Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2020

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 June 2020 [1].

British Overseas citizen

edit
Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a residual British nationality class that a small number of former colonial subjects still possess. People with this nationality are not considered to have strong connections with the United Kingdom or its overseas territories, and do not have the legal right to live in any place under British sovereignty, even though they are British nationals. It's a peculiar holdover status from the British Empire. People from very far-flung places could potentially qualify for this due to the sheer number of places Britain used to control. Horserice (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
  • Added link to first link.
  • Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCs) had the unrestricted right to enter and live in the UK, although non-white immigration was systemically discouraged. Immigration from the colonies and other Commonwealth countries was gradually restricted by Parliament from 1962 to 1971... Isn't this contradictory? If CUKCs had the unrestricted right etc until 1983, what was it Parliament restricted between 1962 and 1971? Did they change who had the CUKC status, which would have had the same effect?
  • Yeah, even though all citizens held the same status, they had different rights based on where they were from starting in 1962. I reorganized and added more info there to make it more clear what was happening.
  • CUKCs with the right of abode in the United Kingdom or were closely connected with the UK, Channel Islands: needs to be "who were closely connected", and making it "who had the right of abode" as well might be better.
  • Omitted that part.
  • 1.5 million people[4] who could not be reclassified into either of these statuses and were no longer associated with a British territory became British Overseas citizens. Is this wording precise? It sounds like if they could not be reclassified into either status and were still associated with a British territory did not become British Overseas citizens. Is that correct? If so, what happened to them?
  • Changed wording.
  • The creation of different British nationality classes with a disparity in United Kingdom residency rights between the several classes drew criticism: suggest "The creation of different British nationality classes with disparities in United Kingdom residency rights drew criticism".
  • Done.
  • Parliament ultimately granted remaining BOCs who held no other nationality the right to register as full British citizens in 2002: are there estimates of how many this affected? If there were only a few thousand, it's not as significant a gesture as if there were hundreds of thousands.
  • 35,000. Yes, not that significant.
  • Do we know how many stateless Malaysian BOCs there are?
  • Added estimate.
  • Naturalisation as a British Overseas citizen is not possible: I initially read this as meaning that BOCs could not naturalize to the status of full British citizens, but I think the intended meaning is that you can't become a BOC via naturalization. If so I suggest "It is not possible to become a British Overseas citizen via naturalization".
  • Reworded.
  • Could we get a couple of sentences, or perhaps a small table, showing the differences between BOC status and the other possible classes of British nationality? In particular the difference between BOC and BN(O) seems worth drawing. Having also reviewed the BN(O) article when it was at FAC, I wonder if it makes sense to have these as separate articles? But I suppose a unified article would be too long if we tried to include all the details that you can put in the individual articles. What do you think the final overall structure is going to be for the British nationality articles when they're all done? Where would a reader go to get an overview? An example of the confusion is that when you talk about Hong Kong-resident BOCs I immediately feel I have to go back to the BN(O) article to understand how there can be BOCs in Hong Kong when my memory is that BN(O) was the main way Hong Kong residents could get a British passport.
  • Added a bit on this. Only non-ethnic Chinese Hong Kong residents could become BOCs in this way. You're right, there's very little differentiating the two statuses in terms of exercisable rights. The history of why they exist and possible pathways to full citizenship are what set them apart from each other, and the other classes. I don't know if this article is necessarily the best place for a comparison table? British nationality law has one that can be improved on to illustrate the (lack of) differences.
I think that the goal will be to reduce scope on the main British nationality law article to focus on current rules for obtaining British citizenship and BOTC status, making that article the place for readers to get an overview of what those regulations are now. There should something brief about the residual statuses that leads the reader towards the individual articles. History of British nationality law could probably be merged with the British subject article, which already covers much of the pre-1983 history.
  • Can we concisely define what is meant by "connection to a colony", perhaps in a note? E.g. place of birth? Place of birth of a parent? Right of abode? Long-term residence?
  • Added to first bullet point in Acquisition and loss
  • some current claimants to British nationality through the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 would receive British Overseas citizenship: suggest "could receive", since there may be no actual cases, or add "if their claim were to succeed" at the end instead.
  • Changed.

That's it for a first pass. This is densely bureaucratic material. That's not a criticism of the article, but it means it's hard to write something that clearly explains the topic. I don't think one pass through has given me a clear picture, so I'll read through again once you've responded to these points, and see if I can come up with suggestions to make it more digestible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for giving it a read, did a pass on addressing your comments. Horserice (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to go through the diff and strike points above, but you've done a pretty significant rewrite, so instead I think I'll start over and do another pass, this time benefitting from having read it once already. Consider all the above points struck. I think your take on the ultimate organization of these articles is reasonable, and I agree the natural place for a table is in the summary article, not here. It might take me a day or two to get some more notes down; I want to have some uninterrupted time and if it doesn't happen tomorrow morning it might not be till towards the end of the week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hah yeah, as soon as I started going through material to address those points, I found more and more relevant information and ended up adding this much. No worries about how fast you go through it, I know it's a lot of dense material added during a review, especially for a topic like this. Horserice (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to understand the background, so tell me if this is correct: Between 1948 and 1983, there was only one type of British citizen: CUKC. You could also be a British subject, which was the same thing during that period as a Commonwealth citizen. The two did not overlap, so it was not possible to be both a British subject and a CUKC. Being a British subject did not imply any allegiance to the crown; it only meant that you were a citizen of a country in the Commonwealth, by whatever rule that country had for its citizenship. The rights of a BS changed at various times, with the 1962 and 1971 UK acts impacting their ability to immigrate to the UK, and the individual countries of which the BS might be citizen free to legislate to change the right of a BS to vote in that country if they were not a citizen there. (For example a Canadian citizen could vote in New Zealand -- presumably with some residence requirement -- until 1975.) British subjects were primarily those born in the Dominions, not the colonies, so the two statuses can be seen as dividing the Dominions from the rest of the Commonwealth. A native of Antigua, for example, would have been a CUKC. This status did not change when a colony became independent, so when Antigua and Barbuda became independent in 1981, its citizens (defined by its own laws) were automatically also CUKCs until 1983.

British subject and CUKC statuses did actually overlap. A British subject between 1949 and 1983 was defined as any citizen of the United Kingdom, its colonies, or the other Commonwealth countries. Following your example, a CUKC (including someone from Antigua) could also vote in New Zealand after a period of residence until 1975. As colonies became independent, citizens of new countries that remained in the Commonwealth continued British subject/Commonwealth citizen status. CUKC status was automatically lost when they became independent, but because UK law allowed British subjects automatic rights to settle, citizens of those new countries could immigrate freely to Britain until 1962. There was no differentiation between those born in Dominions or colonies in regulations governing British subject status because the government never thought that non-white people would actually use those rights to go to the UK. A citizen of India or Jamaica would have been able to vote in New Zealand as well, provided that they could actually immigrate there.

From 1983 (via the 1981 act) this changed:

  • CUKCs with right of abode in the UK became British citizens
  • CUKCs with right of abode in a colony became BDTCs -- I see the list of dependent territories is short now, but perhaps it was longer in 1983; for example it would have included Hong Kong.
  • Any other CUKC became a BOC
  • BSs who had citizenship somewhere generally would have qualified to be one of the above three categories. If not, they remained BSs.
British subjects under the 1981 Act were defined as people who were British subjects without citizenship under the 1948 Act, and so would not have been reclassified in one of the other categories.

The 1981 also defined British Protected Persons, though I see in the BPP article that "Parliament severely restricted acquisition of BPP status in 1978", so presumably the 1981 law just redefined it.Subsequently BN(O) was added to deal with Hong Kong's return to Chinese control. BDTCs are now called BOTCs, so this gives us six present categories: British citizens, BDTC, BOC, BPP, BN(O), BS.

Is this outline basically correct? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else you wrote on the 1981 Act seems correct. This also took me a while to understand correctly, British nationality law is just so unnecessarily complicated. Horserice (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, haven't had much time to look at this. I might post on your talk page when I get time rather than filling up this FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Sorry but with only one detailed review after a month and a half I'm afraid this isn't really going anywhere. It might be worth at least trying PR before another run here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 June 2020 [2].

Laura Harrier

edit

This is about actress and former model Laura Harrier, who is widely known for her starring roles as Liz in Spider-Man: Homecoming, as Patrice in BlacKkKlansman, and as Camille in Netflix's miniseries Hollywood. This article was recently granted Good Article status.


Nominator(s): Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Laura Harrier Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Are you still there? I see that you've been active on Wikipedia but you haven't replied. I'd love any input you might have to improve this article to perhaps reach Featured Article status. Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly discourage you from pinging an editor three times in a row. If he or she has the time to respond and is willing to, then they will. Guerillero's point about the sources has already been addressed. If anything, the repeated pings is more likely to annoy editors and discourage them from doing anything further here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the time or desire to provide a full review. I found a glaring source issue and I wanted to bring it to your attention. I never opposed which would require me to return. I found your pings and talk page message to be badgering. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: So how do I revert the images back to their normal state without having a set/specific pixel size? I tried fiddling around with it. Let me know if there's still issues with the images. Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "normal state"? If you simply want to use the default then use 'thumb'. If you want to scale the image up or down relative to the default then you can use |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Everything should be fixed now. If there are any further issues, let me know. If not, please let me know how to proceed. Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Hello I'm just following up. Please let me know. Factfanatic1 (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like another editor has implemented |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Is there anything else you think can improve? How should I proceed? Factfanatic1 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much yes, you wait. I've done an image review, which is a required step, but FACs can take several weeks to attract the requisite reviews to pass. You can if you so choose post a neutral notification at relevant WikiProjects which might help bring eyes in. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • I would avoid doing Wikipedia:SHOUT (i.e. having words in all caps) for the titles of reference 6, 11, and 29. I would also avoid having website and publication titles put in all caps in the citations, as it is done for references 64, 69, 80, and 84.
  • Reference 48 is not complete.
  • Reference 16 is missing the publication date. This is also true for references 6, 13, and 14. I'd strongly encourage you to check each reference to make sure they have the publication dates.
  • References 6 and 11 seem to be the same thing.
  • I am confused by how websites/publications are linked in the citations. I personally link it for each citation, but I have also seen people that only link on the first instance. But, in this article, The Hollywood Reporter is linked in reference 27, but not in reference 26. Variety is linked in reference 31, but not in reference 28. Refinery29 is linked in each of its citations. The citations seem to be inconsistent in this area.
  • The references for Fahrenheit 451 in the "Television" table seem unnecessary since none of the other entries have citations and this information is already included and cited in a previous part of the article.
  • I am uncertain about this sentence (She has appeared in magazines such as Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, and Glamour.). From my experience, I have rarely seen a celebrity's appearances in magazines included in a featured article.
  • Do we know either of her parents' names or her younger brother's name?
  • Since you mention her mother's background, do we know anything else about her father's background?
  • For this part, (She began modeling at the age of 17 after coming home from school and being discovered by her mother's friend,), I am uncertain if the "coming home from school" part is really necessary. I think you can just say "She began modeling at the age of 17 after being discovered by her mother's friend," to make this part somewhat more concise.
  • Did she ever say why she deferred enrollment for NYU?
  • The Cut citation used for the William Esper Studio sentence has interesting quote where she thought she'd "be doing weird, Off Broadway theater after I graduated". That information could be interesting enough for inclusion in the article as it helps to expand on this period of her life.
  • For this part, (in the first and only season of the web series), I would just say "the only season" as "first and only" seem repetitive to me.
  • Avoid using "TV" as done here, "in the TV series". It should always be "television" instead as "TV" is too informal.
  • This sentence, (as a woman who has an affair with Jeremy Jordan's character), is an odd mixture of in-universe and out-of-universe information. Rather than saying "Jeremy Jordan's character", it may be better to say who is character is and add that Jeremy Jordan played that role. It would give me a greater understanding of the film and her role. Since I've never seen this film, the current sentence does not mean much to me.
  • For the "real acting job", did she explain why her previous appearances did not feel like real acting jobs to her.
  • Do not put punctuation in quotes, as done here ("real acting job."), unless it is a complete sentence/full quote.
  • I would link Liz Allan in full rather than just having her first name visible.
  • Is there any further information on her appearance in this film? Any reviews for her performance or further background information? I'm just curious as it seems like a major role, but it is only briefly mentioned here.
  • For the Fahrenheit 451, I would include a link to the book.
  • Was there any reason given for why her scenes were removed from Fahrenheit 451?
  • I would see if there was a way to revise this part, (when Lee demanded that she meet him in New York City to audition for the role, with Lee acting as her scene partner for the audition.), without repeating "Lee" twice in the same sentence.
  • The citation placement is strange in this part. It's odd how citation 38 is in the midd of the sentence, and it is then unclear what citation is being used to support the rest of the sentence. The citation placement also hinders the readability of the sentence somewhat.
  • New York University is linked twice in the article when it should only be linked on the first mention.
  • For this part, (For her performance in the film, Harrier received critical acclaim), there needs to be a citation to support the "critical acclaim" part.
  • I would simplify this part, (director Jamie Adams reached out to Harrier to offer her the lead role in his film Balance, Not Symmetry), by just saying something like: (director Jamie Adams offered Harrier the lead role in his film Balance, Not Symmetry). The "reached out" part is not necessary.
  • The word "film" is used quite a bit in the "Acting" subsection. I'd try to lower the amount of times it is used.
  • For this part, (with her later on-screen boyfriend Darren Criss), I do not think "later" is needed.
  • Did she explain how Lena Horne inspired her?
  • I have noticed that aside from the "critical acclaim" part for her performance in BlacKkKlansman, the article does not mention her reviews for her other projects. If possible, it would be helpful to include more on that. For instance, how was her performance on Hollywood received? I imagine she at least got some reviews since she is a lead there.
  • For this part, (from the actress Dorothy Dandridge due to Dandridge having faced similar struggles), I'd just say "actress" instead of "the actress", and I'd revise the last part to (Dorothy Dandridge who faced similar struggles) to avoid repeating Dandridge twice in the same sentence.
  • I'd make the Halle Berry part into a separate sentence.
  • For the "Modeling and fashion" section, I'd make it one paragraph as I do not see a clear reason why the information is separated into two paragraphs.
  • For this part, (a campaign film for luxury French fashion brand Kenzo directed by Carrie Brownstein), I'd revise it to (a campaign film directed by Carrie Brownstein for luxury French fashion brand Kenzo) so the "directed by" part follows right after the film.
  • I would avoid "the latter" whenever possible.
  • The New York City link should be moved to the first instance it is used in the article and it should only be linked once.
  • Make sure citations are in numeric order. I'd revise the citations for the Time's Up sentence to be in numeric order instead.
  • The "It is known that..." phrasing seems strange to me. I'd remove it.
  • Are that many citations needed for the Klay Thompson sentence? It seems excessive to me.

A lot of great work has been done for this article. However, more work is needed for it to meet the FA requirements. My primary concern is the citation formatting, but I also think the prose could be improved overall. Once my comments are addressed, I will read through the article again to see if there is anything else. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47:

  • I got rid of all caps lettering, and added the publication dates for all references
  • I finished and completed ref 48
  • All websites/publications that have Wikipedia articles are linked, including The Hollywood Reporter and Variety
  • Got rid of the already-used/unnecessary refs for Fahrenheit 451 in the TV table
  • Harrier's magazine appearances: (She has appeared in magazines such as Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, and Glamour.), is included in the article and under the "Modeling and fashion" section because she was modeling for those magazines before beginning her acting career and still continues to model from time to time. If you read the refs that were included, you'll see that. But I understand what you're saying. If you still feel the sentence unnecessary I can totally get rid of it or modify.
  • I added two sources which provides info about her parents' and younger brother's names
  • It's not known what heritage or of what descent her father is; it's just known that he's black/African-American and works in insurance.
  • I changed the sentence to (She began modeling at the age of 17 after being discovered by her mother's friend, a location scout.). I feel including the "location scout" part is necessary to give context, but I got rid of everything else.
  • She deferred her enrollment to NYU due to booking profitable modeling work. She's appeared in numerous campaigns and modeled for many big companies and brands prior to starting acting. This is mentioned in the article, perhaps you missed it. I added some clarification in the article though.
  • I agree and I included the quote about her thinking she'd be doing "Off Broadway theater after I graduated."
  • I made it "Harrier's first acting job was as main role Destiny Evans in the only season of the web series reboot of the American soap opera One Life to Live (2013)."
  • Changed the use of "TV" in the article to "television"
  • Fixed the sentence (as a woman who has an affair with Jeremy Jordan's character)
  • She considers Codes of Conduct her "first real acting acting job" due to Steve McQueen having directed the film 12 Years a Slave and because "she was getting down to 2 Chainz with the director she’d just shot an HBO pilot with: Steve McQueen." It's implied that it was her first big project due to it being with a well-known director, McQueen, and it being a principal role and it being for a large TV network (i.e. HBO). She also booked it in her last year of school in 2015 but at the same time she had a main role as Destiny on One Life to Live. I do know what you mean though. Maybe I should just get rid of the quote about it being her "first real acting job?"
  • You do not have to get rid of the quote. I was just wondering if there was further background to explain this quote. Prior to this pilot, she had roles on One Life to Live, Unforgettable, The Last Five Years, and 4h Man Out, and they would be considered "real acting job[s]" (at least in my opinion). My question is why did she consider the pilot to be more of a "real acting job" than any of her past work at that point in her career? Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got rid of punctuation in "real acting job"
  • The reason why Liz Allan isn't linked with the last name Allan is because Harrier is never credited as Liz Allan, she's simply credited as Liz (without a last name). In the film credits it's simply "Liz" and it's the same in all of the official movie announcements, press releases, and most magazine interviews. This is detailed both in the invisible note in Harrier's film table on this article and on the Spider-Man: Homecoming page. There's confusion about it but her name in-universe is simply Liz. The character however is loosely based on Liz Allan and this was confirmed by both Harrier and the director, which is why Allan is linked.
  • If it is uncertain that she is playing this character, the prose does not reflect that. By having the link to the Liz Allan article and having parts like ("made her major film debut and breakthrough portraying Liz" and "Harrier booked the role of Peter Parker's love interest Liz"), it reads like she is playing this character. I've never seen any of these movies so it comes across like this even more to an unfamiliar reader like me. I'd clarify in the prose that the Liz character was loosely based on Liz Allan. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, it's interesting that you say: "Is there any further information on her appearance in this film? Any reviews for her performance or further background information? I'm just curious as it seems like a major role, but it is only briefly mentioned here." It is her breakthrough role and she is the leading lady of the movie but interestingly enough it's very difficult, if not impossible, to find any professional critic reviews or really any reviews about Harrier, her character Liz, and her performance in the film. The only thing I found was a negative review from Marie Claire magazine. I've included it in the article, let me know what you think.
  • Thank you for the Marie Claire quote. It may be a case where the character was overshadowed by others in the film. The Marie Claire quote is quite long though, and I would work on avoiding that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Fahrenheit 451, I included a link to the book.
  • She was cut from the film because the director felt the character didn't fit the storyline and to cut down on time; I added this into the article.
  • Fixed the sentence (when Lee demanded that she meet him in New York City to audition for the role, with Lee acting as her scene partner for the audition.)
  • Changed citation placement of ref 38 (now ref 39) and put it to after the sentence instead of in middle of sentence.
  • Got rid of second link for New York University
  • I got rid of "critical acclaim" in the sentence (For her performance in the film, Harrier received critical acclaim).
  • Fixed sentence (director Jamie Adams reached out to Harrier to offer her the lead role in his film Balance, Not Symmetry)
  • I cut down on the word "film" in the "Acting" section as much as I could.
  • Got rid of "later" in "later on-screen boyfriend Darren Criss
  • I clarified how she was inspired by Lena Horne
The Horne part still reads awkwardly to me. Maybe combine it with the Dandrige part to read like: (Harrier largely drew inspiration for the role from actresses Dorothy Dandridge and Lena Horne who faced similar struggles that Camille does in the series.)? Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a review about her performance in One Life to Live and a few reviews for her performance in Hollywood
  • I fixed the part about Dorothy Dandridge and made the part about Halle Berry its own sentence
  • Made "Modeling and fashion" section into one paragraph and fixed wording for The Realest Real
  • I don't see the issue with using the phrase "the latter" as long as it's used sparingly and when necessary. I don't get how else to phrase it without being repetitive, it seems perfectly reasonable to me, no one else has commented on that part, and I've seen it used in many Good Articles and Featured Articles like Jennifer Lawrence and Amanda Seyfried.
  • Linked New York City only the first time it's used
  • Made citations in numeric order
  • Removed the "It is known..." part
  • Minimized amount of citations for the Klay Thompson sentence

