makes no differences, but editors who have to use a screen reader find mixed indent syntax very disruptive, so it's worth getting right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from reading the remainder of the article:

  • Did MBC broadcast Pulgasari on TV once the judge decided the broadcasting rights belonged to the production company? We don't actually say whether they did or not. And if they did so in 1999, that would have been before the ruling on whether the film contained Juche -- is that right? That is, the ministry has to rule on whether a film contains Juche before it can be distributed in theatres, but not before it airs on TV?
    No, I couldn't find anything to say they did show it on TV or not in the end. Seems like they gave up on that idea and decided to move on to try and show it in theaters. Yes, it all happened before the ruling anyway. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was under consideration to acquire screen quotas": I don't follow this -- this was a proposal to have a minimum quota for North Korean films? That seems unlikely.
    Specified it was being considered for screen quotas benefits in case they decided to handle films from the North like something of a domestic release. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. How about making it ".. was attracting controversy on whether films from North Korea should be handled as foreign or domestic distributions, and that it was being considered for classification as a domestic film, which would lead to it benefitting from the South Korean screen quota system"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Muju Film Festival worth a redlink? Currently it's an empty section in Muju County; probably not worth linking to that.
    Gave it a redlink for now. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the book was also published in April 1994": I would cut this unless you have a reason why the reader needs to know the book was reprinted.
    Rewrote and removed the date. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggested that Pulgasari was more evocative of": I don't think you need "more".
    I think the fully sentence it's apart of [i.e. "Pulgasari was more evocative of The Golem: How He Came into the World (1920) than the Godzilla series, which it is commonly compared to"] won't make sense with "more" because the reviewer is saying they think it is more like that movie than Godzilla. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right; I misread that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we can that Ryu Deok-hwan watched the film? We don't report his opinion of it.
    Source just says (per DeepL Translator): "To play Dong-gu, [Ryu] watched over 70 movies, including Billy Elliot and Hana and Alice [...] He even watched/studied the North Korean movie Pulgasari in case it would help." Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without that context the mention in the article seems random. Given that he watched scores of movies in preparation, and that there's no reason given as to why he thought this film would be helpful, I would just cut this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, done. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All the issues I was concerned about have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • "the film follows a blacksmith's daughter". Does "the film" refer to the film mentioned immediately prior, or to Pulgasari (or both)?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the film" is referring to only the one that the article covers. So I'm going with just changing that text to "Pulgasari follows ...". Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 January 2025 [10].

Donkey Kong

[edit]
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DK, Donkey Kong, DK, Donkey Kong is here (at FAC!). As the franchise that put Nintendo on the map, Donkey Kong's got one of the most bizarre and entertaining histories of any media franchise—did you know, for instance, that the 1981 original began as a Popeye game? Or that Shigeru Miyamoto, widely regarded as the Spielberg of video games, had never designed a video game before he had to create the big ape to save Nintendo from bankruptcy? Or that the franchise got a musical TV adaptation in the late '90s animated entirely through motion capture?

I've spent almost two years working on this article, from February 2023 until now. I think it paints a complete picture of the franchise's history, inner workings, and influence. I hope you enjoy reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it! JOEBRO64 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • "and the success of Taito's Space Invaders (1978)" While most readers would know, could add "Taito's video game Space Invaders".
  • " The $280 million windfall" I had no idea what this meant, could add "gain" to the term, as in the linked article, so it's easier to deduct.
  • "Four programmers from Ikegami Tsushinki spent three months turning them into a finished game." A bit unclear what "them" refers to, as the preceding sentence is very long.
  • "had won a lawsuit years prior" Perhaps more interesting and informative (and less wordy) to just give the date?
  • "Popeye became Mario" Perhaps worth stating in a footnote it was originally "Jumpman"? Here it makes it seem like if he had the Mario identity from the beginning.
  • "Donkey Kong's appearances in the years following Donkey Kong 3 were limited to cameos in unrelated games" Worth mentioning them in a footnote, or even in-text.
  • "It begins as a remake of the 1981 game before introducing over 100 puzzle-platforming levels that incorporate elements from Donkey Kong Jr. and Super Mario Bros. 2 (1988)." I think it's worth mentioning that Mario was again the protagonist.
  • "Miyamoto named "Beauty and the Beast" and the 1933 film King Kong as influences" Perhaps clarify "named the fairytale "Beauty and the Beast"", so readers don't assume the film.
  • "but the sprite was too big to easily maneuver" Perhaps add "the sprite graphic" or similar for clarity, as many readers might not understand what's implied.
  • "but was moved to the Wii with support for the peripheral dropped" should that be "when support for the peripheral dropped"?
    • I changed it to "moved to the Wii with no support for the peripheral"—the Wii does support the DK Bongos but for whatever reason Paon decided not to let you use them. JOEBRO64 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as closer in spirit to his work on Banjo-Kazooie than Wise's Country music" Maybe "than to Wise's Country music" for clarity?
  • "before it shifted to producing and importing anime" What is meant by "importing"?
  • "A Donkey Kong cartoon produced by Ruby-Spears aired as part of CBS's hour-long Saturday Supercade programming block in 1983" You give the number of episodes for the other series mentioned, why not for this one?
    • So it's two things. (1) It's not in the sources. (2) A lot of Saturday Supercade is considered lost media because rebroadcasts and rereleases are very rare and much of it was never recorded, I think it's possible that there were more episodes beyond the 13 ones listed at the Saturday Supercade article so that number could be inaccurate. Best to omit it if we don't have the sourcing. JOEBRO64 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eveline Novakovic's lastname was Fischer at the relevant period, would it make more sense to use the name she was credited as back then?
  • The intro says "The franchise has pioneered or popularized concepts such as in-game storytelling" while the legacy section mentions "The franchise's lack of storytelling". Seems contradictory? I'm also not seeing the former explained in the article body.
    • It's discussed in the legacy section, under effect on the industry. The "lack of storytelling" was referring to the fact the franchise doesn't have a super deep official backstory so I've clarified that. JOEBRO64 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some games without the Country branding" feels a bit convoluted, why not just "outside the Country series"?
  • You provide a long list of characters in the Country section under gameplay, perhaps worth mentioning the new player characters in the DK 64 part?
  • "Other villains include" Could specify that these are all post-Rare?
  • "A model of an original Donkey Kong (1981) arcade cabinet" Why use a miniature model? While perhaps not as nice an image, I think it would be more authentic to show an actual machine, like this free image:[12]
    • I chose a model as that was the one that was already on Commons, haha. I'll look into replacing it shortly JOEBRO64 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having looked into replacements, I think the model is actually the way to go. It actually shows gameplay and the joystick and buttons are a lot more discernable. Seems like other cabinet pics have been deleted but this has been scrutinized and deemed ok for Commons as well. JOEBRO64 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look good, I see four unaddressed points. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I'll be coming back to those shortly. I've been busy with school and work so my wiki-time's been a bit limited. I should have everything from everyone addressed by the weekend. JOEBRO64 14:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great to see this here, and hope to see more DK articles at FAC. I still think an authentic arcade machine would be better than the miniature, perhaps a suitable photo will turn up one day. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I'm keeping my eyes peeled for a better arcade photo, might make a trip to a local arcade that I know has a cab if I get the chance JOEBRO64 01:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fathoms Below

[edit]

Hey Joe, it's been a while right? This is a big step up from DKC so I'll save a spot here and I should have some comments up by next week. I also have a FAC open and would really appreciate some quick comments if you're available. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: working on comments right now! Fathoms Below (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you got a lot of comments on this one. Since my feedback would probably be less valuable at this point, I'll leave some prose comments and if you have a GAR or FAC in the future, you can ping me and I'll see what I can do. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from David Fuchs

[edit]

I'll have a proper run-through later, but some driveby thoughts for now:

  • For the purposes of the lead, how important is it to list all of the supporting characters? I ask partially because the "Rare's games expanded the cast" sentence is trying to pack a lot of information in, is a bit confusing (when you get to the end and we're talking about antagonists instead) and hits you with a ton of names that most people are not necessarily going to know anyhow.
    • How's it now? I chopped it down to only the characters who have articles (e.g. Mario and Pauline). I think "friendly Kongs" should suffice for the supporting characters; I kept mention of the Kremlings since they're the only recurring antagonists. JOEBRO64 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In both the lead and body, the text says "to provide a new game that could salvage the unsold Radar Scope cabinets", and I'm wondering if "salvage" makes sense here? They were taking the cabinets and putting a new game into them, correct, versus scrapping them for parts or the like, so "repurpose" maybe makes more sense?
  • I get trying to show the variety of games with File:Donkey Kong Country Gameplay Elements.png, but from a practical standpoint, especially given that the core formula is unchanged between them in terms of platforming and with the limitations of non-free content, I think it would make sense to use a single, higher-resolution screenshot.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, anything you want to add at this time? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I've got more comments coming, I just decided to let everyone else get theirs in first :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circling back with a few more comments; I did some minor copyedits, but I think it's for the most part in a pretty great place there, and I think the layout is sensible and straightforward—I appreciate the reduced focus on stats tables at the bottom end, and think I'll steal the approach for other franchise articles. A few other things:
  • While they were initially limited to including Donkey Kong Jr. as a playable character in Super Mario Kart (1992), the discussions led to the production of the Game Boy game Donkey Kong (1994),[1] the first original Donkey Kong game in ten years. — who or what was initially limited? If the idea is that ideas of reviving the franchise were limited to the inclusion of the character, it should probably be written more clearly.
    • I expanded it a bit with more information from the source. Should be clearer now—the implication was that Nintendo staff were too spread thin to start a large-scale DK project so including Jr. in Mario Kart was the best they could do JOEBRO64 03:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It achieved greater success when it was ported to the Switch in 2018, outselling the Wii U version within a week of release." No edits here, but noting my shock at how hilarious this line shows the success of the Switch/failure of the Wii U. Dang.
  • "Two Rare characters, Banjo the Bear and Conker the Squirrel, were introduced in Diddy Kong Racing ahead of starring in their own games,[1] Banjo-Kazooie and Conker's Bad Fur Day (2001).[1][2]" This is a bit duplicative of Banjo and Conker's mention earlier, and given that they're essentially cameos that aren't important to the DK franchise I would cut their mention here.
  • "Donkey Kong 64 blends Country elements with "collect-a-thon"" As a gamer I understand what collect-a-thons are, but I think it might be worth for the casual reader stopping and explaining this a bit better rather than just comparing it to other games they might not have played.
  • "Wise drew inspiration from" since this sentence immediately follows "Wise composed a replacement soundtrack [for the 2005 game]", it's unclear whether Wise drew inspiration for his work on DK in general from X, or whether he drew inspiration for the 2005 game.
  • Would probably be nice to have the sales table sortable.
  • Any of the statements that have more than three citations after them should probably get ref bundled.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheJoebro64 Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: sorry for the wait, I believe I've addressed everything JOEBRO64 03:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Happy to support now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Nice to see this at FAC. I'll review it during this week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does make Ref 214 (Madison) reliable?
  • Other than that, I did not spot any issues with reliability of sources. Some sources are situational but do not have any issues upon checking them. I don't think that I'd have enough time to do a proper source spotcheck though.

The article is quite long, so I'll only take a look at the lede and some parts of the body in detail and draw up my conclusion from it.

  • I did not spot any major issues in the lede. It reads to me quite well and covers important aspects of the franchise. Same goes for "1981–1982: Conception and first game" , 1995–2002: Franchise expansion", and "Original series".
  • "IGN said that Donkey Kong Country's soundtrack contributed to an increased appreciation for video game music as an art form, and musicians such as Trent Reznor and Donald Glover have praised it." → "IGN said that Donkey Kong Country's soundtrack contributed to an increased appreciation for video game music as an art form; musicians such as Trent Reznor and Donald Glover have praised the soundtrack".
  • I did not spot any major issues in the Cultural impact section too.

This looks like a short review, but I really do not have any complaints for the prose I've read. It reads okay to me and some aspects are explained in detail, which is also good especially for readers with little knowledge about the franchise (e.g. in 1995–2002: Franchise expansion). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0: thank you for taking a look! Responded above JOEBRO64 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll have another look at the article tomorrow. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I did not spot any major issues after having another look. Congrats and good job on the article! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Panini!

[edit]

I reviewed the GAN and I can't remember if there's a rule withholding me from reviewing and supporting here. But regardless, just wanted to say thank you! For swapping around those gameplay images! Those are definitely some excellent choices, considering that most of the games are dark jungles and finding good ones can be tricky. The second one does have a dark background, but the lack of intractable gameplay elements on top of that besides the barrels, which are the object of discussion, keep the image clear for demonstration. Panini! • 🥪 22:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No rule. Reviews from editors already closely familiar with the article are welcome. Disclosing this is helpful mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Bowser

[edit]

Looks good and I enjoyed the read. Here's a few ideas:

  • Rare began working on Donkey Kong 64, the first Donkey Kong game to feature 3D gameplay - since Diddy Kong Racing has been introduced, should we call this a "regular" Donkey kong game? Also, should we mention the N64 expansion pack?
    • changed to "first 3D DK platform game". I'm not sure about mentioning the Expansion Pak because I don't think it's really important to the franchise as a whole. It's definitely a neat tidbit about the game itself but this article's more about the grand scheme of things so I don't think it's necessary. JOEBRO64 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In April 2023, Rogen said he saw "a lot of opportunity" in the prospect. Eurogamer wrote that Diddy and Dixie's brief cameo in The Super Mario Bros. Movie was obvious setup for a Donkey Kong film. - I think these sentences could be struck.
  • though Playtonic declined to label it a spiritual successor. - same
  • and journalists have described him as a mascot for both Nintendo and the video game industry. - could we just state this without attibution, as in "he has been described"?
  • to which Wise expressed approval. - it's been a while since he was last mentioned, full name?
  • Nintendo Life described one fansite, DK Vine, as "highly respected". - not sure about this one, feels a bit odd "reviewing" the fandom.
    • I think this should stay. Discussion of fandom is definitely noteworthy cultural impact and DK Vine is the most well-known DK fansite, having broken a few stories that ended up making the mainstream press (notably the canceled Vicarious Visions game, for which they were cited in Eurogamer and VGC) JOEBRO64 15:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the storytelling contradiction needs to be straightened out. Once that's done I plan to support this nom. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: thank you for taking a look! I believe I've addressed everything JOEBRO64 15:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I stumbled over the answer to who the doubters were (FMs question) in: Wesley, David; Barczak, Gloria (2010). "Shigery Miyamoto and the Art of Donkey Kong". Innovation and Marketing in the Video Game Industry. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315588612. ISBN 978-1-317-11650-9. It seems the american marketing team had concerns (pages 11 & 13). I think it should be accessible through the wikimedia library, but otherwise I could share the pdf. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Draken Bowser: thank you! Can't seem to find it in the WP Library so if you can, I'd definitely be interested in reading that JOEBRO64 01:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Rjjiii

[edit]

I'll add notes as I read through this week:

  • With regards to Popeye, the very next arcade game that Miyamoto does for Nintendo is the licensed Popeye game. Is there any connection here? For example, was code reused, do the cabinets share hardware, or did Donkey Kong play any role in Nintendo getting the Popeye rights?
    • My understanding of the situation is that Nintendo's inability to secure the Popeye license for what would become Donkey Kong was due to negotiations taking too long. I'm doing some research to see if there's any relation between the two games. JOEBRO64 16:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a few more details from Sheff's book in a footnote to clarify the relationship between the two. Couldn't find anything specific regarding the cabinets or code but it's mentioned it was produced under the production system Nintendo adopted following Donkey Kong. JOEBRO64 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miyamoto named the fairy tale" I found the verb/phrasing confusing.
  • "He placed an emphasis on jumping to avoid obstacles and cross gaps. Miyamoto's ideas were uncommon in contemporary arcade games," This also confuses me. Note "a" reads like this game introduced the mechanic, not that it was uncommon.
  • "was told it would be a failure," Does the source say who told them this?
  • "Game & Watch version" Would "adaptation" be more accurate than "version" here?
  • "The victory helped cement Nintendo as a major force in the video game industry." I would cut this per WP:IMPARTIAL. If the sentence is making an objective statement about the court case, it's going over my head with the current wording.
    • Done. I guess what it was trying to say was that the case brought Nintendo, which was then basically an upstart, a lot of prestige in the entertainment industry because it was able to swat away a titan like Universal like it was nothing, but Nintendo becoming a big company after Donkey Kong is mentioned anyway both in the section and later in the article. JOEBRO64 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nintendo wanted a game to compete with Sega's Aladdin (1993), which featured graphics by Disney animators,[34][35] when Lincoln learned of Rare's SGI experiments during a trip to Europe." This sentence is hard to parse. Is Lincoln the company's lawyer? "when" seems an odd way to connect these thoughts.
  • The Mortal Kombat influence is unclear to me. Were they not already planning to do pre-rendered graphics with the SGI workstations they had bought?
    • Leftover from when I was integrating my research from DKC over here, haha. Mortal Kombat inspired the art direction Stamper wanted to go with. I just cut it since it's not important in terms of the larger franchise. JOEBRO64 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How common was the usage of these high-end SGI workstations to do video game graphics? Beyond being "groundbreaking" was anyone else in the UK or in the industry doing this?
    • It was extremely uncommon—Rare was the first UK developer to get them, and it immediately made them the most technologically advanced developer in the UK according to the sources. I've clarified this. JOEBRO64 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the designers could not replicate the detail of Country's pre-rendering with real-time graphics" I think this could be slightly expanded so that a less-technical reader could better understand it.
  • "to create a new experience" I'd consider removing or rephrasing this. In some sense, any new media is a new experience.
  • "but it sold poorly in comparison to Returns" Is this due to the smaller market for Wii U games?
    • Primarily yeah. It also came out at a terrible time (I think there was a massive storm in Japan the week of release) and had an awful marketing campaign, but the Wii U itself failing was definitely the big reason. Clarified within the article JOEBRO64 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was working on a Switch Donkey Kong game" Do we know if they still are?
  • That's it for "History", Rjjiii (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "characterize him as the descendant of the Donkey Kong character" I found this kind of hard to follow. In Rare's games, is the Donkey Kong character the son of the original Donkey Kong? If so that would be more clear than descendant. Also, regarding the organization of material, it would be more clear to me if Cranky Kong or Rare's Donkey Kong was introduced and then the other. That would allow for placing the explanation about whether he is Donkey Kong Jr. closer.
    • I did some rewriting and rearranging to try and make things clearer; let me know if you like how I reworked it. The problem boils down to the Rare games being inconsistent as to whether Donkey Kong is Cranky Kong's son (and thus the grown-up DK Jr.) or grandson (and thus the son of DK Jr. who's now MIA). And unfortunately for us, Nintendo has continued this inconsistency! (Super Smash Bros. Brawl's Snake dialogue refers to Cranky as DK's grandfather, whereas the movie last year refers to him as his father.) JOEBRO64 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Donkey Kong Country introduced Diddy Kong," ← this is really clear. No changes needed, just wanted to note that it does a good job of explaining his in-universe role and character background.
  • "from a distance" This seems redundant to me. I would either cut it or specify the distance.
  • ", with the second increasing their health." I'm not sure that someone who had not played the games would understand what this means.
  • "and helped it avoid the video game crash of 1983" I checked the two end-of-sentence citations and the end-of-paragraph citation and they don't quite match this. TIME says, "Nintendo, powered up by Mario’s successes, largely managed to dodge the market’s profit-crushing projectiles."[13] The Japanese source seems to talk about how the Famicom/NES was based on the Donkey Kong arcade hardware. This Guardian article talks about how Donkey Kong was "a key driver" for the design and launch of the Famicom in Japan. I think there a lot of sources out there to pick from that would say that Nintendo's success with the Famicom in Japan is how they weathered the 1983 crash (which most affected the North American market) so well. I realize that's kind of pedantic, but I do think the article should lay out the connections (Donkey Kong→Famicom→survive crash, instead of Donkey Kong→survive crash).
    • Done, just cut that clause. I can incorporate the Guardian article if you think the article should use it, though I think the sequence of events should be clearer now. JOEBRO64 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a few sources say that Gunpei Yokoi invented the cross-shaped d-pad for Nintendo's Game & Watch adaptation of the original game.[14][15][16] If sources about Donkey Kong mention this, it would be relevant to add somewhere. I haven't checked any longer sources though, so I'll leave it up to you if the inclusion is (un)due.
    • This is actually a common misconception—Yokoi was the head of the department that created Game & Watch games, but was relatively uninvolved with the individual games. Ichiro Shirai, one of Nintendo's hardware engineers, created the Donkey Kong D-pad and both filed and was awarded the patent for it. However, he did not create the D-pad! The D-pad was actually created by William F. Palisek for Tiger Electronics in 1979, and was awarded the patent for it in 1981, a year before the Game & Watch version of Donkey Kong came out. Nintendo's own patent for the Donkey Kong D-pad even mentions Palisek by name. (Sorry for the long-winded response, just felt this was worth clarifying!) JOEBRO64 14:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the sources say if Nintendo has the trademark for "it's on like Donkey Kong" now?
  • And that's it for the page overall. Nice work; I was surprised at the music being so influential, Rjjiii (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheJoebro64 Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear about the situation, and I hope things go relatively well. Real life comes first, of course. Take care, Rjjiii (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii: thank you for being patient, responded to everything above. Let me know if I need to do anything else. JOEBRO64 02:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem at all. The article looks good. Describing the Rare version as a separate character is more clear. I don't think the the Guardian material needs to be added since there is already the clause beginning with "which rejuvenated..." addressing the NES and North American crash. Notes struck and heading changed to support, Rjjiii (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by LEvalyn - Support

[edit]