I fixed everything you mentioned. Please reread and let me know if anything else should be done prior to perhaps making this a Featured Article. I really appreciate you taking the time to review. Thank you. Factfanatic1 (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything, and great work with the article. I think you have added far too many reviews for her Hollywood performance. I would use two or three reviews instead of a separate paragraph. For the Spider-Man: Homecoming reviews, I would only include two of three positive reviews. I would actually take out the The New York Observer one. Aoba47 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I combined the reviews with the Hollywood paragraph. I got rid of one or two reviews and truncated the quotes to be as short as possible. With Spider-Man and Hollywood, arguably her most notable/famous performances and roles to date, both of her performances received a very mixed response so to include solely positive reviews would misrepresent how people feel about her acting in those projects and if someone is trying to learn about Harrier, it's important for it to be a true objective written account of her. I also consider two or three of the reviews for Hollywood as also being a review for BlacKkKlansman, another one of her famous roles. Could you perhaps read it over to tell me what you think? I believe I made it as concise as possible while utilizing reliable reviews about her performances. Factfanatic1 (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will read through the article again later tonight, but I never said to remove the negative reviews so I do not understand where you got that impression. Aoba47 (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think there are far too many reviews for her Hollywood performance. The article currently includes six separate reviews. If you look at a featured article like Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Winslet, or Leonardo DiCaprio, none of those articles use that many reviews for a single performance. From my experience, the amount of reviews is generally kept to two or three, and you can still convey the depth of the mixed reviews with that amount. I am sorry, but I feel very strongly on this matter.
  • I even think having four separate reviews for her Spider-Man: Homecoming performance is too much, and I only recommend removing the Observer review because Marie Claire shows a negative review and IGN and Forbes show positive reviews so the mixed reception to her performance is already represented. Also certain parts of my above comments have not been corrected like the Harper's Bazaar and Rotten Tomatoes links. I do not mean to sound harsh or negatively as I am very happy to see a new editor in the FAC space, and I would love to see an article on a woman of color. Maybe other editors will comment on the review parts as well. Aoba47 (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47:
  • I added links for all refs with Harper's Bazaar and Rotten Tomatoes.
  • I fixed the part about Laura's mom and her last name (Sagan)
  • Paraphrased The Cut quote about her thinking she'd do "Off Broadway theater"
  • The punctuation should be on the outside of the quotation marks. I would look through the entire article to make sure that punctuation is on the outside of the quotation marks (unless it is a full sentence/quote). Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genuine question, why would the punctuation go outside the quotation marks? For instance, when she talks about Codes of Conduct and says it's her "first real acting job", in the quote itself in both articles (or at least one of the articles) the quote ends the sentence on its own Factfanatic1 (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The punctuation should be on the outside because you are only taking a certain portion of a sentence. If you are citing a sentence in full, the punctuation should be on the inside, but from the best of my understanding, the punctuation goes on the outside when only a small portion of a large sentence is taken from a source. You can ask other editors though as they would know more than me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it, thank you. Just needed clarification to understand. Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey @Aoba47: just following up about this punctuation/quotation marks formatting question.
  • Why she considers Codes of Conduct her first real acting job when she had already been part of a few large projects is not clear; it's heavily implied that due to it being on a prestigious network like HBO and it being with a renowned and acclaimed director that she looked up to (Steve McQueen), that's why. Do you think I should somehow include this in the article or leave it out for the sources to describe for readers?
  • I would keep the quote in the article. I was asking more out of my own curiosity. If she does not really elaborate on her point, then I do not think more should be added, but it is interesting enough for inclusion in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harrier did receive "critical acclaim" for BlacKkKlansman with reviews that reflect that and her being nominated for a few awards.
  • About the Lena Horne part reading awkwardly, the role is largely inspired (percentage-wise maybe 80 to 90%) by Dandridge and then a bit/some by Lena Horne. This was made clear in interviews by Harrier. Camille and Dandridge both acheived stardom/success around the same time, both were the first ever black women nominated for the Best Actress Oscar, Harrier's look and personality was inspired by her, and so was the general career. I'm not sure how to reflect that in the article; your suggestion to instead say "Harrier largely drew inspiration for the role from actresses Dorothy Dandridge and Lena Horne who faced similar struggles that Camille does in the series," would diminish how much Dandridge inspired the role and even Ryan Murphy largely paid homage to Dandridge as stated in interviews. By saying "largely drew inspiration for the role from actresses Dorothy Dandridge and Lena Horne" it makes it seem that both Dandridge and Horne roughly inspired the part equally which isn't at all true. Maybe I could say: "Harrier largely drew inspiration for the role from actress Dorothy Dandridge, who faced similar struggles that Camille does in the series, and also drew some inspiration Lena Horne."
  • Thank you for the clarification. I understand and agree with your point. I would go back to making Lena Horne a separate sentence then because the repetition of "drew inspiration" in the above suggestion is not ideal. Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I truncated and got rid of reviews to be a maximum of three while also reflecting the mixed reception(s).

I should have corrected everything that you brought up and I have read through the article. I will do another reread right now and make any further necessary edits along the way. Please let me know what you think and if anything else should be done prior to perhaps making this a Featured Article. I really appreciate you taking the time to review. Thank you. Factfanatic1 (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything. The part about Liz Allan still needs to be addressed. I would clarify in the prose that her character was loosely based on Liz Allan. I will look through the article again tomorrow. For the future, from my experience, it is more common to responses directly underneath each of the individual points rather than putting them all at the end. That way, it is easier for a reviewer like myself to see what has been addressed, and to not take up as much space. Aoba47 (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: I just fixed the part about Liz Allan so it should be fine now. I also improved the sentence about Lena Horne; so everything should be fine now. I'll read the article again a bit later as well and make any needed copy edits. Please let me know if anything further is needed. I will be sure to address any further responses directly underneath each one individually for clarity and space reduction. Thanks. Factfanatic1 (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience with the review. I am trying my best to help you with the article, so apologies if I come across as rude/negative. I will read through the article again tomorrow. This article has definitely piqued my my interest in this actor. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. You haven't come across as rude or negative in the slightest; you've been really helpful and have helped me make improvements in places I didn't realize needed improvement until you brought it up. I also had a question about the quotation marks/punctuation formatting which you can find lines above this sentence. Factfanatic1 (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I can help. I would still look at the Marie Claire quote. It is a long quote that takes up over three lines of prose so I would encourage you to paraphrase and choose parts of that quote to cite. Aoba47 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cut the Marie Claire in half just about so it's pretty concise; check it out and please let me know what you think. Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about the "first real acting job" as I can only find this quote ('first real job") in the citation, which does not have the "acting" part. Can you point to where this quote is? I am probably missing it so apologies for that. Reference 31 is missing the author. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must have misread "first real job", (which is the exact quote she says in both refs), as "first real acting job." It's the former, not the latter. I fixed it. I added both the date and author for ref 31.
  • Apologies for all of the messages. I just wanted to let you know that I have revised the Hollywood paragraph so please check that all of the information is still factual. If you dislike my edits, then feel free to revert. Aoba47 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's no problem at all, you've been eternally helpful. I reviewed the Hollywood paragraph and your edits were definitely helpful and made it all concise while still keeping the meaning of what I originally wrote. Thank you. Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Everything should be done now on my end. Thank you for your edits, you've made it more concise while keeping the meaning and I really appreciate it. By the way, in the future if you could do all your edits in one, or if not two, different times for this page at one time, I'd appreciate it. I say that only because this time around you made about four or five different edits in a row and I can sometimes miss it as I contribute to many articles and it can be hard for me to jump back and forth. But with one edit, I can see all the edits you made on one page and easily respond. Also, I usually don't take so long to reply to edits; I was busy today and only now saw this. In any case, please let me know what you think of my revision of the Marie Claire quote, I replaced undeveloped part of The Hollywood Reporter quote by Fienberg with the actual quote, and all punctuation for quotes should be fixed as of now. Please let me know how I should move forward. Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC) @Aoba47: Hey, just following up. Factfanatic1 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I already received your first ping. It has only been a few hours since your first response, and it has not even been a full day since I last responded on here. Please give me the time to properly read and review the article and the changes done. The additional follow-up message and ping were not necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work with the article, and I think it has improved a lot since the review started. I still do not think the Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, and Glamour sentence should be there. It is common for models and actors to be featured in these types of publications, so I do not think her appearances in them are notable enough for inclusion here. From my understanding of reference 4, she was featured in Elle (I would actually clarify in the citation that this is Elle Australia) to promote the Spider-Man movie. If you look at an article like Kate Winslet or Jennifer Lawrence, neither of them list what publications they have appeared in to promote a film, even though both of them have likely appeared in quite a few. For that reason, I would remove this sentence, but you can still wait to hear back from other editors. But, that is the only thing stopping me from supporting this for promotion as everything else looks good. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: I fixed ref 4 to be Elle Australia. The source itself was talking about her modeling for Elle US. It wasn't for her to promote Spider-Man or any of her other work. It's kind of like how model Miranda Kerr has several of her major magazine appearances included in her article. Prior to becoming an actor, Harrier was a very accomplished model. She was never famous but she made enough money to travel the world and have the freedom to take time off when she wanted to and then go on to pursue an acting career. She's spoken about this in several interviews. The sources aren't speaking about her appearances in magazines for promoting her work; they're speaking about her modeling work. If you dig a little, you'll find that in addition to being in many campaigns for clothing brands (prior to her acting career) she's appeared in many magazines, and I included the most notable ones. No other editors have ever had an issue with the section. By the way, how would I attract more editors to this page to get more input? Factfanatic1 (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can get more attention for this nomination by reviewing other FACs and asking them for help in return, reaching out to a FAC mentor, or putting a message on the talk pages of related WikiProjects. You could also reach out to FAC contributors who have worked on similar articles for help here. A list of editors by FA nominations can be found here.
  • I remove the "critical acclaim" parts as again, I do not think such strong word choice can be supported from just citing three reviews alone. There were two instances of the same Lindsey Bahr source so I removed one.
  • Thank you for the clarification on her modeling work. The revised version of that sentence is clearer to me now. I have a question about the "Modeling and fashion" subsection. Could that information be incorporated into previous sections rather than in this separate area? For instance, could the Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, and Glamour jobs appear in the "Early life" section to flesh out the part on her modeling career? I am curious on how this subsection would be handled as Harrier's acting career (ideally) grows and the "Acting" section expands as a result? The current way could be fine and I am not pushing for any specific method, but I would just like your opinion on that before I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about the "critical acclaim" parts and your revisions. In regards to the "Modeling and fashion" section, I merged it with her "Career" heading. Let me know what you think. That makes me think of a few questions. Do you think I should put the modeling work she did for the magazines under "Career" rather than "Early life" since she was at least 18 years old when she did all of those and they were for professional high-profile magazines? Do you think we should create subsections for her "Career" section or is her career not long enough to do so? For instance, maybe the first section could be "Modeling and One Life to Live (2008–2015)", "Spider-Man: Homecoming & Breakthrough (2017–present)"? I don't know. It's difficult because she really only has three notable roles/projects that are widely known. And my other question, for the infobox info about "Years Active" should we change it from "2013–present" to "2007–present"? I ask because she's been professionally modeling since then, at 17, but at the same time, she wasn't famous or widely known so it's hard to decide. But I thought it would also be notable because as I mentioned earlier, and she's said in interviews, how due to the modeling she's had a cozy life and it gave her the opportunity to get into acting in the first place after making contacts and doing high-profile modeling work. Let me know what you think of these three questions please. Thanks. Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. I understand your point about her modeling career. I have taken inspiration from the Lady Gaga and Katy Perry articles to try for a different type of section structure and organization. Feel free to revert it if you disagree though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I reverted some of your edits and worked with others; I liked what you were going for generally speaking but I feel like for this article it's better if there are four headings: Early life, Career, Personal Life, and Filmography. It's what I'm used to for actresses and I've been taking inspiration from Jennifer Lawrence, Julianne Moore, Anne Hathaway, and Amanda Seyfried, which are both Good Articles and/or Featured Articles, and all subjects are actresses. For the infobox info about "Years Active" should we change it from "2013–present" to "2007–present"? I ask because she's been professionally modeling since then, at 17, but at the same time, she wasn't famous or widely known so it's hard to decide. But I thought it would also be notable because as I mentioned earlier, and she's said in interviews, how due to the modeling she's had a cozy life and it gave her the opportunity to get into acting in the first place after making contacts and doing high-profile modeling work. Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I only offered that suggestion to provide a way to clearly mark her modeling career. You can change the infobox parameter to "2013–present" to "2007–present". I disagree with the placement of the modeling work as the first sentences of the "2013–2017: Acting debut and breakthrough" subsection, and I still think those parts work better in the "Early life" section to keep all of the information on her modeling career in one area. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I think of it I agree. Do you think it would be best to leave it under "Early life" or do you think we should make a subsection under the "Career" heading for her modeling work titled "2007–2012: Modeling work"? Or is that overkill because of the lack of info for her modeling work? Factfanatic1 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would disagree with that edit because the "Early life" section is already rather short so making it even shorter (i.e. one paragraph) would be less than ideal. You could try renaming this section to something like ("Early life and modeling career"), but that is up to you. I think the current structure is better than the one you recommended. Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a FAC to be promoted as a featured article, a consensus must be formed among multiple editors so other editors would have to support this. To be perfectly honest, I find your response to be off-putting. It would have been nice to get a simple thank you after all the time and energy I put into helping you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean at all to be off-putting nor rude, I apologize. You've been eternally helpful and have taught me great useful things. I'll be patient for other editors. Again, thank you! Factfanatic1 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just be more mindful in the future. That kind of response to my support and your interactions with Guerillero (as shown above) could deter editors from working with you in the future so it is important to be more aware of how you interact with others. For instance, while it is nice that you thanked me now, it does not really mean anything since I basically had to ask for that. I know you do not mean to be off-putting or rude, but again, it is something to be mindful about it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I have supported this, I agree with the recent conversation that it would be best to withdraw this and start a peer review to really substantially improve the article and have longer conversations (which should not really occur at the FAC level). That was my fault, and I should have recommended this earlier so I apologize for that. Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TonyTheTiger

edit
  • It has been a while since I have been at FAC as either a nominator or a reviewer, but this WP:CHICAGO ping is one I will make time for. One reason I am willing to take a very close look is that this is a pretty short article, which also makes me doubt that it could really be FAC-worthy on first blush. I'll make some time this weekend for this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last time I was around here, they did not support IG links in the EL section. I dropped down there to look for the FMD link since she is a model and did not find it. You should look at some top model articles and find the proper ELs for her. I have done a bunch of model articles and sometimes have 3 or 4 els just for modelling.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:ELNO: it says that editors should generally avoid links to a list of types of links (which includes Instagram) but it does say "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject". Harrier's Instagram account has been verified and she often posts promotional clips and work, excerpts from interviews, and in the past (prior to about 2017) she posted a good amount of modeling work that she did. So I believe it's a good source but I completely get it if you'd like to get rid of it. Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unknown what exactly she did in her childhood and teen years; she's never spoke about it. We don't know if she played sports, did dance, was a babysitter, or anything. All that's known is that she loved reading magazines and learning about fashion when she was younger and then began modeling at 17 following being discovered by her mom's friend. She's also never walked the runway, let alone for any fashion weeks or major brands; or at least nothing can be found online about that. All that can be found online in regards to her modeling work are her appearances in magazines, catalogs, and for clothing brands on their websites. Her only known modeling work for commercials was for Garnier. Shortly before Spider-Man came out she appeared in a Calvin Klein underwear campaign but that sort of counts as promotional work and that was after it was widely known she was playing Liz in the blockbuster and was already pretty well known so that doesn't really count. So yeah, really only Garnier. There are no online records of her appearing in other commercials although she very well may have. She's spoken in interviews about being in multiple commercials (plural) but nothing can be found online. Factfanatic1 (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TonyTheTiger: About her living in Greenwich Village/Brooklyn, I missed this before but I did add her information about where she lived in New York City but another editor believed it was excessive and we came to an agreement to get rid of it. Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually my first time submitting a Featured Article Candidate so I'm still learning, but I believe at the top right of this page if you scroll all the way up, there's a sidebar for you to use (if this is what you're talking about). Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She appeared in numerous notable campaigns and magazines such as Target, Aerie, Urban Outfitters, L'Oreal, ALDO, Vogue, Glamour, Elle, etc. prior to her acting career, but she was never famous or well-known. She was financially successful but not widely notable, you're correct. Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length lists 5534 FAs and if this were to be added to the list it would be 5534th in terms of length, which troubles me in terms of being confident it is complete. I am thinking that when she was on the rise (OLTL time) local press on the north side might have covered her. I am not talking about the Chicago Tribune or even the Chicago Sun-Times, which cover the whole city and are national, if not international publications, but maybe the Daily Herald, might have done some biographical summary. I'd be surprised if they did not cover her before Spidey. Also, the Pioneer Press has an Evanston newspaper, that probably covered her early. Try to figure out the earliest coverage each of these gave her.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to be mixing up size an length. Nonetheless, this is a short article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve done extensive research searching for sources from before 2016 (which is when she began to gain widespread notability after her casting announcement in Spider-Man). The sources are so few and far between that I’ve used all reliable sources that added information to this article. There are no local newspapers or outlets in or around Chicago that have covered her before 2017. There may have been newspaper articles but if there were, nothing is online. In regards to the article length, I still believe that it’s sufficient as it meets all Featured Article criteria. There is no FA requirement for length. Three other editors reviewed this as I said and it was never an issue. If you’d like, you could try messaging or contacting other editors to inquire about this. I’ll also contact other editors or post asking about the article’s length. Thank you. Factfanatic1 (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that content is not online does not give you a free pass at WP:FA. Several of my FAs required trips to the library. E.g., "Here We Go Again" (Ray Charles song) did not make it until I could find content regarding the Duncan and Clark versions. The WP:WPVA FAs always take trips to the library. I bet she likely got coverage before Spidey in at least one of the two sources I pointed you to. You may have to make phone calls. Try contacting the Evanston Public Library as well. They might even do some legwork for prefame content for you.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: It is odd but all that we know is that the director cut her out due to feeling the character was irrelevant for his vision of the film, and to cut down on the film's length. That's literally all that's known to the public. There were no rumors or talk of there being bad behavior from Harrier, or anyone for that matter, that caused her to pull out of the project or anything. It just seems like she was cut and that's all. Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the back of my mind, I am thinking maybe she did some diva crap that pissed someone off, but there are no stories about her being a diva, I guess. It just does not make sense to me given the significance of the role in the WP plot summary.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources of her ever displaying diva or mean behavior towards anyone. One of the libraries got back to me and the librarian searched through all of the newspaper archives in Chicago and surrounding areas, including Evanston among others. There are no articles on Harrier pre-Spider-Man. Nothing even came up for One Life to Live. Factfanatic1 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CPL or EPL?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago Public Library. EPL hasn’t gotten back to me yet. Factfanatic1 (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you ask the respondent to confirm that these databases include the Daily Herald and Pioneer Press newspapers.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The librarian confirmed earlier that she searched all local newspapers, but I just emailed asking her specifically about these two newspapers specifically and she should get back to me within 12 hrs to 24 hrs to verify. Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Yes, the librarian confirmed that there are no newspaper articles about Harrier in both the Daily Herald and Pioneer Press pre-Spider-Man. Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is truly surprising. Do we consider yearbooks reliable sources of information? I am wondering if EPL has Evanston Township High School yearbooks. Have you heard back from EPL yet?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EPL hasn't gotten back to me but they also seem to be presently either short-staffed or inactive due to the current pandemic. But what would a yearbook add to this article? We already know Harrier attended Evanston Township High School and we know when she started, 2004, and when she graduated, 2008. We know that she took drama classes (which I put in the article recently) and that she started modeling at 17. The yearbook wouldn't have any pertinent information, as far as I can tell. Factfanatic1 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by pertinent information. My thinking was that the NYU is a pretty good school and many people who are admitted are well rounded. We could find out she was in the honor society, a club (debate, chess, drama, math), a team (dance, track, or any other sport), stage crew, student government, or was a photographer. I don't know. I've dug in a lot of places to find content. Maybe we find out what her earliest dramatic roles were. I know you are trying to get me to support. I am trying to get you to reconsider whether your work is complete. Post-fame has Harrier ever discussed her earliest dramatic experiences? It is hard for me to believe she went from acting classes to OLTL. Do you really believe that is her true biography? acting class to OLTL???!!!??? I doubt even you believe that is the complete story. My closest experience to what you are doing is with Emily Ratajkowski. Before I got involved in her biography, it was commonly stated that her first acting role was the first was iCarly, until I dug up the Match Girl and Harry Potter stuff.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just noticed that the article seems to have been expanded by 20 or 25%. I am much more comfortable with the level of detail now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed the library about perhaps obtaining a copy of the yearbook. I have been to numerous libraries in my life recently and all of the libraries had no school yearbooks unless it was from years back. I'm not sure if you read over the "Early life" section but Harrier had a speech impediment as a small child which her mother, a speech pathologist, cured for her daughter. Laura was still shy so her mother enrolled her in acting classes to help her gain more confidence. In high school Laura continued taking acting classes though she didn't consider herself a "theatre kid" and was more into "partying and boys." At 17, she was discovered by her mom's friend, who was a location scout, and began modeling. She modeled for catalog while in Illinois from 17 to 18 and then moved to NYC where she continued modeling after deferring and not attending NYU. She was signed by Wilhelmina Models, Elite Model Management, Muse Model Management, and most recently was (and may still be) signed by IMG Models, which are all prestigious modeling agencies and managements, as I'm sure you know. She modeled for Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, Glamour, and for companies like Urban Outfitters, Forever 21, Target, Macy's etc. She appeared in several commercials (including for Garnier) and did student films by her friends and fell in love with acting and decided to study acting at the William Esper Studio, from 2013 to 2015. Either before or while she was in her first year at William Esper she auditioned for and booked the role of Destiny Evans in OLTL. And then a while after guest starred on Unforgettable, was cast in the AMC pilot Galyntine, then had a small role in The Last Five Years, all in 2014. In 2015 she appeared in 4th Man Out and director Steve McQueen cast her in (what seems to be) a principal role in his HBO pilot Codes of Conduct. And I did some research and she's been signed with ICM Partners since 2015, and likely before then. It's reasonable to believe that through her doing a lot of modeling and then working her way up to sign with elite modeling agencies, and then going to a pretty respected acting school would help her then land her role in OLTL. I mean, she had quite a good resume prior to starting acting professionally. Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Pioneer Press's Evanston Review has not profiled her, no. Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know this?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did a thorough search using what’s available currently and looking through archives such as Wayback Machine, and the Chicago Public Library verified this. Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to research the Evanston Review prior to the 2014 Chicago Tribune acquisition. How did you do it? Also, I thought that the Chicago Public Library verified the early stuff did not exist.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

edit

First up, I think there is enough material to make a Featured Article out of. It is after midnight here and I was about to go to sleep but had a quick scan of the article:

  • Prose looks okay at first glance, though I need to revisit when less tired.
  • The lead strikes me as too short, though I am looking on a widescreen monitor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 4:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thank you for taking the time to review. I just edited and added to the lead. Let me know what you think. Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks much better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Please let me know if there’s anything else I should modify or improve upon. Factfanatic1 (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Montanabw

edit

I was asked to take a look at this. I may not have time to do a full review, but at first glance, I concur with Cas Liber: the article itself is long enough, though there might be more material to add (but don’t throw in cruft for its own sake) and someone’s level of notability isn’t really a criterion for FAC, which is about article quality (many obscure historic figures have featured articles). But the lede is not quite a complete summary — a more filled-out lede is we usually see for a FA-class article. I’d say clean up all the stuff the others have raised, particularly the kind of nitpicky formatting stuff (which does matter), and maybe build put the lede another paragraph or so, and it will be better. Montanabw(talk) 14:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gen. Quon

edit

I too was asked to look at this, and I concur with what Cas Liber and Montanabw have said about the length; it is short, but well-written and sourced. I do also agree with what Montanabw said about the lede, and I think that it needs to be expanded (~three times its size?) before this article goes further. One note: it seems that she's pretty big into social and political activism. I wonder if this section can be somewhat increased? I feel like there's a lot of material there to work with, and I'd be interested in reading more about her thoughts on socio-political issues. This is just a thought to expand the article a bit, and I do not think that such an expansion is required or crucial. I'll try to provide a more thorough review in the coming days if this is still open, but alas, right now I'm kinda swamped with IRL stuff.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gen. Quon: Thank you. I made the lede significantly longer. In regards to her thoughts on socio-political issues, not much else can really be said apart from what she posts on social media, namely her Instagram (but of course, Instagram isn't considered a reliable source so it'd be difficult). Let me know. Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short source review by Fowler&fowler

edit

I'm going away on vacation and will not be returning to answer questions, nor casting a vote on promotion. These comments are offered on a take it or leave it basis:

Section 1
  • (Sentence 1) Laura Ruth Harrier12 was born on March 28, 1990 in Chicago, Illinois, and was raised in Evanston, Illinois.[3]
  • [1] and [2] are websites of modeling agencies. They say, "Laura Ruth, 5' 9 ".
  • Her name in the movies is the important name here. I wonder if the following are better sources:
  • "was born on March 28, 1990 in Chicago, Illinois, and was raised in Evanston, Illinois.3," which is a video of an appearance on the Chicago ABC TV station, accompanied by a few sentences.
  • Not seeing the date of birth. Only a blurb about "born in Chicago and raised in Evanston" accompanying the video
  • Can we use this source? The general (but not citable) evidence from the real estate data (Realty and Building, volume 102, 1989 and in 1995) suggests that she could have lived in Lake View, Chicago during her first five years. In other words, can we put in a sentence such as this, from a source such as this, when the facts (for which we have only highly suggestive information) might be different? We need a water tight source both for date of birth and "born in," and "raised in," in my view.
  • (Sentence 2):She is biracial with a black father, Temujin Harrier, and a white mother, Linda (née Sagan), of Polish and English descent.456
  • Is [4] Familytron a reliable source?
  • in [5] where are you seeing father is "Black?" It is mostly about her make-up routine. She says "mixed," and her mother being White not knowing what to do with her hair. Cherry picking "mother is White" in a story about make-up and using no other information from it, is WP:UNDUE. Otherwise, the source contradicts sentence 1 above; she says, "When I was little I lived in Chicago, and then later my family and I moved to a suburb just north—Evanston, where Northwestern is."
  • [6] says, "Harrier was raised in the suburbs of Evanston, Illinois, and serendipitously became a model at 17 after she came home from school one day to find a photo shoot happening in her house, and the photographer took a liking to her. She moved to New York City."
  • "Suburbs of Evanston?"
  • "A photo shoot was happening in her house?" For whom and why? No other information is offered.
  • Much later [6] says, "Harrier herself is biracial. Her father is African-American, and her mother is of Polish and English descent. (How did this magazine divine that information? Did she tell them? There is no information.)
  • The reliable story about the family, at least one half, is:
  • Her maternal grandmother Margaret Pickett Sagan was the daughter of J. Waskom Pickett. Her maternal grandfather, John Sagan, was a VP and Treasurer of the Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan. They met at Ohio Wesleyan University. They were noted for their philanthropy, (especially Meg Sagan). Useful files for the maternal family tree, to the extent it is relevant, can be found and cited in an non-OR way in: page 28, page 18, page 28, Newspaper Obit (not paid). Her maternal uncle Scott Sagan is a political scientist at Stanford and received an honorary doctorate from OWU The OWU citation at the commencement has more details about the family.
  • Less is known about the father's family. An aunt Franchee Harmon wrote a book Making Purpose Work: The Challenge of Growing Ourselves and Our Companies, in which LH and her brother are thanked, but citing this would be OR (The father went to Columbia College and then Benedectine University. The mother studied at Ohio Wesleyan and then received an MA in Speech Pathology at Western Michigan University. This is in reliable sources, but making the connection to parents of LH would be OR.)
  • Anyway, to reduce a complex family history to binaries of black and white, especially English and Polish, on such evidence is problematic in my view.
  • Another useful source is:
@Fowler&fowler: Thank you so much for everything! I made sure to include most to everything. Again, thank you! Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't forget to link in Elite Model Management somehow.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I put both Wilhemina Models and Elite Model Management. Factfanatic1 (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why only 2 of the 4 that you mentioned above?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of the four modeling agencies you mean? Two of the four what? Factfanatic1 (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: If you're talking about using only Wilhemina Models and Elite Model Management, but not Muse Models and IMG Models, it's because the sources for the latter are lacking but she was definitely represented by them. Muse Models has shared several posts on their official Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Tumblr pages, and there are several user forums online talking about her being with Muse. Laura has also tagged Muse Models on her Instagram and Twitter on her official accounts, but of course Wikipedia doesn't allow social media or forums to be used as reliable sources. In regards to IMG Models, she has her own IMG Models page but it's blank here: [4] and the agency has advertised her work on their Facebook and Instagram and their official website, such as here: [5], but the strange thing is when you search for her under the agency's clients, she's missing: [6], [7], [8], [9]. Also, I've been following Harrier for four years now when it was announced she'd be starring in Spider-Man back in 2016 and I vividly remember Harrier having an IMG Models page with her name and some modeling work she'd done but it seems to have been wiped from the Internet, and I remember IMG posting on their Facebook and Instagram about her back in 2017 and 2018 (for her magazine work promoting the film) but it's all been wiped it seems. Harrier also posted on her Twitter and Instagram about being with IMG Models and tagged them but it's either been removed (Harrier often deletes posts from Twitter and Instagram) or I'd have to go through each and every one of her posts to show you but that could literally take hours and in any case social media isn't considered reliable to this site anyway. I'm lucky I even found her pictures for Wilhelmina Models and Elite Model Management. That's why I didn't include the other two because she was definitely at one point represented by Muse and IMG, but they're not considered reliable sources. Factfanatic1 (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried the wayback machine?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did try Wayback Machine with various keywords and nothing came up. When I just typed in her name, "Laura Harrier", there were numerous random links that didn't actually include her name. I tried searching through the archive of IMG Models's client pages on their websites from the past and I couldn't find Harrier. Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick remarks from TRM

edit
  • Tables need proper sourcing.
  • Tables need to be compliant with MOS:ACCESS.

I can review this in more detail if required. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: When you say that the tables need proper sourcing, what do you mean? Ever project listed in both tables have been sourced under the "Career" section for Harrier. I went over this with one or two other editors and it was fine. I'm also confused when you say that tables need to be compliant. Aren't both tables already compliant with MOS:ACCESS? Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every line item should be properly referenced, inline. And no, I'm seeing row and col scopes per MOS:ACCESS. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused why every line has to be referenced when everything has reliable sourcing within the article? I'm also confused by what exactly you mean by row and col scopes; how am I supposed to construct the tables? Jennifer Lawrence and Julianne Moore have identical table constructions to Harrier's and they're featured articles. Could you explain please? Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG

edit

I found enough redundancy in the lead alone to suggest this article should not be at FAC until it is independently copy edited. These are some examples:

  • She then moved to New York City
  • short-lived one season reboot ... one season is short lived, and missing hyphen
  • major film debut ... major is an overused word
  • recognition ... recognition, twice in two sentences
  • portraying portraying portrayal
  • also ... almost always redundant
  • then followed ... department of redundancy department.

These are my edits to the lead only.. Feel free to revert, but this article was not and is not FAC ready, and should be withdrawn so that others can collaborate off-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article also needs a serious sourcing check. The publishers are not as they say, and not all the sources are reliable. What is Familytron and what makes it reliable? This needs review throughout.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Hi, in closing this I'll echo the suggestions above re. the FAC mentoring scheme and PR, and note that per FAC instructions there's a minimum two-week wait before (re)nominating this or any other article here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 June 2020 [10].

Kamil Tolon

edit
Nominator(s): Yiğitcank (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Kamil Tolon's biography. He is well known in Turkey and the article have many references. By the reason of these the article needs to have featured statue. I am waiting for your comments. Thanks!--Yiğitcank (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yiğitcank: Have you taken a look at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, and looked at recent promotions and review, in order to familiarize yourself with the standard expected from an FA? HaEr48 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Yes I looked at the page and I think that thsi article needs to be a FA.--Yiğitcank (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest withdrawal. There are multiple problems with prose; YouTube is used as a source; and there are some source formatting issues, but the main concern is that the article is too short. The article in the Turkish Wikipedia is no doubt not perfect but it contains quite a bit of information that isn't here, and there are obvious gaps. I suspect that there are going to be written sources that have not been consulted, but even without that this is not ready for FAC. I suggest more research and expansion followed by peer review or GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mike Christie. Yiğitcank: yes, it can be a featured article - with, as Mike suggests, a lot of further expansion. Currently it would be a quick fail at GAN. Like Mike I recommend you withdraw it; I suggest that you work on it with the short-term aim of getting it to good article status. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yiğitcank, I'm reverting the blanking because the comments here should be visible to other editors interested in the article, but the nomination will be withdrawn. Ian Rose, Ealdgyth, would you one of you archive this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per above, also if the person is really well known in Turkey there would be much more than a few paragraphs that could be written on him. Article needs further development before it can be considered here. buidhe 21:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- before closing I'll note that as well as GAN and PR, you could give the FAC mentoring scheme a try. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 June 2020 [11].