This looks like a fun article! I've used a random number generator to pick 10% of the citations for checking. That will be citations 19, 32, 39, 51, 66, 69, 98, 113, 115, 117, 121, 130, 132, 133, 136, 140, 147, 150, 181, 187, 188, 213, 214, 222, 224, 227, 232, 233, 255, and 269, based on the numbering in this diff. It may take me a few sessions to go through them but I'll work my way through! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 19, 32, 66, and 69 check out, no comments. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 39 says Lincoln was NOA's then president and CEO, which gives a slightly different impression than the article's gloss of a Nintendo of America executive. That's possibly a quibble so I don't insist on a change; otherwise, 39 checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't able to access 51, "The Making of: Donkey Kong Country 2" in Retro Gamer. No. 181. It looks totally plausible to me, but for thoroughness, can you share the quote from this source which supports the cited claims, or offer advice on accessing the original? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 98: This is another quibble, but I'm not sure that this source strictly verifies that both games blend Country elements. Jungle Climber definitely does, but King of Swing is only mentioned in relationship to Country in order to contrast their graphics. Maybe just say that both games use DK characters/settings? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added another IGN ref and tweaked the text accordingly. JOEBRO64 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for revisiting this, but I don't see any prose changes for the specific sentence Meanwhile, Paon also developed DK: King of Swing (2005) for the GBA and DK: Jungle Climber (2007) for the DS, which blend Country elements with puzzle gameplay inspired by Clu Clu Land (1984). This is really splitting hairs, but that sentence makes it sound like King of Swing "blends Country elements", but the cited source only compares King of Swing to Country to say it has different graphics. I'd be happy with something like ...King of Swing (2005) for the GBA and DK: Jungle Climber (2007) for the DS, featuring puzzle gameplay inspired by Clu Clu Land (1984)., or you could throw in a clause about the pegboard navigation style which that source says is unique to these two games. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 113, 115, 117, 121, and 130 check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For 132, Milne's "The Evolution of Donkey Kong Country", again I haven't been able to access this issue of Retro Gamer. Can you share the relevant quote? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 133, 136, 140, and 147 all check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For 150, the Nintendo Power article, this doesn't feel right. I found the article about DK in issue 66 of Nintendo Power here, but it's not called "Now Playing". And I don't think it verifies The player begins in a world map that tracks their progress and provides access to the themed worlds and their levels. I can't find any mention of the world map. I'm honestly not entirely sure it's kosher to use this for the second sentence either, They traverse the environment, jump between platforms, and avoid enemy and inanimate obstacles, since the source itself is just maps and guide tips which basically imply that the game consists of traversing, jumping, and obstacles. Is there a more traditional review, rather than a map guide, which could verify these simple basics? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note to counterbalance the quibbles that so far that this is a really "clean" article and extremely easy to source-check-- you've done a great job! I'm taking another break for now but will finish the check over the weekend. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 181, 187, 188, 213, 214, 222, 224, 227, 233, and 269 all check out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not able to verify 232, 2021CESAゲーム白書 (2021 CESA Games White Papers), due to the language barrier. (I am not confident I can locate the right source.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 255 is also in Japanese but since the link was provided, I used Google Translate and it appears to verify the content. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, TheJoebro64, that concludes my source review! I raised a few clarification questions above, but my only real concern is source 150. I'd like to hear a defense of that source or see a different one provided, since I'm not convinced it verifies those sentences. I also had two pedantic quibbles and some sources I couldn't access, but those don't impede my support, since overall the quality was very high. Thanks for your hard work here! Please ping me in your response. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LEvalyn: thank you for the review! I should get around to addressing these within a few days. Just a bit chaotic right now with the holidays and school work. JOEBRO64 23:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LEvalyn and David Fuchs: just wanted to apologize I haven't finished addressing your comments; in addition to exams, I've been tied up with a family situation (my grandmother is on her deathbed), which has greatly limited my time on-wiki. I will aim to address them sometime this weekend; I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten, real life just got in the way JOEBRO64 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have my sympathies! Of course "real life" must take priority over Wikipedia. You and your family have my best wishes, and just ping me whenever you do have a chance to turn your attention back to Donkey Kong. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheJoebro64, I have just seen this after giving you two nudges above. My sympathies regarding your situation and I shall try to be as flexible as I can re timescales. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding. I should have some time tomorrow and Monday to get everything done. Appreciate the well wishes. JOEBRO64 00:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: Responded to everything above! I'm shooting you an email right now; just respond and I'll send the Retro Gamer / CESA pages for verification. JOEBRO64 20:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! I look forward to getting your full email for further verification, and anticipate finishing this source review soon with a very strong support. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: sources sent. (Had to switch emails because Apple's having server issues rn, but managed to get them to you!) JOEBRO64 03:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Having looked through them, everything checks out. I also skimmed through the full list of references in case there were any questionable-reliability sources that didn't happen to hit my random sample, but no red flags. Overall, then, this looks like a meticulously-sourced article and I will happily support promotion! Well done pulling together an effective overview of so much information! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Is File:DK-Bongos.JPG an utilitarian object? Going by commons:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Utility objects the copyright status of such a thing might depend on what it's used for. I am somewhat doubtful that File:Donkey Kong 94 and 64 characters.png meet the "used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" part of the non-free use policy, since it only illustrates a subaspect of the article topic. File:Donkey Kong Country Gameplay Elements.png might have a similar issue. From looking over WP:FFD it seems like opinions often vary in such cases, though. File:Steve Weibe.jpg I presume we don't have an archive of the source, yes? ALT text and image placement seem OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've removed File:DK-Bongos.JPG just to be safe. I can move File:Donkey Kong 94 and 64 characters.png to list of Donkey Kong characters if you think it doesn't fit here. I think File:Donkey Kong Country Gameplay Elements.png should definitely stay as there's a fairly significant contrast between the original arcade gameplay and the Country gameplay; I can do some tweaking to strengthen the FUR if you think that's necessary. JOEBRO64 18:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitively need to strengthen the FUR for the second image. I am kinda doubtful that the 94 and 64 image would meet NFC criteria on the list article, but my question here is only about whether it fits on this article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've expanded the FURs for both images, let me know what you think JOEBRO64 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they need to discuss the importance vis-a-vis the article topic a bit more. Illustrating the subsection topic often isn't sufficient at FFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheJoebro64, how is this coming along? FrB.TG (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry, Christmas/family stuff.) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've just removed both images, the DK and Mario lists have images of the characters and the Country articles have screenshots of gameplay elements so I've concluded having them here isn't 100% necessary. JOEBRO64 00:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That leaves File:DK-Bongos.JPG as the only question, perhaps commons:COM:VPC might help here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd already removed that image from this article just to be safe. I'll start a discussion at the village pump once I can find the time. JOEBRO64 16:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: responded above! JOEBRO64 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 January 2025 [17].

The Suicide of Rachel Foster

[edit]
Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As people say, second time's the charm. This article is about an Italian-made video game that received attention for its treatment of suicide and pedophilia. A walking simulator in the style of Firewatch, players control Nicole Wilson as she explores the Timberline Hotel, inspired by the one from The Shining. Years prior, her father Leonard had groomer her classmate Rachel Foster, and after this "affair" was discovered, Rachel killed herself. Despite attempt by the developers to treat the game's topics sensitively, most critics seemed to think they failed, romanticising the Rachel/Leonard relationship and forcing players to kill themselves in the ending. A sequel is in the works, so I guess we'll have to see if the developers took some of the criticism into account for creating The Fading of Nicole Wilson. Article has undergone some work since the previous nomination and has also been copyedited. PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and Support from Crisco

[edit]

Comments by and support from Jon698

[edit]
  • This is included in the release section: "The Suicide of Rachel Foster was developed by the Italian studio One-O-One Games—using Unreal Engine 4—and published by Daedalic Entertainment.[9][7] It was directed by Daniele Azara and the music was composed by Federico Landini.[8]" Wouldn't it be more fitting to have this at the beginning of the development section? Jon698 (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PanagiotisZois: Okay just answer these few questions and you will have my support.
1. Is "particularly" necessary for "The ending, particularly"?
2. Could "The Washington Post's Christopher Byrd described the mystery as apparent and lacking in scares." be changed to "The Washington Post's Christopher Byrd criticized the "lack of scares and the lack of mystery".? Jon698 (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon698: Revised #2. I also removed the word "particularly" from #1, and also changed the sentence a little bit. If you think it was better as it was before, let me know and I'll change it back. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PanagiotisZois: Everything is on the up and up. I now support making this a FA. Jon698 (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

Placeholder 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have other issues at all, but I want to point out that the 2020 Screen Rant as a source and its content should be removed since it is considered "marginally reliable" starting 2021. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Boneless Pizza!:. I've removed the source. Thankfully, I only used it a few times throughout the "Reception" section and it was always at paragraphs that already had enough content. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I found no issues so far and I would like to Support this nomination. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spotcheck

[edit]

What makes JeuxOnLine a reliable source? Not seeing much else. Spot-check of this version:

  • 3 Where is radiotelephone or dialogue tree? Not sure I get "revealed at Gamescom" from this, rather than from #8 alone.
  • 4 Need some help with "simplistic" and "second half" and the voice actor bit.
    • In the review, Edwin Evans-Thirlwell brings up how the tasks in the game consist of an "undemanding to-do list" that mostly consists of going from Place A to Place B. He also acknowledges that there's a "lack of gamey elements" to the game's puzzles and tools Nicole picks up. I guess "simplistic" could be changed to "unengaging"?
    • Regarding the "second half" portion, it concerns the second-last and third-last paragraphs of his review. Having said that, rereading the article, Evans-Thirlwell doesn't actually split the game in half, so I could revise it to something like "Evans-Thirlwell enjoyed the earlier portions, but criticized the final chapters and ending as melodramatic". Or something like that.
    • Evans-Thirlwell states the game is "effectively written and acted". Granted, he could be referring to how Nicole and Irving act as participants in the story. What do you think?--PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably best to specify that "effectively written and acted". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I quoted the author just to avoid incorrectly translating his words. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 OK
  • 7 OK given #9
  • 8 OK
  • 9 OK
  • 10 OK
  • 14 OK
  • 16 OK
  • 17 OK
  • 18 OK but assuming that Google Translate isn't making errors.
  • 20 Not sure that I get praise for the hotel design here. Nor "puzzles"
    • In the review, Bremicker says that he would have liked if the game had one or two puzzles, saying that the players are presented with "small problems", but those can't really be described as puzzles.
    • As for the hotel, he says "An sich gefällt uns die Spielwelt von The Suicide of Rachel Foster aber ganz gut. Das Hotel ist detailverliebt gestaltet".
  • 21 One might prefer to say child abuse/exploitation here rather than paedophile. OK otherwise.
  • 22 Where does it say the earlier characterization was contradicted?
    • Maybe I'm reading too much into Vikki Blake's quote @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, but concerning Nicole's suicide attempt at the end, she says "Beyond the fact I'm struggling to believe that the arsey, obnoxious but undeniably feisty woman I've just spent two and a half hours getting to know would do this, I'm furious [her emphasis]".--PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23 OK
  • 25 Says "won" not "nominated"?
  • 26 OK
  • 27 OK
  • 28 OK
  • 29 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The JeuxOnline source wasn't an issue the first time around at FAC, but I have started a discussion to clear that up.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for intruding on this conversation, but I did the source review for the previous FAC. I thought that JeuxOnLine was an appropriate source for a FAC/FA in the context that it is a review and it being cited and used to support information directly from the game's creators. I saw it more as a primary source in that regard. I cannot speak for JeuxOnLine's relability as a whole, but from my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong), it is not being used as a review or for anything beyond the interview. Apologies again. I just thought it might be helpful to share my perspective on it as I did the last source review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but even an interview needs to be run through a reliable source. Fake interviews and stuff aren't uncommon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not 100% sure, but I think a few years ago I saw the official Facebook / Instagram account of the game share this interview (and a few others) so clearly the developers approved of them. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm, if you or someone else can find this account, we could link that instead. Official Insta or Facebook should be reliable enough for this type of information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: The Facebook account of One-O-One Games shared the interview here. I also looked into the 2 shares the post has, and one of them is from Daniel Azara. If you want, I could also try to find whether the Instagram or Twitter accounts of the developers / publisher posted about this interview. I'm still waiting to hear whether JeuxOnLine is treated as a reliable source or not from the WikiProject Video games. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it seems like the interview is reliable (for its own content) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, just checking: is that a pass for the source review and a pass for the spot check? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One last point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I believe the plot summary in the lead's first paragraph could be made more concise. The following is a suggestion, but feel free to use what you think is best: (Set in December 1993, the story follows Nicole Wilson who returns to her family's hotel to inspect and sell it. Ten years earlier, Nicole and her mother left the Timberline Hotel after learning of her father's affair with the teenaged Rachel Foster. After being trapped inside the hotel by a snowstorm, Nicole investigates Rachel's mysterious suicide, with the assistance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) agent Irving Crawford.) I took out the bit naming Leonard as the prose did not name him earlier, and I think it can be assumed that Nicole would be looking into that while investigating her suicide.
    • Revised it.
  • I think the part on the Overlook Hotel could be better integrated into the lead. It feels a bit tacked-on at the end of the paragraph. It may be better to place it after the first sentence in that paragraph as it goes more with the choice to make a horror game than with the discussion on the more delicate topics present in the story.
    • Done.
  • I am not sure about the use of "however" in the lead when discussing the critical reviews. I understand its purpose as a transition, but it does stick out to me, and I wonder if a better transition would be possible to have this read more smoothly.
  • The source link for File:The Suicide of Rachel Foster - Gameplay.jpg does not support the image.
    • Seem that the developers changed the website or something. Used an archived version.
  • Irving is only mentioned by his first name in the "Gameplay" section, (uses a radiotelephone to communicate with Irving), which is his first appearance in the article, and he is only fully described and introduced later on in the "Plot" section.
    • Done.
  • I am uncertain about the order for this part, (in Lewis and Clark County, Montana, in the Helena National Forest), as I think it should read as (in the Helena National Forest in Lewis and Clark County, Montana) instead. In my experience, I thought the more specific area, such a forest, would go before the more broad area, in this case the county and the state.
    • Done.
  • Federal Emergency Management Agency should be linked and fully spelled out in the first instance in the article.
    • Done.
  • I am not sure about the "remains" word choice for this part, (because Rachel remains there). Are they saying that Rachel is alive and lives there? If so, I would use "lives there" or some other version, as I believe "remains" could be read a number of different ways, such as her body remaining there.
    • I went by what the person on the phone (Irving) says to Nicole. I guess it was intentionally on his end to be ambiguous.
  • I think that it would be more helpful to link "carbon monoxide poisoning" directly to the article about it or to part of the suicide methods article that discusses this form of suicide?
    • Done.
  • I saw a YouTube video saying that out of the two endings, an achievement was only given for the one that Rachel kills herself, and that it was later removed from the game. I was wondering if there was any reliable coverage on this? It would add another point of criticism about the ending as the achievement for one and not the other would seemingly push one as the true or canon ending.
    • I actually didn't know about that. Interesting. From what I've read online, it seems that the developers have actually often changed the criteria for unlocking this achievement. At one point, you'd only unlock it by having Nicole kill herself, at other times simply by finishing the game, etc. But having checked online, there doesn't seem to be any actual coverage on all this.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense. I would be a little bit surprised if there was coverage on something specific like this, although it is an interesting topic. I would be curious on how the sequel handles these endings. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These parts, (as well as the depiction of their relationship) and (Watts enjoyed their relationship), are placed very closely to one another, which makes the prose quite repetitive.
    • Moved a few sentences around.
  • I would be mindful about using the same words in close proximity. An example is (Bell criticized the framing of Rachel) and (criticized the characters' and narrative's framing), in which "criticized" is used in the same context for two sentences in a row.
  • I would avoid the sentence construction "with X verb-ing" as it is something that is often discouraged in the FAC process. Examples are the following, (with Péter Nagy of IGN Hungary similarly commending it) and (with some critics arguing it was romanticized).
    • Done.
  • Could this part, (The handling of suicide, particularly Nicole's interactive suicide attempt during the ending, was criticized.), be shortened to (Nicole's interactive suicide attempt was criticized)? It seems like all the criticism is focused for this paragraph is focused on that and not other elements of suicide in the game.
    • Done.
  • I would revise this sentence: (Specifically, how suicide is employed as a plot device used solely for shock value, which detracted from the game's "potential to tell an emotional story".) The attribution should be more clearly defined.
    • Done.

I hope that this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I am glad to see this back in the FAC space, and I hope that this time it will be successful. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments, and I hope you are having a great day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: All right. I believe I'm done with almost everything. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. Just a reminder that it is discouraged to use graphics, like the one for done, for the FACs as I think it messes with the loading time for the main FAC listing. Everything looks good to me, and I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the lead not count as "the article" for purposes of fully naming a character or having FEMA be written out? Moritoriko (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It does not. The lead acts as an overview of the article and thus, it functions separately. It is similar to how items should be linked in the first instance in both the lead and the article itself. The lead should not have new or unique information that cannot be found in the rest of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if it does include new info, for whatever reason, it should be cited. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thank you for clarifying that for me. Aoba47 (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PanagiotisZois, pls see para toward the top of the FAC instructions re. {{done}} templates and revise your replies accordingly. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • I have made a few copy edits. If you disagree with any, could we discuss that here? Thanks.
  • Is "One-O-One Games" worth a red link?
    • I checked a few of their other games, and none of them have pages on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how notable the company is. Besides this game, the have a recently-released survival horror game called Aftermath, and adventure game,band a few VR titles.
  • "A sequel, The Fading of Nicole Wilson, was announced in October 2024." This should be included in the main article.
    • @Gog the Mild: Initially, the article had its own section about the sequel, but it consisted of just one sentence, so it was moved to the "Release" section. Personally, I don't think that makes much sense. Do you think I should just put the information back there again?--PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it can't go in the lead and not the article. It the sentence in the lead is the total of the information known about the sequel [?] then maybe copy it to the end of "Release" as a run on sentence? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Reinstated the material in the "Release" section. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 January 2025 [18].