1999 FA Cup Final

edit
Nominator(s): – PeeJay 19:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the final of the 1998–99 FA Cup association football competition. It was the second part of the historic Treble won by Manchester United F.C. that season, along with the Premier League and UEFA Champions League titles. I believe the article meets all of the Featured Article criteria, as it covers the topic in question comprehensively and it is written to a professional standard (mostly by me). All of the facts in the article are supported by citations, so there should be nothing in there that comes across as biased to one side or another. There is also a good amount of supporting media, including photos and a diagram of the team line-ups that I drew in a vector graphics program. I welcome all comments, which I will be only too happy to address as soon as possible. – PeeJay 19:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WA8MTWAYC

edit

It's a great article (and good to see you've contributed a very large part), but I have some (mostly minor) comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I hope I've addressed them, or at least begun to address them, to your satisfaction. – PeeJay 22:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied. As I said, most of my comments were addressing minor issues. I'll keep my eye on the expansion of the match report and the Royal Box sentence, but I'm optimistic about this article. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Background

Route to the final

Match

  • "for the FA Cup final as the swansong to their season" don't see the added value of this part as we know it's the FA Cup final and the latter part seems a bit odd to me (although I get what you're saying).
  • Three times "Champions League final" in a short span; better to replace the second one with "that final" (or whatever you come up with) and the last one with another synonym.
  • Jaap Stam is overlinked, as are Liverpool, Alan Shearer, and Ryan Giggs.
  • Maybe link substitute in "while first-choice centre-back Jaap Stam was named among the substitutes".
  • "in the starting line-up by Phil Neville.[22][3]" reforder refs.
  • Need a source for "so Ronny Johnsen and David May started in defence".
  • The summary section needs some expansion.
  • "the Manchester United goalkeeper Schmeichel gathered it at the second attempt". Why is goalkeeper linked here? If you link the word, it's better to link it in "Despite having goalkeeper Shay Given sent off within the first 15 minutes and then going 1–0 down" in the route to the final section, and to unlink it here. Also, I would recommend to link the other positions defender, midfielder, and forward, for consistency.
  • "Newcastle's Dietmar Hamann then received the first booking of the game for late tackle on Phil Neville". Link booking in "Roy Keane then received a second booking and was sent off for a cynical foul on Marc Overmars" in the last paragraph of the route to the final section instead of here.
  • "crafted first by Cole then by Paul Scholes with a well-weighted first time ball" maybe better to put Andy Cole instead of Cole alone, as it's been a while since he's been mentioned. Also, think it's better to drop "Paul" in this sentence, as it would be the fourth time his full name is mentioned throughout the article.
  • Better to drop "Peter" in "a powerfully hit long-range effort just being diverted away from goal by Peter Schmeichel".
  • Same with "Ruud" in "Newcastle manager Ruud Gullit, who knew the match was fading from his team".
  • Link Didier Domi in "Solskjær beat Didier Domi to Dabizas' clearance and passed to Sheringham".
  • Maybe rewrite "of the Dane's right-hand post and the game finished 2–0 to Manchester United" to something like "of the Dane's right-hand post", as the game finished 2–0 to Manchester United".
    • I've added a comma after 'post', but I think it's fine to say "and the game finished..." as the fact that the final score was 2–0 is directly down to the fact that Maric missed that effort (as did other Newcastle players). – PeeJay 22:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-match

  • "Also present in the Royal Box were the Duke and Duchess of Kent (the Duke performing his role as President of The Football Association), Prime Minister Tony Blair, FA chief executive Geoff Thompson, Manchester United chairman Martin Edwards and Newcastle chairman John Hall." this needs to be sourced.
    • I'll do my best to find one. If I can't find one in the next few days, I'll delete the sentence. – PeeJay 22:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • WA8MTWAYC I feel I know what the answer is going to be here, but would the DVD of the final be a sufficient source if those people are visible in shot, even if they're not explicitly named by the commentary? The Duke and Duchess of Kent are named at the start of the match when the teams are presented to the royal contingent, but that's it (other than an oblique reference to Tony Blair watching the match, although it's not obvious from that source that he was watching at Wembley rather than on TV). – PeeJay 11:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but I don't think it's concrete enough/sufficient. I had a look on the Internet, but found no credible source. Maybe it's best to remove it, since it has a low added value (in my opinion). Another solution is to hope it's reported in a newspaper (if you're subscribed to a newspaper database). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write the names of the Duke and Duchess of Kent (Edward and Katharine).
  • Link Barcelona in "People say that going to Barcelona without Roy Keane will be a major hurdle"".
  • "Having claimed an unprecedented third Double in six seasons" better to drop "unprecedented" as it sounds rather informal.
  • Double doesn't need to be capitalized in "Having claimed an unprecedented third Double in six seasons".
    • I think it does, since "the Double" is a specific achievement in this context (i.e. the English league and FA Cup in the same season). If we were referring to "a league and cup double" in the generic form, I would agree, but this is the Double. – PeeJay 22:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same applies to treble in "the Champions League final in Barcelona four days later to claim the Treble".
  • "Their FA Cup triumph would also have qualified them for the 1999 FA Charity Shield and the 1999–2000 UEFA Cup, but their position as league winners meant that they had already qualified for the Charity Shield and the higher-tier Champions League; therefore, the other place in the Charity Shield went to league runners-up Arsenal, while the UEFA Cup place usually reserved for the cup winners went to Newcastle as cup runners-up." where's the source for the parts about the Charity Shield?
  • "Second Round" (two times in the last paragraph) doesn't need to be capitalized.
  • Neither does "Third Round" in "Their place in the Third Round was given to a "lucky loser"".
  • Link lucky loser.
  • "Manchester United were knocked out of the Club World Championship at the group stage after losing to hosts Vasco da Gama and drawing with Mexican club Necaxa, their only victory coming against Australian representatives South Melbourne." Source?

Images

Sources

Comments by Sarastro

edit

Oppose: I think we're struggling a little bit to meet Criterion 1a right now. At the very least, this needs a considerable copy-edit by someone familiar with FAC. Here are a few examples, but this is not an exhaustive list and simply fixing these would not be enough to address my concerns over prose.

  • "It was contested between Manchester United and Newcastle United, with goals from Teddy Sheringham and Paul Scholes giving Manchester United a 2–0 win to claim their 10th FA Cup title.": The noun plus -ing construction is usually best avoided, and this would perhaps be better as "It was contested between Manchester United and Newcastle United. Goals from Teddy Sheringham and Paul Scholes gave Manchester United a 2–0 win to claim their 10th FA Cup title", but that would still leave "sports-speak"/"journalese" "gave Manchester United a ... win". I'd be inclined to rewrite the whole thing as "Manchester United defeated Arsenal 2-0, with goals from Teddy Sheringham and Paul Scholes, to claim their 10th FA Cup."
  • "It was the second part of the treble of trophies Manchester United won during the 1998–99 season, which was completed four days later, when they won the Champions League.": As written, this could mean that the 1998-99 season was completed four days later (which I appreciate is technically true, but I don't think that is the intention here!); what about "It was the second of three trophies won by Manchester United during the 1998-99 season, a treble they completed four days later when they won the Champions League." It may even be worth slipping "historic" in there somewhere.
  • "Manchester United's route to the final saw them face Premier League opposition in every round except the fifth": Again, slipping into journalese with "route to the final". And I personally loathe using "saw" in this way, but I think I'm fighting a losing battle over that. What about "Manchester United were drawn against Premier League opposition in every round of the competition except the fifth"?
  • "Since Manchester United qualified for the 1999–2000 UEFA Champions League as title holders and winners of the 1998–99 FA Premier League, England's place in the 1999–2000 UEFA Cup, now reserved for the FA Cup winners following the dissolution of the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup at the end of the season, was given to Newcastle United as the runners-up.": This is very long and tricky to follow. It is a lot of words for very little pay-off. What about cutting it right back to "As Manchester United had already qualified for the Champions League, the place in the UEFA Cup reserved for FA Cup Winners was given to Newcastle United as runners up." The explanations can wait for the main body.
  • "Manchester United did not defend their FA Cup title, choosing instead to participate in the 2000 FIFA Club World Championship in Brazil, believing that it would help The Football Association's bid to host the 2006 FIFA World Cup (which was eventually awarded to the German Football Association)." Might be a bit tighter if we had something like "Rather than defend their FA Cup Title, Manchester United elected to participate in the 2000 FIFA Club World Championship in Brazil...", and I wonder do we need the information about it going to Germany? Or could we just have "ultimately unsuccessful bid"? (This point isn't actually too big a deal for me)
  • Examples (and there are plenty more) of sports journalese in the main body: "having clinched", "Manchester United also came out on top", "Third Round Proper" (for the casual reader, this is better as simply "Third Round" or a note should be added explaining that there are preliminary rounds, hence the "proper"), "The Fifth Round saw Newcastle drawn at home" (also, why are we capitalising Third Round, Fourth Round, etc?), "opened the scoring", "selection dilemma", "The first half was full of incident", "long-range effort" (the last two sound exactly like a newspaper report, a style best avoided in an encyclopedia)...
  • I'm not sure the long list of titles won by the two teams in the background section is necessary. We could say how many times they won, but do we really need to list all the years? Sarastro (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing: There are no problems with any of the sources used, and a quick check revealed no obvious issues with verification or close paraphrasing. But there are perhaps a couple of concerns. One minor point: "is often included in lists of the greatest matches in the history of the tournament": We cite this using three lists of greatest matches. We would be far better finding a source that explicitly says "the match is often included in lists of greatest matches". Otherwise, we should really say "the match was named as one of the greatest FA Cup games by source X, Y and Z."

A bigger issue is that almost all of the sources used are match reports from 1999: 31 out of 45 references are to news sources dated 1999. While there is nothing wrong as such with using contemporary reports, it does mean that we may not be setting the match in its proper context, and we do not get a deeper look at what it all meant. Given the importance of the game, I find it hard to believe that no-one has talked about it since. Is the best we can do a few post-match quotes? We do not appear to have used this article from 2019 about the treble. I notice that the book The Impossible Treble is used as a reference, but only two pages, and only twice in the article. Is there really nothing else in this book about the game? Has Gullit not talked about it? Did Ferguson not mention it in his autobiography? Have none of the players talked about it since? Are there no scholarly sources that look at the game? Because of this I don't think we are meeting Criteria 1c.

I am happy to revisit this if pinged (although as I said, simply answering each point would not convince me to strike my oppose. I think the article needs looking at in some depth), but currently, I'm afraid that I don't believe the article meets the criteria. Sorry. Sarastro (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you're not happy with the quality of the article, Sarastro1. I'll do my best to go over the prose with a fine-toothed comb in the coming days, although I'm in the middle of a house move, so it will be difficult. At the very least, I'll address the comments you've made above and try to make improvements in the little time I have available this weekend. The trouble with 'sports-ese' is that that is how the match is mostly discussed in reliable sources. I could try to say "Player X shot from 35 yards out" based on my own assessment of the distance, but when all reliable sources say it was a "long-range effort", I don't see how I'm able to say anything different without violating WP:OR. Regarding the sourcing, I have only a few relevant books at my disposal right now, though I do have Ferguson's autobiography at my parents' house. I'll see if I can get hold of it. Nevertheless, I fear there may not be much to say about the deeper meaning of the game; The Impossible Treble describes it as "the simplest leg of the triple-trophy haul", which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. – PeeJay 11:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the sources use a word doesn't mean that we have to use the same one; and it is infinitely preferable in many ways to use a different one. "Long-range effort" is easily changed into the less tabloidy "long-range shot". Even scraps from other sources would be good, and in all honesty, I think adding "the simplest leg of the triple-trophy haul" is exactly the type of thing that the article needs to give it some context. Good luck with the house move, incidentally; you have my sympathy! Sarastro (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see what you mean now. I do worry that if we avoid sports-ese entirely we run the risk of the language we use becoming a little stale (there's only so many encyclopaedia-friendly synonyms for the word 'shot', for example) but I'll do my best to keep any rewrites FA-friendly. – PeeJay 14:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias

edit

Putting down a marker to look at this later. Harrias talk 16:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • Generally, I really like this section: I think that it puts the match into good context, explaining the level the two teams were operating on. I would like to see a little more explanation of what the FA Cup itself is: it doesn't need to be loads, just a couple of sentences so that a reader understands what this is the final of.
  • Avoid Noun plus -ing: it appears a couple of times in this section: "with Manchester United winning" and I can see some examples later on. A quick way of finding some of these would be to use the find function to search for , with.
Route to the final
  • "..the last team to beat them all season." What is sourcing this? Also, if this is going to be mentioned, more context should be provided about when it happened, even if just by saying "three weeks earlier" or similar.
  • "Home draws in the Sixth Round for both teams ensured that they had both been drawn at home in every round of the competition.." I'm not keen on the repetition of "home" and "both" here, it jars me.
  • The table needs to be made accessible to meet the requirements of MOS:DTT (row and column scopes and a caption to be added).
Match details
Post-match
Legacy
  • Unless there is more to add here, I would merge this single-sentence section into "Post-match".
References
  • What makes "FCHD.info" a reliable source?
  • What makes "StretfordEnd.co.uk" a reliable source?
  • Phil McNulty has a page we can link to.
  • So does Henry Winter.
  • What makes "unitedkits.com" a reliable source?
  • Matt Lawton (journalist) has a page we can link to.
  • What makes "kassiesa.net" a reliable source?
  • Ref #58 "Brown, Luke (20 May 2016)" is behind The Telegraph's subscription wall, add |url-access=subscription

Overall this looks pretty decent, but in need of tidying to meet the FA standards. I do think that it would have benefited from going through the Good article process before coming here, where a lot of the basics could have been picked up. I have not completed a detailed prose review, as Sarastro1 has covered that, and I await their further comments before looking too much at the prose myself. Sourcing wise, I've got a couple of books on my shelf which might be help, I'll take a look when I get a chance. Harrias talk 10:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll take the blame for suggesting it come straight here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Hi, I note Saratro's recommendation for a copyedit by a FAC regular, as well as Harrias' concerns. There seems to be about 4K worth of extra info since Sarastro's review as well. I think it's best we archive this now and work on improvements, including the independent copyedit, outside the FAC process. After that, GAN or PR or both would be helpful before having another go here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 June 2020 [12].

NERVA

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about NERVA, the NASA nuclear rocket project. Unlike its forerunner, Project Rover, it developed entire engines and not just reactors for them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood

edit

For what it's worth I don't know what it's about from the lead section. It lists dates and that it was considered successful but I truly have no idea what it did, what those goals were or why it was successful from the lead (how it was tested, why it was needed, etc.). In my opinion it wasn't that successful if it never launched anything. It doesn't really cover the "origins" section either. Also none of the statistics from the engine infobox are covered in the lead, how it compares with other engines, etc.

Looking onward, the article from what I can tell is well-written overall but the lead isn't great in my opinion. I'll list some other comments I have:

Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* In December 1953, it was published in Oak Ridge's Journal of Reactor Science and Technology. While still classified, this gave it a wider circulation. was the Oak Ridge Journal of Reactor Science and Technology classified as well? Or was the paper leaked?

Therapyisgood (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde93

edit
  • As I noted when reviewing Project Rover at FAC, that article had a lot of redundancies with this one. That might be expected if one was an overview of a broader topic, but it's not; they're almost-but-not-quite identical topics. Having two FAs with the same content does not feel right to me. This isn't made explicit in the criteria, but it seems to me that it's common sense; articles that are redundant in this way usually get dealt with long before they appear at FAC. Given that it's a potentially fuzzy area, I'd like to hear from @FAC coordinators: the coordinators what weight they would give this concern, should it rise to the level of an "oppose". Vanamonde (Talk) 01:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is certainly overlap in the Origins section, and the Project Rover section is a summary of that article. The two articles diverge thereafter. The structure has been established for a long time, with them assuming their current form structurally by 2010. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are other featured articles with substantial overlap, such as those on various warships of the same class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim that the articles diverge after the first two sections is inaccurate. There is substantial overlap in "transfer to NASA" (corresponding to a section of the same title in the other article); "Kiwi" (corresponding to a section of the same name in the other article); "Cancellation"; and "Post-NERVA research" (corresponding to "Legacy" in the other article). They even use identical sentences in some places. The SNPO subsection has material that's scattered across the Project Rover article. As far as I can see, the "NERVA NRX" and "NERVA XE" are the only ones that are entirely unique to this article; that's two subsections of eleven. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider this a valid oppose reason. I'm not sure that others would, but I would take it seriously. Apologies for the late reply, just getting back after a computer failure. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably the worst possible time for a computer failure, but glad you're okay. I wasn't trying to game the system, only to bring both articles up to FAC standard. As Vanamonde93 says, they are almost-but-not-quite identical topics. The only alternative I can think of is to merge the two articles, but I doubt that there would be support for that. If the article cannot be promoted, then the nomination will have to be archived. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit I was kind of seeing both sides of the argument so I was interested in Ealdgyth's thoughts. In any case the review isn't making headway so I think need to archive no matter what. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [13].

Cai Qi

edit
Nominator(s): Magnovvig (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Cai Qi, one of the most powerful men in Beijing and the leader of the June 2020 effort to eliminate COVID-19 at the Beijing's Xinfadi market. Magnovvig (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and recommend withdrawal: this article has outsanding citation needed tags and choppy prose with short paragraphs. Furthermore, if they are involved in current events the article is unlikely to be stable. Suggest WP:GAN before renominating here. buidhe 07:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Yes, ref-wise alone this is a premature nom. Suggest not only GAN but also Peer Review before considering another run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [14].

2019 WPA World Ten-ball Championship

edit
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a professional ten-ball pool tournament held last year. The championship hadn't been held since 2015, when it was won by Ko Pin-yi. Ko lost in the semi-finals of the event to Joshua Filler, who played Ko's brother Ko Ping-chung in the final. Filler, the reigning nine-ball world champion went into an early lead, but was ultimately defeated 10-7 by Ko. The event featured a $132,000 prize fund, very large for a pool event, and played as both a double-elimination and single-elimination tournament. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Coord note

edit

Hi, with only an image review -- welcome though it is -- after two weeks I think this is a bit of a non-starter, so I'm going to archive it. Happy to waive the usual two-week waiting period before re-nom but I'd suggest waiting until we prune the FAC list a bit so it doesn't get buried again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [15].

The Now Now

edit
Nominator(s): Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 06:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: This is my first FAC. If I do something wrong, please let me know.)

I have primarily worked on this article on my own, but it recently had a peer review and I have received a few extra tips from User:Masem.