1914–15 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For my 37th nomination of a Gillingham F.C. season, we jump back 90 years from my most recent nom. This particular season took place against the backdrop of the first year of the First World War and the decision to play on was controversial. Following the football authorities finally giving in to public sentiment, the final game of this season would prove to be Gillingham's last game for more than four years. As ever, any feedback will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

[edit]
  • "Gillingham, founded in 1893 under the name New Brompton, had played in the Southern League since the competition's formation in 1894, gaining promotion from Division Two at the first attempt in 1895 and remaining in Division One ever since, albeit with little success." - Kind of long. How about something like "Founded in 1893 as New Brompton, Gillingham joined the Southern League in 1894. They gained promotion from Division Two at the first attempt in 1895 and have remained in Division One, though with limited success."?
  • "Gilligan scored twice in a 4–0 victory for the home team, which The Sporting Life said was 'thoroughly deserved', but it would prove to the last game which Gillingham won for more than four months." => "Gilligan scored twice in a 4–0 victory, which The Sporting Life called 'thoroughly deserved', but it would be their last win for over four months."
  • "Glen sought the permission of the club's board of directors to get married on Christmas Day and therefore miss the game that day; his request was refused." => "Glen asked the club's board for permission to miss the Christmas Day game to get married, but his request was refused."
  • That's it from me!--NØ 18:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--NØ 08:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 01:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: - giving a very gentle nudge on this one. If you feel you no longer have the capacity to review the article, that's honestly not a problem -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to this by Sunday at the latest; it looked to be in very good shape based on my initial skim of the article. Hog Farm Talk 15:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "Bee", a writer for the Liverpool Echo, described the signing as an "excellent capture",[15][16] " - a minor quibble, but this all seems to be in the first reference, with the second one not really adding anything. Is the Manchester Courier reference really supporting or adding anything? It's just a very brief annoucnment of the transaction
  • I don't think Category:English football clubs 1913–14 season is the correct category; I've gone ahead and moved the article into the 1914-15 one.

I'm going to go ahead and support; I usually don't like to review with only minimal commentary but this being the nominator's 37th in the series, they've got the formula pretty much perfected. Excellent work on this article for a very bad team; this was worse than the 2023 Kansas City Royals season that I recently endured as a fan. Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. I've read through and made a couple of very minor copyedits; this is up to your usual standard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Is there a source for the kit in the infobox? ALT text and image placement are OK. Sources seem consistently formatted. What makes "Conway, Tony (1980). The "Gills". Meresborough Books. ISBN 978-0-9052-7026-5." and "Elligate, David (2009). Gillingham FC On This Day. Pitch Publishing. ISBN 978-1-9054-1145-0." reliable sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - source added for kit. Both the books you mention were not self-published but published by mainstream publishers with extensive catalogues. Pitch Publishing is one of the UK's leading publishers of sports books whose titles are carried by all major bookstores, and Meresborough Books, whilst now defunct, published over 300 books by various authors over its more than 20 years of existence. Not really sure what to say beyond that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I guess I couldn't find much through my searches, which may say more about the searches than the sources... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Z1720

[edit]

I made one edit to the article: feel free to revert if it is not helpful. I also checked the lead and the infobox, and all information there is cited in the article body. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 January 2025 [19].

History of infant schools in Great Britain

[edit]
Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if a history article but with cute pictures?

This is my second nomination of this article. It was previously nominated under the title "infant school" (see) but as there were concerns about that article's scope it's focus has been made more specific. I will link everyone who commented on the original nomination so they can decide whether to say anything about the articles current state; Wehwalt, Generalissima, Nikkimaria, WhatamIdoing, UndercoverClassicist, Gerda Arendt, Crisco 1492 and Serial Number 54129. Llewee (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Llewee: you're supposed to wait 2 weeks before starting another nominations. It's been five days. {{@FAC}} 750h+ 23:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, said that doesn't apply in this case when they closed the last nomination--Llewee (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw that. My bad 750h+ 02:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

[edit]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

An instructive article by a writer clearly in command of the subject. A few minor quibbles about the prose:

  • "It was somewhat common for children" – you like the word "somewhat" somewhat: it crops up five times in your text. Like "however", "somewhat" is usually better omitted. I think the prose would be less woolly without any of the five here.
    reworded to take out the somewhats, in some cases I've tried to keep the meaning the somewhat was conveying--Llewee (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the societies did not aim to cater for the younger age group" – you are even keener on "however" than on "somewhat" – there are eight "however"s throughout the text, and you could, and I suggest should, lose at least the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh of them.
    I've gotten rid of most of them. I'm not sure if they are the ones you suggested as I lost count a bit.--Llewee (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Various other figures also established infant schools and wrote books about the subject. David Turner, an academic, wrote ..." – I think it would be helpful to your readers to make it clear that Turner was not one of those writing contemporary books about the subject but was writing in 1970.
    added "who studied 19th-century infant schools" after "an academic"--Llewee (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the mid 1830's" – does the source really have the naff apostrophe?
  • "some schools were too dominated by religion" – a bit judgemental without a citation.
    I have taken that bit out as the point is also said in more neutral way in the quote.--Llewee (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "W. B. Stephens, an historian" – unless you are aged 90+ and cling to the pronunciations 'otel and 'istorian, I'd make "an" "a".
  • "According to historians Helen May, Baljit Kaur and Larry Prochner" – clunky false title.
    dealt with in the same way to the David Turner issue--Llewee (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was not primarily interested" – the last person mentioned was "the pupil", and it would be as well to replace the pronoun with the name.
    done--Llewee (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some of the questions indicate to desire to avoid rote learning –should the first "to" be "a"?
    done--Llewee (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The number of children under seven in schools ... In 1840 the Council on Education in England and Wales" – the whole of this paragraph is given a single citation. Does it cover all 196 words?
    I've broke this and other long chunks of text into multiple citations.--Llewee (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many more of the less financially secure working classes" – is this a posh way of saying "poorer"?
    It is a bit jargony. I think I was trying to emphasise the distinction from the "skilled working classes" mentioned previously. I have changed it to "Many poorer families".--Llewee (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The expansion of young children attending school" – I take this is meant to mean that the numbers rather than the children expanded.
  • "the under five's" – we could well do without the apostrophe.
Removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I hope some of these points are of use. – Tim riley talk 18:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Tim, how is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The amendment of principle/principal was the final change I was looking for. After a last read-through I am now happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. Tim riley talk 16:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, the 1830s thing is in the source sorry.--Llewee (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Images seem well-placed. What's the copyright status of the painting in File:Flickr - USCapitol - Weaving.jpg? File:British Central School Borough Road.png has a bare URL, as do several other images. Some files may need a commons:Template:PD-scan. Viz File:Infants of the British school, Llanymddyfri NLW3363470.jpg, do we know when the photographer lived? File:A practical guide to the English kinder-garten (children's garden) - for the use of mothers, nursery governesses, and infant teachers - being an exposition of Froebel's system of infant training - (14596479949).jpg needs an actual copyright tag. OKish ALT text. Sauce-wise, is #37 really saying "infant school"? I figure a government or education website would be a better source for such a claim, too. What makes https://education-uk.org/history/index.html a reliable source? Are the ITV report, Morgan Thomas 1936 and Grimshaw 1931 influential enough to warrant mention? Nothing jumps me as unused or questionable otherwise, but I must caution that this isn't a field where I am an expert in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, The first image's page on commons says that it is in the public domain because it was created by an employee of the American government. I have added John Thomas's age range; he died in 1905. I have fixed the URL and PD-scan issues. The man who created History of education in the UK (See) appears to be a retired teacher who has a Diploma of Education; he says in his autobiography that he has strong political views but the history itself seems very well written and based on academic sources (for example, see the first section of chapter one). It appears that citizensinformation.ie is run by a agency of the Irish Government (See). The cited page doesn't mention infant schools but it does mention infant classes and the point when children enter them. The two early 20th century biographies correspond to what Whitbread says about the period; I included them in order to give more tangible examples as the academic sources can be quite abstract. The ITV News report received a little discussion recently; though Wales doesn't have much of a public debate. I included it mainly in order to add a bit more detail to the Welsh paragraph and as balance to a article cited slightly earlier which criticises phonics.--Llewee (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is OK, unless a spotcheck is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

Per my comment at the first fac, my concerns were pretty much solely 1B orientated; that the scope has been sufficiently adjusted that I see no major obstacles to promotion. Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 10:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by Generalissima

[edit]

Always love seeing your attention to education - such an undercovered subject on-wiki!