This article is about the British virtual band Gorillaz' fifth studio album, following their somewhat critically divisive 2017 album Humanz. This album was taken by critics as a sort of opposite to Humanz. Whereas Humanz had 20 songs and plenty of guest features, The Now Now only contained 11 tracks and 3 features. It is also a sonically different listen (as is the norm for all of Gorillaz' albums) and I hope you consider the article up to FA standards. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 06:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Welcome to FAC! Don't use fixed px size for images; you can use |upright= instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 04:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
Lead and infobox
edit
  • I would separate the lead into two paragraphs to make the information somewhat more digestible to readers.
    • Done.
  • Is the All Points East festival tease really important/notable enough to be included in the second sentence of the lead?
    • Removed.
  • The lead says that the album recorded started in late 2017, but the infobox gives a more exact date (September 2017). The "Recording" section says late 2017 as well, but I am guessing the September 2017 part is coming from the "Idaho" live performance. It is a little confusing since it is not entirely consistent. I would go with the late 2017 date unless there is a source that specifically says September 2017 was the time the recording started.
  • I am a little confused by the inclusion of "Lake Zurich" in this lineup: (including the lead single "Humility", "Lake Zurich", "Hollywood" and "Tranz".) Since only some of the singles are mentioned here, I had assumed it would only be the ones with Wikipedia articles, and "Lake Zurich" seems like the odd one out here. What makes this single notable enough to be mentioned here over others?
    • Removed.
  • I do not think the Drowned in Sound quote should be included in the lead. It is a great source, but putting a single critic/publication in the lead gives it more undue weight over others.
    • Removed.
  • From my personal experience, it is not normal to use references/citations in the infobox of an album article. This is because all of this information should already be included and sourced in the body of the article.
    • Moved.

I will be going through the article section-by-section to make sure that I cover everything. Let me know if anything needs further clarification. I hope you have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done in this section. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 05:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background
edit
  • In the first sentence, Albarn's full name should be used and he should be linked since it is the first time he is mentioned in the body of the article. A short descriptive phrase, similar to the one used in the lead, would also be helpful here.
  • For the same reason, Gorillaz should also be linked in the first sentence since it is the first time the band is mentioned in the body of the article.
    • Done both.
  • For this part, (He compared the spontaneous nature of it to their 2010 album, The Fall,), I do not think the first comma in front of the album title is necessary.
    • Removed.
  • I would avoid using the "expressed x" sentence construction in this part, (but expressed desire to make another record like that feel more "complete" in comparison), and I would instead say something like: but wanted to make another record like that feel more "complete" in comparison.
    • Changed per your wording.
  • For the last sentence of the first paragraph, I would replace "the subsequent year" with "in 2018" since 2017 was only mentioned in the first sentence.
    • Changed per your wording,
  • I would rephrase this sentence, (At a concert in Seattle in September 2017, a new song called "Idaho" was debuted.), as it is a little awkward to me. I'd go for something like: (Gorillaz debuted "Idaho" during a September 2017 concert in Seattle.)
    • Changed per your wording.
  • I would remove "late" in the phrase, (In late March 2018), as I am unsure if it is entirely necessary.
    • Removed.
  • For this part, (while at a concert in Santiago), I would say "during" instead of "while at".
    • Changed.
  • I would link URL.
    • Added.
  • I have a comment for this sentence: (The latter pointed to a teaser for the album that revealed its title and release date.) This is a personal preference on my part, but I agree with the following essay (Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation) about avoiding the latter/former word choice.
    • Reworded.
  • All Points East is linked twice in the body of the article when it should only be linked on the first mention/instance.
    • Removed duplicate link.
  • I know absolutely nothing about this band so I am confused on how Jamie Hewlett is related to the band. Some sort of descriptive phrase would be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recording
edit
  • I think this part, (According to a Radio X interview with Albarn, the album was produced within), is awkwardly constructed. I would go for something a little more like: (In a Radio X interview, Albarn said that album was produced within...). The "according to" sentence structure just does not work from my perspective.
    • Changed.
  • I have a few issues with the only sentence in the second paragraph. I would remove the "In the same interview" part. It is not immediately following the Radio X sentence so it is a little confusing to refer back to here. The citation placement is also weird because it cuts the sentence into two, which hinders readability, and it is unclear what citation is being used to support the second half of this sentence. I would also just say "saying" instead of "stating".
    • Moved (hopefully).
  • The second paragraph is almost entirely a long quote. I would encourage you to think about a way to paraphrase this quote to really clarify why this information is important to the reader.
    • Changed.
  • This section is rather short, and it may be beneficial to combine it with the "Background" section to make a "Background and recording" section. I think it would be helpful to have these two sections together and edit the prose so it reads more like a cohesive narrative. Aoba47 (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Musical style
edit
  • A section like this one is typically named something like "Music and lyrics" or "Composition and lyrics". With that being said, however, this section seemingly only focuses on how the album sounds. It does not go into the lyrics or the songs' basic concepts or ideas. This seems like a pretty sizable gap, especially given the last sentence of the previous section explicitly talks about "lyrical cohesion".
    • Added some reviews that mention lyrics.
  • For this part, (that it compared to their earlier album Plastic Beach), I would clarify "their" and add the year the album was released instead of saying "earlier", which is too vague.
    • Done.
  • DIY and PopMatters should both be in italics.
    • Done.
  • DIY and Drowned in Sound are both linked in later sections when they should only be linked on the first instance, which is in this section.
    • Done.
  • Some parts of this read too closely to a critical reception section. This part should be more unbiased. For instance, the following quotes read too much like reviews than descriptions of the album's sound: (an impressive collection of different and varying drum patterns), (The music doesn’t knock you down as much as it washes over you like a warm, comforting wave).
    • Removed.
  • The prose in this section could use further work. It reads more like a list of critics and their opinions/quotes rather than a cohesive take on the album's sound. I think this is made even more noticeable since the lyrics/song content is not mentioned at all and the amount of quotes. I have a tendency to use a lot of quotes, but I would look carefully at the quote usage here.
    • I've added some reviews that mention the lyrics, if that's what you were looking for.
      • My concerns with the prose go further than just whether or not it had information on the lyrics. I still think the prose needs further work to avoid sounding like a list of critics. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, but I oppose this nomination based on the prose. I think substantial work needs to be done, which should occur outside the FAC space. I'd recommend another peer review and inviting editors who have worked on album FAC for advice and reaching out to a FAC mentor. While reading the article, I notice more and more issues with the prose which hinder it from meet the prose requirement of the FA criteria (at least in my opinion). Apologies for the oppose. No one enjoys an oppose (both on the nominator and reviewer end). Aoba47 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you for the review and I will take an in-depth look at the prose (and your comments) in the next few hours. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 06:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I've had a good look at the prose in the prose in the article. Would you mind adding comments for the rest of the sections in the article? Thanks in advance, User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 08:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the revisions. I have some brief comments on the remainder of the article, but I will not do a more thorough look because I think that type of work should be done outside of the FAC space. Here are some quick comments below:
  • The poster tease at All Points East is explained in two separate sections, which seems unnecessarily repetitive.
    • Removed second iteration.
  • The "Singles" subsection almost entirely focuses on the song's commercial performance. It would be better to expand on this section by moving information about the music video here and any further background information on the songs.
    • Will do.
  • The "Year-end rankings" subsection/table seems unnecessary since there is only one accolade. This could easily be covered in the prose instead.
    • Moved.
  • For the "Track listing" section, I would also clarify who produced the songs.
    • Will do.
  • For the citations, I would not put the publication name in caps, as done in references 18 and 22. It makes sense to do it with DIY, but not so much with Uproxx and The Fader. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now – as mentioned by Aoba47 above, the "Music and lyrics" section of the article should definitely be expanded into a complete song-by-song composition section; see other featured album articles for examples of these. Also, the "Commercial performance" section is extremely small and needs to be combined with the reception section somehow. Philroc (c) 13:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, looking like it's back to the editing board for this article. Thanks for the suggestions – I've combined the "Commercial performance" section. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 14:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @FAC coordinators: How many oppose votes are needed to close a nomination? User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Oh, Toodles! 09:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, sorry, this ping didn't register at the time for some reason. A belated welcome to FAC from the coords! We try not to think of "supports" or "opposes" as "votes", because promoting or archiving a nomination is supposed to be based on consensus rather that simple numbers. So noms can continue with active opposes, especially if those are grounded in the FAC criteria, but OTOH it does look like some serious work is necessary and that is indeed done away from FAC. So I'll archive it and echo Aoba's suggestion for Peer Review. Another option you could consider (particularly if PR doesn't attract commentary) is the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [16].

Burnley F.C.

edit
Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Burnley Football Club, an English football team currently playing in the Premier League. I'm looking to get this promoted to FA, as it currently is a GA, and I think it meets the criteria of a FA now. It would be great to have a second team in claret and blue receiving this status! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the graph
Featured articles such as Aston Villa F.C., Cardiff City F.C., Gillingham F.C., and Luton Town F.C. all have charts with a two-year scale. They were all made by one user (the Burnley one also); "EclecticArkie". WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not talking about the graph data here, but rather the actual displayed size of the graph - |upright= can be used to make it appear larger. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Burnley_FC_1890.png: when/where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
In the local newspaper (probably the Burnley Express) in 1890. They won the Lancashire Cup (the trophy that is in the picture), so probably at the end of April that year, as the final was held on 26 April. I'm not subscribed to a newspaper database or something of the sort, so it's quite hard to obtain more information. What do you suggest? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any photographer credit in the source? If no, you may need to rely on a different tag for UK status. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is not, and also not in other similar photos I found. What tag do you suggest? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Replaced the tag with "PD-UK-unknown". WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As below, the UK-unknown tag requires the image description to include an explanation of efforts made to try to identify author. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_King_George_V_presents_the_FA_Cup_1914.jpg: source link is dead, as per the UK tag the description needs to include research done to try to determine authorship, and when/where was this first published?
Although the image is used by many websites on the web (including Liverpool F.C. and Burnley F.C.), the photographer is unknown. I assume the photo was published by multiple newspapers throughout the country the day after. It's frustrating to not find any information. What do you suggest? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Start by replacing the dead link - if it's used elsewhere that should be fairly straightforward. Next, see if you can confirm your assumption, and check whether the publications include any photographer credit. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the dead link. Searched on the web and in books, but found no photo details or credit. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What was the earliest publication found? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
April 1914 (found no specific day). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest specifying in the image description this earlier source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Burnley_F.C._1920-21.jpg: as above, UK tag requires description of research done on authorship. Same with File:Tommy_Boyle.JPG (which also has a deadlinked source), File:Jerry_Dawson.jpg
Does the link need to be replaced?
Yes please. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Featured articles Arsenal F.C. and Liverpool F.C. both contain pictures (File:Arsenal 1888 squad photo.jpg and File:John Houlding.jpg, respectively) with similar infoboxes. What's so different about these pictures?
All three pictures are property of the local newspapers, the names of the photographers/employees were not known, so what can I do? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know they are not known? Basically all we need here is a description on the image page of what steps you've taken to confirm that. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Used the Internet and books, but again no extra information. Boyle's picture was indeed taken during his spell at Barnsley, as it's their shirt he's wearing (Burnley's collar had a different colour than the shirt itself; this is a plain shirt). The original link is unfortunately dead, but Barnsley's main website also used the photo, and gave no credit or information. The 1920-21 and Dawson photos are both found in "The Clarets Chronicles", but no further information was given. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How would that description look like? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy the description of your search efforts from here to there, to demonstrate that you've done reasonable due diligence in checking for author credit. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EclecticArkie gets the league placings from a website called "Football Club History Database", a frequently cited site on English and Welsh football club pages, as it covers all information on league placings and cup runs.
Does it need to be included in the infobox of the graph? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for your comments. I've responded to it above. Image licencing is all new to me. Looking forward to the follow up. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I have addressed your points. I hope it's alright now. If not, please let me know. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Hi WA8MTWAYC, I gather this would be your first FAC, in which case a belated welcome! This image review is vital but we need a good deal of comprehensive commentary on all aspects of the article to gain consensus for promotion, and with nothing else after two weeks it would be a considerable time before we get to that stage. So I'm going to archive this and suggest that you try a Peer Review to see if you can get some more commentary before another nom. Alternatively (or in addition) you'd be eligible to give the FAC mentoring scheme a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [17].

SpongeBob SquarePants (character)

edit
Nominator(s): Jerry (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants is a well known animated character from the TV series of the same name, and I am hoping to promote this article so that there might be at least one SpongeBob-related FA, and so that I can bring an article of my own to TFA. This is my first time on this corner of the site, so if I've missed something, let me know. It's also the first time in a while that the article for a fictional character has come up on the queue, so there's not much precedent for me to look back on. Nonetheless, I await all your comments. Thank you.Jerry (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit

I always enjoy seeing a fictional character article brought to the FAC space. And I was a huge fan of the show when I was growing up. These are my comments for the lead and infobox. I will look through the rest of the article and add my comments by the end of the week if that is okay with you. I hope you are having a good week so far:

  • The naïve wikilink seems unnecessary to me.
  • I think that these two parts, (is portrayed as a naïve and goofy sponge) and (is characterized by his optimism and childlike attitude,), are somewhat repetitive as they conveying very similar information about his personality.
  • Is there any particular reason for using the chef wikilink for the phrase "fry cook" rather than the redirect fry cook. They both go to the same article, but the redirect goes to a specific subsection that may be more beneficial to readers unfamiliar with the concept.
  • For this part, the host of Hillenburg's book The Intertidal Zone, I would specify that it is a comic book.
  • I would rearrange this part: the cancellation in 1996 of Rocko's Modern Life, which he directed. I think something like the following would be better: the 1996 cancellation of Rocko's Modern Life, which he directed. I am suggesting this because this part, the cancellation in 1996, reads a little awkwardly to me, and I would put the show name right after the cancellation bit rather than the year.
  • I would not put asexual in quote as it is not necessary. I also do not think the citation is necessary as this information should also be included and cited in the body of the article. It is generally discouraged to put citations in the lead.
  • Ethan Slater is named in the infobox, but he is not mentioned in the lead or the body of the article at all. I also think it is strange that the musical is not mentioned in this article at all as I would imagine there would be coverage on how this character is portrayed (either from the actor or critics).
  • In the lead, you describe Spongebob as just a sponge, but then call him a sea sponge in the infobox and a yellow tube sponge in the body of the article. I would pick one for consistency.
  • Please include alternative text for the infobox image. Aoba47 (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to note that the nominator (JerrySa1) has not been active on Wikipedia since May 18, 2020. I will not continue with my review since the nominator has not directly engaged with my comments above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. There are still unresolved issues that I have pointed out above, such as the use of a citation in the lead and how Ethan Slater (and the Broadway show in general) is only mentioned in the infobox and nowhere else. I would also add better ALT text than just the word "SpongeBob". Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna edit a bit: copy-edit

edit

I copy edited the lead. Please go over my edits, I'm very new to Wikipedia editing. Just one comment, you have a sentence in the lead saying, 'Hillenburg began developing a show based on the premise shortly after the 1996 cancellation of Rocko's Modern Life, which Hillenburg directed' You don't mention what premise Hilenburg based the show on. Just a question, has this article been copy-edited before? --Just gonna edit a bit (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems fine when it comes to grammar. Just gonna edit a bit (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Why center the captions in pieces?
  • File:Bob_the_Sponge_(The_Intertidal_Zone).jpg: FUR in this case is deficient - it's certainly not the primary means of identifying the character now. File:SpongeBoy_by_Stephen_Hillenburg.jpg has a longer FUR but still doesn't do a great job of explaining why the image is justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose article looks like it hasn't been updated since 2009, the "Criticism and controversy" as well as the "Critical reception" page don't reflect anything newer than 2009 despite the fact that the show has been on air for ten additional years. I'd be interested to hear how the character transitioned from the earlier episodes to the modern ones, if at all. Same with the "merchandising" section. The "Cultural impact and legacy" section hasn't been updated since 2011, which will of course require a re-balance of the sections once the article is updated. Not up to featured article status right now, so I'm opposing. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Sorry but this review has stalled so I'm going to archive it. Per FAC instructions, there's a minimum wait of two weeks before nominating this again. As a newcomer to FAC, you might consider giving the FAC mentoring scheme a try beforehand. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [18].

Stockport County F.C.

edit
Nominator(s): Wna247 (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Stockport County Football Club, and English football team that plays in the National League; the top division of the English non-league football system and the fifth division overall of the English football league system. This article has received both a a peer review and then a Copy Edit by a member of the guild of copy editors. Wna247 (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

I was very pleased to see that despite not having a tonne of edits you have such a big stake in this article. I'll put some thoughts down below:

  • Why are there three refs in the lede/Infobox? They seem like things we could cite elsewhere in the prose.
  • The club are nicknamed The Hatters after - potential speech marks for the name.
  • 1996–97 - link the season
  • away to West Ham United.[90][79] - reforder refs
  • December. [253][254] - rmv space
  • match.[256]The second leg - add space
  • League.[260][261]. A - punctuation issue
  • The "Top 10 managers in the club's history" - does this include caretaker managers? Might need to be a bit clearer.
  • League pyramid statistics - is this necessary? Doesn't feel very encylopaedic.
  • Stockport County hold the record for the best sequence of results in the Football League, winning nine matches in succession without conceding a goal - best according to whom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for these Comments I have made amendments based off your suggestions. Also just to bring you and everyone else who may look at this nominee here is the peer review which may help with clarification of certain parts of the article. In terms of the points above, the two biggest points to me are League pyramid statistics, The "Top 10 managers in the club's history" and Stockport County record. League pyramid statistics have been removed as its sort of covered any way in the prose plus there is an image in the article showing the clubs positions over the years. The "Top 10 managers in the club's history" has been amended to state that the stats only include full time managers and not interim or caretaker managers. If this section is still felt irrelevant then I'm happy to remove it. For the section about the clean sheet record at the bottom of the article, I have added a reference and slightly re-worded. All points regarding references/punctuation have now been fixed. Wna247 (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Stockport_County_FC_logo.svg: FUR is incomplete
  • File:Stockport-County-1914-15-400px.jpg: it's not clear that the source site's author would be the copyright holder for this image, and even if he were the licensing of the site is not CC
  • Several of the article's other images were uploaded by a user with a history of having multiple images deleted for copyright concerns - need more evidence that these have been correctly licensed
  • File:Cheadle_End,_Edgeley_Park.jpg: the link provided by the uploader states that the image was stolen from a yearbook. Is there any evidence to support the current tagging? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the image review - I have gone through the article and removed File:Stockport-County-1914-15-400px.jpg - this image was no longer on the linked website so source info could not be checked in terms of image File:Cheadle_End,_Edgeley_Park.jpg:- YB stands for Yellowboard (the Stockport County supporters messageboard) not Yearbook but I can understand the confusion. Its not something you would understand if you wasn't a fan of the team. I cant find the original post on the messageboard where the image was from so I have removed it from the article. I have removed and replaced images from users that have had multiple images deleted for ambiguous copyright info. I have also updated the copyright info of the clubs crest. If anything is wrong or missing let me know and I will remove or replace.Wna247 (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the captions that aren't complete sentences now have periods - those should be removed.
  • The logo's FUR is still incomplete
  • File:Wycliffe_Congregational_Church,_Heaton_Norris.jpg needs a copyright tag. Same with File:Fire_at_Stockport_County_Football_Ground.jpg, File:Stockport_County_receiving_the_Championship_Shield_in_1937.jpg
  • File:Patrick_Norris,_Stockport_County_1919–20.jpg: per the UK tag this needs to specify what research has been done to try to determine authorship, and when/where was this first published?
  • File:Stockport_County_Football_Team_1957.jpg: why is this believed to be CC-licensed?
  • There are still four images from the user I mentioned above - need more evidence that these have been correctly licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Again thanks for this. I have now added the copyright licensing to the images I added earlier today. The Stockport Image Archive website states they have no copyright, therefore I believe its allowed to be freely used. I have also corrected the licensing for the team photograph in this case. The Patrick Norris mage I have removed from the article, I didn't upload this image and the Stockport Image Archive doesn't show who took the photo or anywhere where the image was published so I can't trace that information. I have now removed all the files from the user you mentioned previously. Hopefully the Logo FUR is now completed but again if there is anything missing let me know and I will look for the information. Wna247 (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the tagging for the Stockport Image Archive is it states that the "copyright holder...irrevocably releases all rights to it". That is not the same as just saying the image has no copyright - we need to know specifically why to know whether that applies worldwide (specifically for our purposes in the US). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM

edit

Wikicup review

Lead to –1930
edit
  • Suggest you link English football league system so there's some way of non-experts understanding what "fifth tier" etc means.
  • "The 1990s were the team's most successful," reads odd, maybe you mean "The 1990s was the team's most successful period,"
  • "of pupils[a][1] " jarring note/ref placement.
  • "In 2017, a local search was " feels odd to have this crowbarred into the chronology. And what were the results?
  • I would merge the first two paras of this section.
  • Isn't there a suitable link for Stalybridge?
  • "with Luton Town.[6][2] " I would re-order numerically.
  • "qualified for the FA Cup for the first time in their history—the first Lancashire Combination club to reach this stage" do you mean they reached the first round proper? It's not clear.
  • "at Green Lane to" it's not clear that this was Stockport's ground.
  • "first Football League match" link The Football League.
  • "their current home," as of 2020 per WP:ASOF.
  • "home, Edgeley Park.[3][14] At the time Edgeley Park " quick repeat.
  • "of 1903–04 they " a few of these, they're a little awkward without "season" after the year range.
  • Like "1908–09 season" although you haven't linked that one...
  • Link "scout".
  • The anecdote about Evans is all very interesting but I'm not sure why that's a considerable portion of a paragraph in a potted history of the club, especially as he doesn't even appear notable enough to have an article.
  • "n 2018, Stockpor..." again, jarringly out of order.
  • "1914 also saw ..." avoid starting sentences with a number.
  • "... Ashworth appointed as the team's first manager.[31] Ashworth would manage the team ..." repetitive prose.
  • " 1920–21 campaign " put the "campaign" inside the pipe.
  • "o Easter Weekend " no need for Weekend to be capitalised and since that could be anywhere from mid-March to late-April, I suggest you stick to dates.
  • "The following season, (1923–24), saw" just pipe the actual season with "following season".
  • " the England national team" link.
  • Link "capped".
  • " 2-point " two-point.
  • £100 - inflate this.
  • General: what happened to County during the First World War?
  • "Stockport's and the division's leading goalscorer, contributing 38 of Stockport's 89 goals.[54] Stockport then " Stockport x 3, needs rephrasing.
  • "nine of their last 11" 9/11 or nine/eleven.
  • "he equalled a club record" who held it previously alone, seems to not be noted anywhere?

That's the lead and first section briefly reviewed. Plenty to do here so I'll return once we have some progress on that. Just a heads-up, it looks to me that the history section is just too much, especially when there's a forked article already. There's also some problems with the overall balance, with a huuuuge amount on the last few years. But it's probably best to start addressing the easy things before we look at reorganising and trimming down significantly. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks I have worked through your notes. Most of them being quick fixes. I have rephrased where you have mentioned to do that but again if its sound wrong or a bit too wordy then let me know. Some of the things you have brought up have been discussed in the Peer review For example The linking of Staylbridge - as posted in peer review "Regarding the 1884 match, Records show the match was against Staylbridge. I have added this in but not wikilinked because it is unclear of the Staylbridge. It wasn't Staylbridge Celtic founded in 1909 but it could have been Staylbridge Rovers who joined the Lancashire Combination in 1890 but their founding date is unclear." All the clubs historians known is that it was a team from Staylbridge. In regards to Thomas Evans, He played two seasons for the club (36 league appearances out of 38 games in each season) he also guested three times after the war. I have added this in but happy to remove. During the first world war Stockport played in the Regional War League, Lancashire Section where after a number of matches (26 in the first season and 30 in each season after) there was then a supplementary tournament (the top 6 played each other again home and away in the first season totalling 10 matches. While in subsequent seasons, Stockport played Home and away against Liverpool, Everton and Southport in the supplementary tournament. The other teams in this section would also end up playing the same teams year on year in the supplementary tournaments.) So During the first World War Stockport still played 36 matches per season. This lasted from 1915-16 to 1918-19, with 1919-20 having the football league start up again and run as it did previously. You mentioned there is a forked article on the History of the club, it is very outdated and to be fair that needs a major overhaul. I have now unlinked that history page altogether and will work on it separately. Thanks, Wna247 (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: EDIT - I have reworded the section on the first world war to include less about a specific player and more about the football the team played during that time. I have also cut out bits of the details from the more recent history sections, potentially more could go. Wna247 (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1930– to –1999
edit
  • "the 1933–34 season " again, pipe season too. And all the previous sections should have "season" or "campaign" or similar added to them.
  • "on 6 January 1934[14] included a Jo" awkward ref placement, end of sentence is fine for something as minor as the date.
  • Joe Hill is not notable?

— No linked page but was one of two players to score a hat trick in the 13-0 win. Refer to Cas Liber’s GA Review a few years ago in regards to the 13-0 victory they asked for “date and locale for the 13–0 win over Halifax Town (did anyone score more than 3 goals in that match??)” - In this match two players scored 3 or more goals – Joe Hill (3) and Percy Downes (4) Wna247 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "During that season" you've lost which season, as the last mentioned was Newcastle's in 1946.
  • "a club record 46" club-record.
  • " was televised" live? On the BBC?

– English football on television States that “The BBC started its television service in 1936, although it was nearly a year before the very first televised match of football was screened” with the 1938 FA Cup final between Huddersfield Town and Preston North End being the first to be screened. October 1946 saw , the first live televised football match was broadcast by the BBC from Barnet – So from this I don’t think it would have been a live match more of a news report. Looking at BBC#The birth of British broadcasting, 1920 to 1922 – it looks like the BBC were broadcasting in 1922 so the 1933–34 match in question may have been a news report (There is a news report style video of that year’s final on YouTube) Wna247 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Stockport finished third in this " third that...
  • "Shortly after midday on 23 July 1935..." emphasise this was in the off-season. Also, how did it catch fire?

– After checking several sources on the British Newspaper Archive, Freeman & Harnwell – Stockport County a complete record, and the official club website, it is not known how the fire was started. As mentioned all the records pre-1935 were destroyed, even the clubs historians find it difficult at times to piece certain things together especially from the very early years. Wna247 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Caption for stand is fragment so no full stop required.
  • "stand at Edgeley Park burned down, also causing damage to houses opposite the stand" remove "the stand".
  • "gaining 60 points and 23 wins" might be worth a footnote here that reminds us that in those days it was two points for a win.
  • " ten-game unbeaten run of seven victories" including rather than of.
  • "1939–40 season," same as above...
  • "In 1945–46, there" ditto.
  • "whose 140 goals in five seasons are still a club record." what sort of club record? I don't think Ipswich has a club record for most goals scored in five seasons...

– Jack Connor is the only Stockport player to score that many goals for the club over any 5 season spell. I know this can be a bit confusing. Happy to discuss it but also happy to remove if deemed unnecessary. Wna247 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • " 1957–58 campaign" same as before.
  • "defeating Luton Town (then a First Division side) " not enjoying all the parenthesised text, this could be "defeating First Division team Luton Town"
  • "Stockport also ... Stockport spent ... Stockport played" repetitive prose.
  • "Stockport County team photograph... " caption is a fragment so no need for a full stop.
  • 1964–65 FA Cup can be linked.
  • Link Anfield too.
  • "draw at Anfield after " no need to repeat the location.
  • " Stockport, then... Stockport had ... Despite Stockport's ..." again, repetitive. If the club is unambiguous, sometimes just refer to it another way, like "the club" or "they".
  • "Despite Stockport's ability to match the 1964–65 European Cup semi-finalist" well, they matched them once only...
  • "have won[93] but" awkward placement (and I can't seem to access that source).

– should be of scanned newspaper cuttings from the Liverpool Echo about the match in question Wna247 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "1964–65 season..." same again. I'm not going to note this again, but sweep the article for these.
  • "then Stockport chairman" don't think you really need "then", it's a contemporary chronology.
  • " blue strip (still used today)" again, no thanks to the parentheses, and "today", see WP:ASOF.
  • You could contextualise Trautmann for those who are unaware of his pedigree.
  • Link "friendly" but not here, back up in the first main section where I missed it.
  • Unclear as the true relevance of these friendlies to the overall history of the club.

– Frankfurt was the first time Stockport had played a foreign team at home, the tour of Germany was Stockport first ever international tour (and I think first tour altogether but can’t be sure on that) and the Hamburg friendly was arranged as Trautmann’s last act as general manager of the club. Happy to remove if deemed irrelevant.Wna247 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Stockport did have a famous victory" says who?
  • "Alan Ogley.[104][105] Ogley's save " repetitive, perhaps just merge and say "Ogley, whose save..."
  • "the Associate Members' Cup (a competition that then Stockport chairman Dragan Lukic helped create)," remove the parentheses, and again, not sure "then" is needed. And he doesn't sound like a regular Stockport businessman, any context on him?
  • " Wigan Athletic on a free transfer. Stockport also received £2,000 from Wigan for the transfer." repetitive and odd sounding, could we merge?
  • " faced a real prospect" -> "faced the prospect"
  • "and elimination from the FA Cup" no bearing on their League status.
  • " gained 45 points from their final 31 games " were we on three points for a win by now? Needs footnotes so comparing points returns season-on-season isn't misleading.
  • " quickly transforming the team" not encyclopdedic.
  • "Wembley [116] " Stadium and probably worth noting it's the old one, and no space before ref.

– The word “Wembley” is linked to the 1923 stadium can write the word old before it if required'' Wna247 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link the 1994 play-off final.
  • "be fuming after" not encyclopedic tone.
  • " Stockport finishing with... " Stockport is mentioned too often here.
  • " worst disciplinary record in the country.... best disciplinary record " repetitive.
  • "holders Everton. Stockport drew 2–2 with Everton " repetitive.
  • "Second Division[129] and " awkward ref placement.
  • " (Blackburn Rovers,[130] Southampton[131] and West Ham United)[132]" honestly, this is the single-most grotesque series of ref placement and use of parentheses I've ever seen...!!
  • " the following 1998–99 season" either following or the year, not both.
  • "three of their final 14 " 3/14 or three/fourteen.
  • "was put in charge as first" -> "was made first"
  • "He started w" -> "His tenure started..."

This is a quick run through, I'm aware that I may have missed a lot so let's consider this (and above) a first pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Cheers, gone through the bulk of this now. There is still some odd things to do from this last list, such as go through everything so far checking season or campaign is in the piped links. I have added a message to your talk page to clarify a few things. As its quite a big list I may have missed one or two things. If I have missed anything blatantly obvious just give us a nudge. Wna247 (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT - Added some discussion points to the above comments. Happy for these to be discussed and can alter the wording or remove the statement, as requiredWna247 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue to grind through the next part of it, and hopefully we'll start to develop a flavour for what should stay and what should go to the history article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2000–2010 to 2011–present
edit
  • "to stave off" I don't find this particularly encyclopedic in tone.
  • "turned out to be" rambling, perhaps "was".
  • "4–0 home defeat to Millwall saw manager Kilner sacked" uneasy with this assumed causality, one imagines that he was sacked because they were bottom of the league and doing so badly, and his sacking took place after this defeat, not because of it.

– Ref does mention – “The official line was that the contracts of Kilner and his assistant Des Bulpin were terminated "by mutual consent", though it emerged that he was fired as a result of Saturday's 4-0 home defeat by Millwall which left County bottom of the First Division, four points behind Walsall, whom they face at Edgeley Park tonight.” The 4-0 defeat was probably the last straw but again as mentioned a run of poor results were also a factor. Happy to discuss further.

  • " in 2001–02[142] or build" poor ref placement and you've already linked that season.
  • I've just noticed, you're linking the generic "XX-XY in English football" articles, why not the specific league articles or Stockport season articles?

– The Stockport specific season articles are from 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01, 2001–02, 2003–04, 2007–08, 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 (the later ones are of a bit better quality that the older seasons. Not a lot of prose or references in these seasons – barring 2011–12 and 2012–13, but happy to link them if preferred.

  • "After a poor start to the 2003–04 season, Palmer was sacked after ..." after after repetitive prose.
  • Probably should have linked "caretaker manager" appropriately on its first instance.
  • With all these relegations, I've clean forgotten which league they're in each time. Suggest you make it plain each time where they're getting relegated to.
  • "£4m" ->"£4 million. And how? An operating loss or a mishap?

– Operating costs I believe. There was a lot of staff at Stockport at the time and payers on High wages (relative to the division) Brian Kennedy put £4 million into Stockport but with several relegations and managers since 2003 and players on large long term contracts – the squad was pretty much ripped apart and build against each season so there wasn’t any stability. Stockport were also not receiving anything from the conference and banqueting facilities or food kiosks/bars on a match day – so there only money in was through ticket sales and possible cup runs.

  • "Supporters Trust, " give it its proper full title first time.
  • "football club,[152][153]" should be a full stop.
  • Is caretaker-manager hyphenated or not?
  • "League Two playoffs" there's probably a much better more specific link.
  • Is it "playoff", "play off" or "play-off"?
  • " final months with just two wins in their final" final final repeat.
  • "Gannon was approached by Brighton & Hove Albion. The approach was accepted by Stockport,[" jarring and repetitive, merge.
  • " by Stockport,[167] but after talks with the chairman of Brighton, Gannon rejected the job and stayed at Stockport" repeat of Stockport jarring too. Reword.

– Had a bit of a re-word and took some things out of this and the point above , Happy to re-word further if necessary.

  • "Due to Stockport's financial situation, Sale Sharks paid for Stockport's policing bill for their home match against Oldham Athletic.[170] On 30 April 2009, Stockport County was placed" presumably these incidents happened in quick succession but that's unclear.
  • "into administration[171] following" awkward ref placement.
  • "a battle to" not encyclopedic tone.
  • Manchester City is overlinked.
  • Why initialise CVA and not use it?

– Unsure what you mean by this note, can you please clarify for me?

  • "Gary Ablett, former manager of Liverpool reserves," well he was a long-term professional player before being manager of Liverpool reserves, that's what he'd be better known as.
  • "had still not taken over the club, and in fact never did. " not sparkling prose here, reword.
  • "December 2009, saw " why the comma? And would be better to say something like "In December 2009..."
  • "In March 2010 it "-> "The following March.."
  • "self-styled '2015 Group' of " what does "self-styled" add here?
  • "was dismissed[180] after one of the poorest seasons in the club's history" awkward ref placement, and poorest by what measure?
  • "Simpson as manager.[183][184] Simpson was" quick repeat of Simpson.
  • "the chaotic period " POV.
  • "only two months, as the chaotic period at the club continued; in March 2011, after only" only, only, both times it's POV too.
  • "in very real danger of relegation," instead of euphemism here, why not say what position they were in, points from safety, games to go etc?

– I have reworded this to not include this sentence but so people are aware. Stockport were in the relegation zone but Mathias didn’t set a points target and took things game by game to take the pressure off the players. Seemed to work due to upturn in results but it was probably too little too late.
Wna247 (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments have now all been amended and again I have left in line comments for things up for discussion or clarification. I have also changed the images on the article to free licensed ones (Barring the clubs logo as there is no free equivalent) Wna247 (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-league era
edit
  • Usually it's non-League rather than non-league, see Non-League football.
  • "However, before the pre-season campaign got underway, he was dismissed when a Liverpool-based businessman tried—and ultimately failed—to buy the club" I don't understand. If he didn't buy the club, how could he have got the existing manager dismissed? This is unclear.

– The board at the time gave Evans the power to run the club while his bid was in progression as they were confident it would go through. Tony Evans was even highlighted as 'Stockport County Chairman' on TV at the first match of that season. At that point he hadn't took over and pulled his bid in November that year.

  • " Hamann.[193] Hamann, who" repetitive.
  • "won only three of" remove only.
  • Please see MOS:ELLIPSIS for how to use ellipses correctly. And that quote is a little odd, stuck in the middle of prose.
  • "seemed in danger of a third successive relegation" according to whom?
  • " meeting after a home match in November 2011[196] This meeting" repetitive and clunky.
  • "for Jim Gannon," no need to repeat first names if the individual has been noted prior and is unambiguous.
  • Our article is called 2011–12 Football Conference, not "Conference National" at all. Link the season article and use common nomenclature.
  • "of the 2012-13 season" should be an en-dash, per MOS.
  • "turmoil soon returned to the club" Editorialising.
  • "chief executive officer at the club, becoming the youngest CEO" repetitive CEO.
  • How old?
  • Our article on Darije Kalezić says he's Swiss, not Bosnian.
  • "Kalezić was dismissed" quick repeat of surname and no need, just "He was..."
  • "However, the difficulties did not stop there for County" editorialising.
  • "CEO McKnight " no need to repeat he's CEO.
  • " 2013–14 season.[217] with a " comma here instead of a full stop?
  • "statement about the" describing the.

– Not understanding what you mean here could you please clarify

  • Now, at this point it's safe to say that I think the history section is about three times too long. Things like the above, a "statement" being released in 2015, is that really something that you believe fits in an article about the club? This kind of thing really needs to go in the History of Stockport County F.C. and not here.
  • "with other clubs" such as?
  • " to Jim Gannon, who" see above, no need to repeat Jim.
  • " flirted with the playoffs " journalese and link playoffs appropriately.
  • "seasons,[230][231]. " punctuation fail - did you say this had been copyedited?