  • Lede solid, good length.
  • Terminology good.
  • I'm interested by the relatively limited mention of religion as a motivation for early childhood education within Great Britain itself; it seems to mainly come up in its spread elsewhere. Was there just not as much religious advocacy for these institutions?
  • The second half of the article is especially very well-written. I like how you cover smaller details like teaching methods without ever getting too niche.

@Llewee: Really just have the one question about religion and I'll be happy to support; I'm not an expert in the subject matter, so I'm curious. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima There was some religious influence on infant schools which is mentioned a bit in the article. I have added a quote to illustrate the point in the home and colonial infant school society section. But sectarianism wasn't a major issue (which it definitely was in other aspects of 19th century English and Welsh education).--Llewee (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I took part in the more general review for Infant schools and return to an article with a more specific focus. I am not sure if that limitation is already complete, seeing a level-2 header about Worldwide spreading. Or what do I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Background

  • Why a Boston illustration when the focus is GB?
    I chose that image because it shows a pre-industrial family business. It is quite hard to find relevant images on commons and my searches on the British Newspaper Archive didn't have much success. I've found a fairly relevant image which is meant to be depicting a British family now. But its not ideal as it was drawn much later in the early 1900s.--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New, more punitive, forms of child labour", - more p. compared to what?
    clarified--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • why Dame school capital?
    its after a full stop, unless I have missed something--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide ...

  • As said before, I wonder about the scope. Do we exclude Ireland, but include the World, or at least the Commonwealth?
    I have taken out the worldwide spread section and moved the relevant links to further reading--Llewee (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Professionalisation and expansion

  • This seems a too general header, followed by subheader Home and Colonial Infant School Society which seems too specific - I never heard that term. It seems about adopting Pestalozzi's concepts, no?
    I hope the new headings are an improvement--Llewee (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardian ...

  • Will the article for the longish red link be written soon?
    I added that link on the advice of another editor. I'd like to write an article on the subject at some stage but I haven't got any immediate plans to do so.--Llewee (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Thank you for the changes, support for FA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Salmon and Hindshaw needs an OCLC. (776414455)
    Added here and for the 1930s biographies.--Llewee (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first infant school was founded in New Lanark, Scotland, in 1816." Either 'in Great Britain' needs adding, or it needs deleting from the similar statement in the main article, depending on what the sources say.
    It says "first infant school in Britain" in the source, so clarified in the lead.--Llewee (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 January 2025 [20].

Teddy Wynyard

[edit]
Nominator(s): AA (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Teddy Wynyard, a noted sportsman and soldier. As a cricketer, he played Test cricket for England and had a substantial domestic career with Hampshire, where he was instrumental in their return to first-class status in 1894. He was also a footballer, playing in the infancy of the game. He played for the Old Carthusians and won the 1881 FA Cup with the team. He was also adept at winter sports, winning the International Tobogganist Championship at Davos in 1894, 1895 and 1899. In the army, he saw action in the Third Anglo-Burmese War (Burmese Expedition), for which he gained the DSO. He would retire from military service in 1903, but returned to serve in WWI. He was also an important administrator in cricket. Altogether, an interesting character who led a varied life. AA (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]
  • Putting my name down to review this one when I have sufficient time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • One drive-by comment - as per the footnote immediately below them, football stats shown in infoboxes are "Club domestic league appearances and goals" only. As his Corinthians appearances were in friendlies, these should not be shown (and for the other teams you can remove the ?s and simply show blanks as league football did not even exist in that time period) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @ChrisTheDude I have removed the football teams/stats from the infobox, as I don't think the other teams need to be shown as they were not league clubs, and they are mentioned in the prose. AA (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Teddy_Wynyard_c1900.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    • Comment. @Nikkimaria: so far, the only version of this photo I can find is on ESPNcricinfo here, which attributes it to Hampshire County Cricket Club. Will see if I can find a publishing date, though undoubtedly prior to 1908 as he is wearing a Hampshire county cap, and his playing career with Hampshire ended in 1908. AA (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Old_carthusians_1881.jpg: source link is dead, when and where was this first published, and what research was undertaken to try to identify the author?
AA, have you resolved this? If so, could you ping Nikkimaria. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have had no reply from Charterhouse with regard to the template VRT requires. AA (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild I have emailed them again. They are away until 8th January (and may periodically check emails, according to the out of office). Shall I remove the image for now, then re-add once the email template for release has been sent back to me? AA (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem sensible. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild done :) AA (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The son of the soldier and judge William Wynyard, he was born" - I feel like the body should "start afresh" after the lead, so I would be tempted to say "The son of the soldier and judge William Wynyard, Edward George Wynyard was born"
  • "It was speculated, that had he not pursued a military career, he may have achieved" - comma is in the wrong place, it should be "It was speculated that, had he not pursued a military career, he may have achieved"
  • "His actions were praised by General's Sir Robert Low and Sir George White" - there should not be an apostrophe in the plural form of "general"
  • "In recognition of his actions, he was appointed to command a company of the Welsh Regiment" - it was spelt "Welch" in the lead......?
  • "By the time he had returned home later in 1887, Hampshire had lost their first-class status since his departure for India, following a number of poor seasons." - I feel like the words "since his departure for India" are a bit redundant here
    • Done. Removed. I did toy with putting in "By the time he had returned home later in 1887, Hampshire had lost their first-class status in 1885, following a number of poor seasons", but it doesn't quite read right I don't think. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who had noted that both Wynyard and fellow soldier Francis Quinton, had been missing" - that comma should not be there
  • "With the outbreak of Second Boer War" => "With the outbreak of the Second Boer War"
  • "During the winter which proceeded the 1904 season" => "During the winter which preceded the 1904 season"
    • Comment. The final paragraph of the previous section talks briefly about the 1904 season. The section which follows begins by talking about his tour West Indies which happened in the winter which followed the 1904 season. AA (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotcha. In that case I think it should simply say "the winter which followed the 1904 season". I'm not 100% sure that "proceeded" can be used as a transitive verb in the sense of "came after" (i.e. can you really say "Thursday was the day which proceeded Wednesday"......?) - if it can it must be an archaic/obscure usage and I cite myself as an example of it being confusing to readers ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Wynyard heading the teams batting averages" => "with Wynyard heading the team's batting averages"
  • " she had become stuck under the ice following a mountain torrent.;" - there's a stray full stop before the semi-colon
  • "forming his own club, "The Jokers" which was drawn" => "forming his own club, "The Jokers", which was drawn "
  • These very minor points are all I got - ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi AA, my comments:

Will try to do spot checks soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan many thanks for your comments. Please find above my responses :) AA (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AA, can support on prose. Will try to do spot checks soon. Btw, are your recent FACs part of a featured topic? Say cricketers and soldiers, or team members of Hampshire or the MCC during a particular year? Matarisvan (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matarisvan cheers! A lot of my recent expansions have been Hampshire cricketers who were also soldiers, the two are sort of where my interests lie. I have several more Hampshire cricketers who were soldiers lined up to bring to FAC in the near future! No such featured topic though! Doesn't a featured topic have to have a featured parent article for the other articles to branch from? AA (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AA, if you are back, perhaps you could address these comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! AA (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems mostly consistent. I am kinda dubious of using late 19th century newspapers from the now-UK; are these really high-quality reliable sources? And what makes the CricketArchive a high-quality reliable source? Did some spotchecking which didn't turn up anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review, 2nd or 3rd opinion
  • There seems to be some confusion about British news sources here. They are not generally unreliable or unsuitable and should, on the whole, be treated as trustworthy as any other nation’s newspapers. On some small number of topics, a small number of them are unreliable, and these are all detailed at the WP:RSN. For pretty much all papers (except where forbidden by the RSN), sports coverage is uncontroversial and reliable, as their use is at this article. I would say this is a source review pass from the standard of press coverage here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Five weeks in and discussion seems to have stalled without a clear consensus to promote. If the nomination doesn't get additional comments, it may be liable to be archived in the next few days. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs just wondering if this nom is at the stage where a decision can be made? Cheers :) AA (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited a little; please feel free revert any changes you don't like.