– Taken from the articles talk page. A version of this article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 12 May 2020.

  • "descendants of the club's founders. While none of the descendants came forward, stories were uncovered about the founders" repetitive descendants/founders.
  • "a happier season" POV.
  • " 1-0 away against Barnet" scorelines need to use en-dash per MOS. But are we really going to include individual match scorelines in one match in one season in a potted history of the club? It should be in the History article... This is WP:RECENTISM.
  • "season[239][240] " punctuation.
  • " A Championship parade " why "Championship"?
  • "Also In 2018, Stockport" in, not In.
  • "first world war" First World War.
  • "(RAF)" no need, you don't use it.

There are a lot of basic issues here, not to mention the vast amount of prose which needs to be hived off into the History article. I'm okay with continuing this review but I think it really really needs to be punted back to a peer review and a copyeditor who is familiar with football club FAs. Take a look at Liverpool F.C. for example, the history section there is 1,650 words while the section in this article is 4,378. And I think you'd agree that Liverpool's history probably has more to discuss. So I would aim to get the section in this article down to 2,000 words maximum and preserve the rest in the history article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for you to carry on if you wish. Having seen all your notes I got the feeling myself that a lot of issues that should have been picked up at the peer review stage were not. I will action your notes on the article initially then look at cutting the history section down to around 2,000 words. Wna247 (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

edit

Leaving this here as a placeholder. So things don't get too "busy", I'll wait till my two predecessors are satisfied - I trust both their judgements and it'll make my job simpler :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

This is looking more like a Peer Review than a FAC so I think best that further work take place elsewhere -- in consultation with the reviewers here if they're willing -- and then bring it back here for another go after a minimum of two weeks has passed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [19].

Seattle Center Monorail

edit
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 01:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't built by a conman with a catchy theme song, but Seattle's monorail has moved kings and The King and become an iconic symbol of the city. This article is probably the most comprehensive history of the monorail around, since it has not been the sole subject of its own book, and relies heavily on newspaper clippings. After a month of continual expansion and a strict GAN, I believe it's ready for FA review. SounderBruce 01:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

edit

Aren't monorails more of a Shelbyville idea? ;)

  • I expected to to go from the lead into a section about the inception and design of the monorail rather than straight into a route description. I suggest moving this up from the history section as it currently seems out of order place below the description of the system as is today.
    • I prefer to keep the history all together as a single unit, and feel that it would drown out the modern information (which is more immediately useful) if placed before the rest. Also, the flow from History to expansion to accidents is quite good as it stands.
  • Don't link common terms (eg side platform, center platform, office building, auto repair shop, one-way street, national holiday, Thanksgiving, Christmas are all commonly understood by English speakers).
    • Will work on reducing links, but platform terminology is a bit uncommon for Americans due to our lack of exposure to passenger rail.
  • by using both trains this is the first mention of rolling stock in the body but assumes the reader already knows the system only has two trains.
    • Added.
  • Check for duplicate links. I spotted a couple while reading through.
    • Again, will work on reducing links as I see them.
  • including the replacement of the red train with a green train they acquired a new train or they repainted the red one green?
    • Fixed, just a repainting.
  • The monorail began a long-term closure on March 16, 2020 I know this is very new and there's no way to know what's going to happen in the future, but is there any more to say about this? For example, how and where are the trains being stored?
    • Not much has been said since the closure announcement. The trains are being stored at their maintenance facility at the Seattle Center, but that information is not included in a citeable source.
  • A recall measure was submitted to the November 2004 ballot, where it was rejected by voters and allowed the project to continue. I don't know what this means.
    • Fixed by adding a link and a bit more context.
  • Are there any investigation reports on the accidents and incidents whose conclusions could be added to the article? Or any sources that discuss the incidents as a whole that could be used to give a few summary sentences to the section?
    • I will have to file a public records request with the city to see if they can get me the reports, but I don't think they'd be particularly useful. The local newspapers do report on the conclusions drawn from these reports, and I have included a few citations of that sort.
  • More of an observation than a criticism, but the article seems to rely heavily on news sources and very little on books and journals. This might be unavoidable; I would expect an article on a major railway to have a long bibliography but perhaps there isn't the depth and breadth of source material available on a mile-long urban monorail.
    • I have not found books that talk about the monorail in depth; the two that I have used do have multi-page blurbs on the monorail, but don't cover much beyond the basics or some extras. It's fortunate that I was able to use The Times quite extensively here, as they dedicated quite a lot of resources in covering the construction of the World's Fair venues and attractions.
  • Just another thought but monorails are quite unusual in general and uncommon as urban mass-transport systems in particular (though looking at List of monorail systems, perhaps not as uncommon as I thought) but I don't get a sense of that from the article, nor of why a more conventional option wasn't chosen (though, granted, there is a mention of a subway system being ruled out).

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • It was meant as a demonstration line during the World's Fair, akin to an amusement ride and a "preview" of future transportation that didn't really pan out, sadly. Thanks for dropping by with your review, HJ Mitchell. SounderBruce 06:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just curious, are accidents not investigated by the NTSB or some similar body that publishes public reports? In the UK, all accidents involving railways (even those on metros and private/heritage lines) are investigated by the RAIB, which publishes a report on its website along with any recommendations. Also, none of the linking issues I mentioned above have been addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truflip99

edit

Reserving a spot. Review in a bit. --truflip99 (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The monorail underwent major renovations in 1988 after the southern terminal was moved inside the Westlake Center shopping mall. -- Think this sentence would be better between the two history sentences in the first paragraph
    • Fixed by swapping.
  • to build a citywide network to expand coverage -- sound better as "and"
    • Replaced in a different way.
  • The service has two seasonal schedules: the fall and winter schedule, which runs from September to May, has trains operating for 13–14 hours per day from Monday to Saturday and 12 hours on Sundays; and the summer schedule, from May to September with 15–16 hours of service per day until 11 p.m. at night. -- Provide full information if you're to bring it up; I'm left having to do the math for the summer sched and wanting to know when fall/winter schedule time frame is... Also, consider splitting into two sentences
    • Fixed.
  • after five years of negotiations and study over fare integration -- a study or studies

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed.
  • the service is unusual in being a form of public transport that makes an operating profit. -- I think you have to make the distinction that this is a US problem... not unusual in Asia.
    • Fixed.
  • Each train is 122 ft (37 m) long, 10 ft 3 in (3.12 m) wide, and 14 ft (4.3 m) tall, with articulating joints between sections. -- here too; actually there are more in succession
  • approximately 70 ft (21 m) long, 5 ft (1.5 m) tall, and 3 ft (0.91 m) wide -- might not want to abbr in prose
    • Per MOS:UNITNAMES, the frequency of the units warrants an abbreviation after the first time.
  • began negotiating a takeover by the city government -- of Century 21 Ctr or the monorail? might want to specify
    • Fixed.
  • the city government, who already owned the Seattle Center fairgrounds -- who --> which?
    • Fixed.
  • Century 21 Center offered to sell the monorail to the city for $600,000 as part of resolving its debts to the city and entering liquidation. -- sounds redundant; replace the first "the city" with "Seattle"?
    • Used "city government", but not sure why it would be redundant. Century21 was a separate corporation.
  • In December, corporation's liquidation trustees -- the
    • Fixed.
  • lacking an operating franchise and not electing to pay $200,000 for demolition. -- electing not to
    • Fixed.
  • midnight on weekdays and Saturdays and ridership in the first week of June -- comma

More in a bit. --truflip99 (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed.
  • An emergency repair to the Westlake terminal was made in 1974 at a cost of $100,000 to replace metal shields under the platforms that caught debris. -- debris from what?
    • The source did not specify, but I imagine there were bits of rubber from the tires or grease/oil that would drip. I'll try to see what exactly it was.
  • private company, who signed a ten-year contract with the city. -- which?
    • Fixed.
  • Expansion proposals -- worth mentioning anywhere here that the proposed service expansions of the monorail (e.g. to Sea-Tac Airport) were ultimately fulfilled by Link light rail

That's it from me on prose. --truflip99 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Truflip99: Thanks for the review. I will have to find citations that directly link the monorail proposals to Link, though it would have used a different corridor (through the Duwamish industrial area). SounderBruce 04:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "after the southern terminal was moved inside the Westlake Center shopping mall" If you say where it was moved to then you should say where from.
  • "private contractor who replaced" who implies a person. As it is a company it should be which.
  • "a private contractor who replaced King County Metro in 1994" For clarity I would mention that King County Metro is a public body.
  • "the entire trip takes approximately two minutes" The trip in the video took 3 minutes.
  • "The project ran into financial difficulties, including cost estimates rising to $11 billion, before being shut down by a city vote in 2005." As it did not go ahead, I would say "cancelled" rather than "shut down".
  • No change needed, but I was surprised that such a short route has drivers. Is this typical of similar systems? The Docklands Light Railway in London is driverless.
  • "Before reaching the southern terminal at the Westlake Center shopping mall on Pine Street, the monorail tracks narrow into a set of gauntlet tracks that are 4 to 5 feet (1.2 to 1.5 m) apart, preventing two trains from using the station at the same time." I do not understand this. If two trains cannot use the station, why have gauntlet tracks rather than merging into a single track? Is merging not possible with monorails?
  • "Trains depart from each terminal at an approximate frequency of 10 minutes, with a single train running continuously." You say trains and then a single train.
  • "The service generated $4.3 million in fare revenue and accepted approximately $883,000 in capital funds from local and federal governments." "accepted" sounds odd here. I would say "received".
  • "A maintenance and operations base is located underneath the platforms at the Seattle Center terminal." You say this above.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I appreciate Dudley isn't finished with his review but even so we seem to have quite some way to go before achieving consensus to promote after two months, so I'm going to archive thisa and ask that further work be done outside FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [20].

East Knoyle War Memorial

edit
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unveiled with fanfare in 1920, the East Knoyle War Memorial will be 100 years old come September. Designed by Herbert Maryon and christened by Lord Rawlinson in the wake of the First World War, the memorial soon came to commemorate those killed in the Second; lately, the name of a soldier killed in Iraq has been added.

This article grew out of material taken from the article on Maryon, which was recently on this page; as luck would have it, the universe of sources is small, and HJ Mitchell's excellent work on Manchester Cenotaph provided a template to pattern this after (drink if you saw "war memorial" and thought this was his nomination). The Rambling Man has recently given it a thorough review, and with any luck, the memorial will be able to spend its centenary on Wikipedia's main page. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HJ Mitchell

edit

Comments. I really like village war memorials. The big city ones are fascinating and have the advantage that their history is usually well documented but there's something altogether more poignant about how these little monuments symbolise the effect the First World War had and how it reached even these quiet backwaters. And it's lovely to see an article on a war memorial I haven't written at FAC! I had a look through the various books I've got on war memorials but sadly this one doesn't seem to be mentioned. :(

  • Architecture is a visual art. More photos would be nice. There are a few more on Commons from Geograph; perhaps one or two of them could find a home here? Longer term it would be great if we could find some local Wikipedians to take some better photos.
  • Good point. I've added another photograph, although, as you point out, it would be nice to supplement the current selection on Commons. I've just asked a Flickr user, and sent a (long-shot?) email to this site (Update: That's a no-go), to see if we might use some of those photographs. If that doesn't work, I suppose I could start trying to make some new friends.
  • Do we know anything at all about how Maryon became involved? I know how difficult this sort of information is to come by a century later. Many of Lutyens' smaller memorials were the result of a local connection, for example (often he'd done work for influential people in the area).
  • Sadly, no. At the time Maryon worked a county over, in Reading, Berkshire. He was apparently quite friendly with his colleague W. G. Collingwood, a better-known designer of war memorials, and it is possible the acquaintance played a role. The article on Collingwood also mentions Hardwicke Rawnsley—who Maryon knew from his time at the Keswick School of Industrial Art—having some involvement with memorials; although Maryon didn't leave that school on the best of terms, it at least suggests that Maryon was part of circles who were involved in the design of war memorials. Given your comment below, it is intriguing that W. G. Collingwood#War memorials shows a wheel cross on one of his memorials, and discusses his interest in the subject. (Lowstublick added that section in 2007, including discussion of Collingwood's 1919–20 diary—who knows, maybe there's something of interest there.) The online index of Collingwood's archive doesn't appear to add anything, and though I've spent some time with Maryon's papers, they don't appear to contain anything remotely relevant. I also sent an email to the address indicated on the East Knoyle website; I haven't heard back yet, but that's not entirely unexpected given the current state of affairs. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a long way of saying that this is an interesting question, but that the answer—if it exists—is likely written in sources that would be hard to cite here, and buried in boxes whose locations are currently unknown.
  • Just a thought but wheel crosses are relatively unusual as WWI memorials. Not unheard of by any means, but less common than conventional crosses, and usually found further south west than this, where there are stronger Celtic influences. I don't suppose any of the sources mention the reason for the choice?
  • See above.
  • listed as a Grade II building doesn't really make any sense. I use "designated a Grade II listed building", "designated" being the term Historic England uses (and which you use here in the lead).
  • Changed.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, HJ Mitchell. I agree that there's something poignant about village memorials. They feel quite personal, especially in a place like East Knoyle where the impact of the war can be traced house by house. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! :) Thank you for your thoughtful answers. It would be great if you manage to get any better photos. I've had some luck asking local Wikipedians (there's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiltshire) though it might be a struggle until things die down with Coronavirus. Support. 22:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

edit
  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the intro you first have "and a soldier killed by friendly fire in Iraq in 2003", and then "name of the soldier who died in the Iraq War". You only spell out and link the Iraq War at second mention, shouldn't that be at the first?
  • Reworded.
  • Shouldn't footnote 2 have a citation?
  • Citations are overrated. Just kidding: added.

Thanks, FunkMonk. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link WW1, war memorial, other unlinked terms, at first mention in article body?
  • Done.
  • I think the number of names is significant enough to not just be relegated to a footnote, perhaps mention under design.
  • I've added it to "History". The additional names don't really have a direct nexus with the design; they're not included, of course, but they also aren't direct omissions, since they are of people who had long since left the village.
  • "Mr H Fry" H.?
  • Done.
  • "Three clergy" Clergymen?
  • Done.
  • "one of which is inscribed "Best kept war memorial 1973" This maybe begs for further context under history?
  • Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any sources which actually talk about the award; the only source that touches upon it is the one used there, and it says only "History 2009: Stone flower holders on steps of memorial inscribed: BEST KEPT/ WAR/ MEMORIAL/ 1973". The memorial actually seems to have won the award two or three times; blowing up the sixth photo here shows a flower holder inscribed "British Legion best kept war memorial 1969," and photo three here shows a similar but faded inscription on another holder. As the 1969 inscription suggests, this appears to be an award offered by The Royal British Legion, although I don't see anything about it on their website. East Knoyle's newsletter (assuming I could acquire the offline copies) is unlikely to be any help, since, based on its volume numbers, it appears to have started around 1975. But as mentioned above I did reach out through the village's website, and if that leads to anything citable I will of course add it.

FunkMonk, further responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Nice article. I have a few comments:

  • perhaps state that East Knoyle is a village and use village instead of town throughout
  • Done, with one exception. East Knoyle is both a village and parish per its article, and as far as I can tell the distinction is technical/administrative. Since the memorial says it is "in memory of the men of this parish", I've left the relevant line in the lead unchanged ("it was originally intended to commemorate the 20 soldiers from the parish who died during the First World War").
  • suggest "Even many of those who survived did not return to the village"
  • I'd rather leave this as is, because the village is mentioned later on in the sentence ("and by 1918 the village had only 650 residents").
  • principle→principal
  • Fixed.
  • Wyndham family
  • Good catch, fixed.
  • "Hon. George Herbert" but The Honourable in this instance is just a courtesy, so I don't think it should be used, if necessary, in full I think with link.
  • Makes sense. Using "the Hon." was intended to show that his presence on the committee conferred some status, but I've just created an article on him (George Sidney Herbert), which should get that across.
  • the Bibliography needs to be alphabetised
  • Whoops, fixed. It originally was, but then I filled in author names and forgot that would change it.