  • "partaking as a tobogganist in the International Championship": I think "participating" is an apter word.
  • "As a career soldier, Wynyard was commissioned into the Warwick Militia in September 1879": I think this would read more naturally as just "A career soldier, Wynyard was ...".
  • "Wynyard cleverly disguised himself": we shouldn't say "cleverly" in Wikipedia's voice. I'd just cut it -- the cleverness is apparent in the success of the disguise.
  • "Wynyard retired in 1903": suggest "Wynyard retired from the army in 1903", since the previous sentences are about cricket rather than his military career.
  • Is the "[sic]" in "all round [sic]" because it's normally "all-round"? If so I don't think it's needed. Or are you concerned that someone will correct it, thinking it's a typo? A hidden comment would probably suffice for that".
  • The subsection is titled "Early first-class career", but some of these matches were not first-class -- some of the Hampshire matches, of course, as you state, and perhaps some of the ones in India? Could we make it clearer if any of the other matches were not first-class?
    • Done. I have expanded a sentence to make it clear the matches in India were not first-class. Haven't done that with the school matches, as I think that is more obvious! AA (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With his presence in the regimental team, it is believed they only lost one match between 1883 and 1890": this wording implies his presence is probably the reason they lost only one match; does the source make this assertion?
    • Comment. The source says: "...whilst he was with the 8th King's Regiment in India, we believe that they only lost one match between 1883-90, and this is easily understood when we learn that the Old Carthusian averaged 100 runs per innings to his own bat. I have taken that as the source making the assertion that it was his presence in the team which was largely to thank for that record. AA (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " this had been alluded to the Hampshire committee in 1897": presumably this should read "alluded to by the"?
  • "This was exemplified by the fact that he made just three appearances for the county ..." I don't think "exemplified" is quite right here. Suggest cutting this to just "He made just three ..." as the previous sentences have told the reader what is coming.
  • I copyedited a sentence in the last paragraph of the "Hampshire's return ..." section, starting "His retirement", but I think it's still not quite right. It was a long and complex sentence, and it's now two sentences, which I think is an improvement, but "Wynyard was assisting in running" is a bit ugly. I cut the mention of Lords as unnecessary but perhaps it should be returned?
    • Comment. Yeah, each time I convinced myself it was alright, it suddenly didn't look alright! Now reads "...which Wynyard assisted in running at Lord's". How does that read? AA (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though given his lack of appearances during the tour he was mostly utilised in the touring team as a reserve player": this doesn't make sense to me -- it seems to be saying that because he made few appearances he was used as a reserve player, but it would be logical the other way round. What does the source actually say?
    • Comment. The source says "It seems obvious that he was mainly selected as a reserve player, as he played in only two first-class matches..." I have reworded and shortened the sentence. AA (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • '... and "a fine, free hitter" who "used a great variety of strokes, especially those in front of the wicket".[68] It was noted that he was effective in utilising a number of different strokes ...': The second sentence repeats Wisden; I'd cut one or the other.
  • "she had become stuck under the ice following a mountain torrent": I don't understand what happened to her -- "following" implies she was walking along beside a stream.
    • Comment. I have changed "stuck" → "drawn". The source and other reports of the time sadly are not specific as to what she was doing by the stream to end up in such a predicament! AA (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. There can't be many people who've scored a goal in an FA Cup Final and also scored runs at Test level in cricket. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. @Mike Christie:. Please find above my comments. He is certainly an interesting man who led a very varied life. I can't think of too many who have scored a goal in an FA Cup final and runs in Test cricket. From a Hampshire perspective, C. B. Fry played in an F.A. Cup final but never scored. Denis Compton played for Arsenal in a final too, but also never scored. Perhaps Wynyard is unique?! AA (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The changes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • The last paragraph of the lead uses "served" three times. Would it be possible to synonym away either the first or second?
  • "He retired from military service in 1903, but returned to active service in the First World War, where he initially served with the Middlesex Regiment, before being seconded to the Labour Corps, where he was commandant of Thornhill Labour Camp in Thornhill, Southampton." A busy sentence. Perhaps break it.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 1 January 2025 [21].

Steele's Greenville expedition

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a little-known operation during the Vicksburg campaign, not to be confused with the better-known Steele's Bayou expedition. Grant and Sherman sent Steele's division up to Greenville, Mississippi, and then down Deer Creek, destroying cotton and supplies along the way. Additionally, the operation served as a bit of a diversion of Confederate attention from the main show further downriver. Some historians have opined that this operation is evidence of shifting Union views on forced emancipation, the use of Black troops, and the application of total war. Ironically, Sherman, who has historically known as a proponent of hard war, objected to some of the actions against civilians during the operation. Hog Farm Talk 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

I have taken the liberty of making a few edits, which I am happy to discuss. There are a few other expressions that I think can be improved:

  • Here "The naval historian Myron J. Smith and the historians William L. Shea and Terrence J. Winschel state that around 1,000 slaves were freed, while the historian Timothy B. Smith states that estimates range to up to 2,000 or 3,000 slaves followed Steele's column back to Greenville." Why do our US contributors always have to write "state that" instead of the simpler "said" or "say"?
  • Here "Both Sherman and Steele believed that Union troops had gone too far in behavior that affected civilians, rather than just targeted the Confederate war goals." Should this be "targeting"?
  • "Going forward" is such a cliche!
  • Here "although other operations such as Grierson's Raid also played a role in that." I think the "in that" is redundant.

I might have more comments later. Graham Beards (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Crisco

[edit]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

All very minor, and I'll be supporting once these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

[edit]

Very straightforward one this. Formatting is consistent and appropriate. Sources are all reliable, appropriate and high quality. Source review pass. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Major General William T. Sherman hoped that Steele might reach to where Deer Creek met Rolling Fork". You mention Sherman four times, but never explain his position and role. This needs clarification.
  • "any baled cotton marked with "CSA"". You should add "(for Confederate States of America).
  • "Steele's troops left the Young's Point, Louisiana, area late on April 2," The location needs more explanation than a red link.
  • "Two regiments and the Union Navy tinclad steamer USS Prairie Bird were left at the landing point to guard it". As you have specified the strength of the expedition as 5600 men, I think it would be clearer to give the strenght of the guards in number of men rather than regiments.
    • I don't think this is possible. The closest I can find is Bearss calling the regiments "understrength"; I've tracked down the primary source that Bearss used and the relevant quote (from a document prepared by Steele on April 5) is "The gunboat Prairie Rose will remain there with the transports. I have left two small regiments as a guard, and have ordered six of the steamers back to report to Commander Graham". Hog Farm Talk 17:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: - well, this isn't the greatest solution either. The standard size of a regiment when the war started was 1,000 men, but that didn't hold up for very long due to disease, casualties, etc. There was no real standard strength by 1863. Bearss's listing of the units that accompanied Steele on this expedition includes 15 infantry regiments, two companies of cavalry, and two batteries of artillery. Even if you exclude the cavalry and artillery, that's less than 400 men per regiment on average. So the average unit of Steele's was at less than 40% of the nominal standard strength - the two understrength ones must have been particularly bad, but the 1,000 man standard strength would be a bit of a red herring here. Hog Farm Talk 19:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - May I have another nomination, or would you rather that I determine what to do with Dudley's final suggestion first. Hog Farm Talk 22:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given Dudley's comment I don't think we need wait, feel free to start another nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

  • I made some copyedits as I read the article, but spotted no concerns. Did a lead check, and all of that facts there are cited in the body of the article. No other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2025 (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/Featured_log/January_2025&oldid=1267960523"