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Peacemaker67. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, a pleasure. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

ALT text and use seem OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • A quick drive-by concern (but hopefully easily resolvable) File:1923 - East Knoyle postcard - front.jpg - this image appears to have first been published in the UK (it's an English postcard from an English manufacturer, posted from the UK etc.) - but it's lacking a UK image licence. The US publication date doesn't look it's necessarily pre-1925 either (it was created in the UK pre-1925, but there's no evidence provided for it having been published in the US before 2020) Hchc2009 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC) (Just for clarity, Oppose on image review until fixed)[reply]
    @Hchc2009:Actually, the postcard is signed "9/8/23" and in light of the definition of published I wouldn't assume that it wasn't also published at that time unless it was only sent a few years later. It doesn't matter where the publication occurred, only that it meets the definition in US law. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Commons policy on this states that "uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." - that's definitely the UK in this case, so a UK licence is needed. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, for enwiki purposes we only care about the US copyright, so if UK copyright is an issue we upload the file locally under a {{PD-US-abroad}} licence. As for the UK copyright, I see that the postcard attributes a company about which I can't find information. If we assume it's an anonymous work then commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown would apply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Hchc2009 and Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've also asked at the copyright desk, and the tag has been updated accordingly. Incidentally, the postcard was also postmarked in August 1923, so the fact of publication as of then is beyond doubt. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It still needs a UK-Anonymous tag, Usernameunique - UK law requires evidence of the research carried out to determine the identity of the author before anonymity can be claimed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I understand it from the above-linked discussion, the current tag is a general anonymity tag that covers the UK as well. And as the author is corporate—one "R. Wilkerson & Co., Trowbridge"—it seems that the copyright duration is the same. But Hchc2009, if you think there is a better tag(s) or way of handling this, please do suggest one. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • As per above, I believe the UK-Anonymous tag, accompanied by evidence of the research carried out to determine the identity of the author would make it compliant with UK law. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hchc2009, I've added an explanation under "Summary". I was about to also add the PD-UK-unknown template, but realized that it is encompassed by the PD-anon-expired template, which covers "countries and areas where the copyright terms of anonymous or pseudonymous works are 95 years or fewer since publication." (The postcard was published at least 97 years ago). But let me know if you have a different read of the interplay between the templates. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—oppose

edit
  • Why is "The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (1918)" used? It looks duplicated and there are much less questionable sources for an outline of Maryon's career.
  • That source is used for the specific facts that Maryon taught casting and metalwork. All things considered, that work is actually a trove of information about Maryon's early career and education; it essentially lists Maryon's cv as of 1920, whereas later sources aren't nearly as detailed. In terms of reliability, the University of Glasgow's database of British and Irish sculptors relies heavily on that source in their entry on Maryon.
  • Then why not cite the University of Glasgow source directly, which I see has the relevant information?
  • Mostly because there are already two sources, and the 1918 source (if one clicks through to it) contains a more detailed summary of Maryon's career as of 1918—that is, right as the war memorial was about to be built. But we can add the University of Glasgow source as well if you prefer.
  • I am skeptical of the reliability of The East Knoyle Newsletter, which is edited by one person who publishes various submissions without any indication of fact checking. Seems that this is basically a blog.
  • As the name implies, it's the village newsletter. I'm not sure we're going to get anything better, or, for that matter, anything else; larger newspapers are unlikely to have reported on the 2017 cleaning of the memorial, for example. Generally speaking, it's used for small, uncontroversial facts.
  • I would question the WP:DUE nature of that information if it's not reported by a more reliable source. Yes, memorials are cleaned, but is that really encyclopedic information? I think info reported by the RBL but printed in the newspaper can remain, but I don't see the other articles meeting WP:SPS.
  • For a village war memorial, I think we're lucky to have what we can get. "WP:DUE" leads to a discussion of how articles must be written from a neutral point of view; so unless you think that the article is omitting a "significant viewpoint" about that 2017 memorial cleaning, I think we're on safe ground. And as you yourself said, the newsletter has an editor in addition to the authors of the individual submissions—ipso facto, it's not a self-published source.
  • vdocuments source May be reliable if it's actually published by Commonwealth War Graves Commission, but if so it should be confirmed by something other than a dodgy file-hosting service.
  • Yeah, that's a sketchy site for sure, but I haven't been able to find it hosted on a more mainstream site; I assume it was once hosted on a normal website, got scraped and placed on "vdocuments.mx" (and pdfslide.net and the like), and then was removed from the normal website at some point. The underlying document is cited on East Knoyle's website, however, so I don't doubt that it is reliable.
  • Is it? The website lists "The Commonwealth War Graves Commission" as a source, but how do we know it's the same document?
  • Wrong source; it's not "The Commonwealth War Graves Commission", but rather "'East Knoyle & The Great War' by Dawn Small".
  • Western Gazette 1036. should be 1936?
  • Yes, fixed.
Switching to oppose because my concerns have not been addressed, also in light of Gog's and Ealdgyth's comments below. buidhe 07:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, the local sources that have not been eliminated are now used solely in the final paragraph of the article, discussing the memorial's role in the 2018 World War I centennial commemorations. Additionally, in-text attribution clearly identified what information comes from the newsletter or the village website. Does this address your concerns regarding reliance and reliability? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although there has been improvement, unfortunately I cannot support as I do not see the village newspaper as being reliable for any statement for Wikipedia purposes, nor do I think that extremely local governments have a presumption of reliability. This could be fixed by removing information on 2018 events. buidhe 01:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

edit
  • "In the aftermath of the First World War and its unprecedented casualties, thousands of war memorials were built across Britain. Virtually every village, town, or city erected some form of memorial to commemorate their dead." This is not supported by cite 1.
  • "In East Knoyle, the effects of the war were particularly acute." The village newspaper seems a week reed on which to base the statement that "the effects of the war were particularly acute." Which I don't see supported by the source anyway. Could you quote the phrase which supports the text? (On the surface, 20 dead from a population of 853 - 2.3% - does not seem unusual against a national death rate of service personnel during the war of c. 1.9%.)
Whatever is either paraphrased from a RS, or for broader statements is the consemsus of scholarly opinion is fine. I wasn't suggesting that we OR. If you have a RS which suggests that the effects of the war were "hard felt", or similar, in East Knoyle, then fine.
  • "A request for information in our village newsletter was answered by the Jolliffe family who came forward with their sad story of three brothers lost in this conflict." Is the quote, from what looks like an exceedingly amateur blog, to support "including three brothers". I do not doubt the good intentions of the author(s) or their informants, but this is not what I would call a RS, certainly not for FAC.
  • It's also supported by the other source to that sentence. That website includes details on everyone who was killed, including Edwin Jolliffe, Fred Jolliffe, and Victor Jolliffe; I didn't include each link as a separte source because that would be fairly cumbersome, but can do so if you think it makes sense. Note that the names also appear on the memorial, which implicitly supports the three brothers point.
As I am doubting the RSness of both sources the support of the second hardly helps. The coincidence of three casualties from a village sharing a surname does not "implicitly support" their being brothers.

I am only three sentences in and I am very unhappy with the sourcing. I have grave doubts about East Knoyle Newsletter, East Knoyle WWI Trail and East Knoyle & The Great War on which a great deal of the article is based and so am strongly leaning oppose.

    • Unfortunately, I have to second Gog's concerns on this. buidhe 12:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your comments, Gog the Mild. Respectfully, I think your comment that "a great deal of the article is based" on the three sources in question is a reflection of the three-sentence portion of the article you say you have read, rather than on the article generally; had you read further, I think you would agree that the primary drivers of information in the article are the 1920 Western Gazette piece, and the Historic England list entry.
With that said, I am happy to look again for what other sources and information might shed light on the impact of World War I on East Knoyle. Having conducted a thorough search before nominating the article, however, it strikes me that the most germane information about the impact of the war on a small village is likely to be found via 1) the village newsletter, 2) the village website, and 3) residents who specifically researched the impact as part of 2018 centennial events—that is, the sources in question—and that a consolidated assessment elsewhere is likely to be difficult to find or non-existent. It would thus be helpful if you could clarify whether you are "leaning oppose" because you think the article needs the background information in question, but backed up by different sources which might or might not exist, or because you think the article should not include that information if no other sources exist. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are 55 cites in the article; 16 are to these three sources; 13 after the paragraph in question.
The onus is on a nominator, ie you, to establish that sources used meet WP:RS. If this cannot be established, information which is reliant on them and cannot be sourced elsewhere should be removed. This applies to all articles, not just at FAC.
I have no view as to whether the article needs the information dependant on those 16 cites - 29% of the total cites. Clearly it is not going to be effected by not stating that three brothers are commemorated. I don't wish to be drawn as to whether or not I might support some hypothetical article which looks different to and is sourced differently to this one. Show it to me and I will form an opinion.
I agree that much of the information on a small village memorial may come from the kind of sources you identify. That is why most do not have and never will have Wikipedia articles.
I am wary of your suggestion that one may use the subject of an article as a source. That would seem to me to be a primary source and WP:PRIMARY would apply: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." etc.
I realise that you have put a lot of work into this and that this isn't what you would like to hear. I am trying to be clear, but if I am not, or if you have further queries, don't hesitate to ask. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond in full later (and will take a further look at sources in the meantime), but want to make one point clear, which is that it is seriously misleading to state that "[t]here are 55 cites in the article; 16 are to these three sources; 13 after the paragraph in question.". 8 of those 13 citations appear in the very next paragraph—that is, as part of the same background section around which this entire discussion revolves. And the remaining 5 are used for minor points in a paragraph about the recent history of the memorial. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique, you may be fighting the wrong battle here. All cites need to meet WP:RS. It doesn't matter whether one cite or 101 fail to meet it. I once opposed one of Buidhe's fine articles because two of its 100+ cites were to a masters thesis, which fails WP:RS. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well one might question your memory of that review, Gog the Mild, but on a more germane subject, I've added several new sources to the background section and effectively cut out the second paragraph. In doing so I incorporated some of the book that KJP1 pointed out (thanks for that). Although I experimented with adding more, it increasingly seemed that the pre-war fortunes of the Seymours, and the post-war fortunes of the Wyndhams, are somewhat tangential, and I've thus largely removed that from the article. At this point the offending sources have been entirely removed from the background section. The East Knoyle website remains cited towards the bottom, during the discussion of the villages' 2018 observances, but—to borrow your phrase from the above link—"the context for this is clearly identified in the text." And in any event, it's a good excuse to read down that far. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am switching to oppose. My concerns have not been addressed, and reading further into the article has raised new ones. I am quite used to articles nominated for FAC, including my own, needing work, but this one, it seems to me, is at the point where it may be best to withdraw, work on it at leisure, and resubmit. Obviously a prompt resolution or rebuttal of my concerns would be equally acceptable. My main, but not only, concerns are:

  • 1b "places the subject in context": We are told nothing of East Knowle. No details of its location, economy, geography, social structure; either before or after either world war.
  • Generally speaking, that's what the article on East Knoyle (not "Knowle") is for. But in any event, some such contextual information was in this article, until you protested about the sources. It is surprising that you do not acknowledge this, given that you are now burning the other end of the wick; the fact that information was removed (rather than new sources used) merely reflects that there are few sources that discuss the history of a local village numbering some 600 residents, and fewer still that dig into the impact of the world wars on it. The Victoria County History on East Knoyle (link), for example, mentions the wars only in passing, and the list of reference books on the section of the village's website about WWI in noticeably slim. To "withdraw [the article], work on it at leisure, ans resubmit" would do no help here, unless more sources were published in the interim. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a follow up to this, I've looked through the featured articles on war memorials. Many of these, such as Spalding War Memorial, Devon County War Memorial, and Northampton War Memorial, have little—if any—context about the communities in which the memorials were placed, or the people they commemorated. This suggests that any lack of reliable sources to provide context should not inhibit the ability for an article to attain featured-article status. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b again: The total in the article on the addition of the names of 12 WWII dead the 20 from WWI is "After the Second World War, and later the Iraq War, additional engravings were added to commemorate the additional dead.[15] Twelve names were added to the rear panel after the Second World War, and the conflict was added to the front."
  • That's not fully true; in particular, that summation omits the information about the circumstances in which the soldier was killed in Iraq, which also links to an article about the incident in which he was killed. But more to the point, the sources simply due not include any information about the World War II and Iraq War-related aspects of the memorial that does not already appear in the article. The absence is unfortunate, if not entirely surprising; the unveiling of the memorial (and accompanying renovations to the village hall) was more likely to attract attention than the additions to it, years later. And if those are covered anywhere, it would most likely be in the newsletters that you have repeatedly called unreliable. —Usernameunique (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" On 7 May I commented “I have grave doubts about East Knoyle Newsletter, East Knoyle WWI Trail and East Knoyle & The Great War" and requested that “I would like to have it explained how these three sources meet WP:RS”. I have not had a direct response and the first two are still used. I still don’t see how they meet WP:RS nor how they could be considered "high quality". I have similar issues with Wiltshire Footprints. Other citations, while superficially acceptable, are not, IMO, fully satisfactory: take cite 1 where the claim that the First World War had “unprecedented casualties” rather than being supported by a consensus of scholarly opinion, relies on the introduction to a scholarly article which “explores the role of print culture in the Arts and Crafts movement's campaign to guide the nation in its commemoration of the war dead”.
  • And in response to your earlier comment, I significantly reduced the reliance on those sources, which was already slim; in addition to your further comment here, I've banished Wiltshire Footprints to "Further reading", and added in-text attribution to the single line that cites to the newsletter. It now reads "According to the village newsletter, the memorial was cleaned in 2017, and a ceremony held there on 11 November 2018 to mark the 100th anniversary of the end of the war." The use of the "East Knoyle WWI Trail" source is similarly clearly identified in the text; I mentioned this before, although you appear to have overlooked it. Meanwhile, cite 1 is used to support the fact that Britain was peppered with memorials following World War I (using an article about the Arts and Crafts movement's contribution seemed apt given that Maryon was a part of that movement)—but if you really think the article needs a specific cite for the fact that World War I had "unprecedented casualties", I'm sure I can come up with a couple hundred.
More generally, in a previous source review, you spoke about how the context of a source matters for reliability: "The sources are all solidly reliable ... with the exception of a couple of the web sites referenced where the context for this is clearly identified in the text." Your comments here seem to omit that nuance, despite the fact that 1) context is baked into the standards for reliability (see Reliable sources § Context matters), and 2) when dealing with the war memorial of a small village, many sources are likely to be uncontroversial without being published in something akin to a peer-reviewed work. The information supported by the sources you have questioned could easily be removed from the article without much damage; but the article remains better with it, and taken in context—local sources for local, uncontroversial, events—the sources are reliable. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2a "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic": The lead contains information not in the article – that East Knowle is in Wiltshire, and even England.

I would welcome comments, either way, from Buidhe, who has reviewed the sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from KJP1

edit

Re. the above discussion on sources, I have sympathy for both views. I think it's undeniable that village newsletters etc. are not the strongest of sources, they are not "published" in the sense that books are published and they are not subject to the same editorial/quality controls. But they often are among the only available sources, and I do think that listed memorials such as this warrant articles. Much, but not quite all, of the use to which these sources have been put is in the two-paragraph background section. It might help if use was made of this: Clouds: The Biography of a Country House, Caroline Dakers, 1993, Yale University Press, New Haven, US and London, isbn 9780300057768, [21]. The problem for me is that the second para. interweaves the fortunes of the Seymour family, owners of the Clouds estate until 1876, and the Wyndhams, owners from then until the 1930s. If the para. was split a bit, it could firstly cover the declining fortunes of the Seymours, due to losses on their investments in the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway, and their consequent sale of the estate to the Wyndhams.(pp=46-48) Then it could cover the Wyndham's troubles, with the deaths in rapid succession of Percy Wyndham in 1911 (p=175), George Wyndham in 1913 (p=190) and Percy Wyndham in 1914, (p=193) the estate duties that became payable, the bequest of the estate to Percy's cousin, rather than his uncle Guy, (pp=194-195), and Madeline Wyndham's memorial to her multiple lost relatives.(p=203) Hope this is of some use. It won't totally remove the reliance on the contested sources, but it might bring their use within acceptable bounds? KJP1 (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Ealdgyth

edit
  • I have to oppose on the basis that the article relies on a local newsletter, which does not begin to qualify as a "high quality" reliable source. What makes the various contributors such as Ron Clarke an expert in this field? And why are anonymous contributions to a local newsletter considered high quality, much less reliable?
  • After you comments here, I revised the article such that it currently cites to the said newsletter a single time, and with in-text attribution.
  • I also have some concerns with the number of references to primary sources, such as the various Western Gazette articles, some of which lack bylines.
  • If you would like to articulate a more detailed concern I would be happy to respond to it, but despite the copious attention paid to the sources, you are the only one to suggest the Western Gazette articles are in any way problematic. For what it's worth, the only mention of the importance of bylines in either WP:Reliable sources or WP:Primary sources regards the identification of sponsored content—which is not an issue here.
  • There is also a concern with using the primary sources (such as the Western Gazette article from 1920) to do original research - the sentence "In East Knoyle, a village and civil parish in Wiltshire, England, the effects of the war were hard felt, with at least 20 of the 853 people who lived in the village before the war dying during it." is sourced to the census (here and to a newspaper article here) but neither source supports the conclusion that "the effects of the war were hard felt" - the census just shows that from 1911 to 1921 the population dropped 124 folks. The number of "at least 20" appears to have been arrived at by counting the names mentioned as commemorated in the newspaper article. This is what historians do, not what encyclopedia editors do.
  • I've removed the clause "the effects of the war were hard felt"; it now reads "In East Knoyle ... at least 20". I've also added another source for the use of the number 20. The "at least" is used because (as discussed later in the article) the number is higher if you include people who were born in the village but raised elsewhere. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also a lot of issues with the formatting of the citations:
    • One big issue is that any footnote that is to a citation that doesn't have an author is incredibly difficult to find in the list - because the list puts anonymous works in order by title of the article/etc but the footnotes use the publisher, which must be ferreted out from further into the citation.
      • I've reformatted this to eliminate sfn footnotes when not needed (i.e., when a specific page out of a larger page range is not being cited). Admittedly, as much as I generally like sfn footnotes, they weren't a great fit for this article.
    • the short footnote to "Studies in Conservation" should be italicized. It's also difficult to find if you don't use the linking (which folks on mobile, etc may not be able to do)
      • Addressed with reformatting. What do you mean by "use the linking"?
    • Current footnote 25 (East Knoyle Newsletter 2018) - which 2018 is it?
      • Addressed with reformatting.
    • "Vision of Britain" should be italicized.
      • Addressed with reformatting.
    • Not seeing that ""East Knoyle – Cross". War Memorials Register. Imperial War Museums. Retrieved 17 March 2020" is used in footnotes?
      • It's clearer with the reformatting, but it supports the line Several stone flower holders rest on the top step, one of which is inscribed "best kept war memorial 1973".
    • Not seeing that ""Five Grandsons of Madeline Wyndham". War Memorials Register. Imperial War Museums. Retrieved 17 March 2020." is used in the footnotes?
      • It's clearer with the reformatting, but it supports two clauses in "Background": and five members of the Wyndham family, and the matriarch of the family commissioned two plaques for St. Mary's Church, one commemorating her five grandsons.
    • I eventually figured out that "Historic England Reading" was "Historic England. "University of Reading War Memorial (1113620)". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 27 March 2020." and that "Historic England East Knoyle" was "Historic England. "East Knoyle War Memorial (1438366)". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 27 March 2020." but that's not very clear at all.
      • Addressed with reformatting.
  • And I also have concerns about the level of detail - the first two paragraphs of "History" seem to basically regurgitate the 1920 newspaper article on the dedictation, down to the composition of the audience, the exact hymns sung, and the fact that it was the speaker's last public act before leaving for India... surely this is way more detail than an encyclopedia article on a memorial needs?
  • The level of detail is partly because, with little published information about the memorial, there seems to be little harm in adding what information is published. Although the 1920 Western Gazette article states that Rawlinson would be soon leaving for India, it is actually his 1925 obituary which confirms that his East Knoyle dedication was his last public act before departure—further evidence that this fact is worthy of mention. And while I am sympathetic to the view that granular information may be beyond the scope of interest of some, Theramin's comments below—discussing, among other things, people mentioned in and out of footnotes—show that it is within the scope of interest of others (and for that matter, other reviewers). Unsurprisingly, I take the latter view. The unveiling of something as intensely intimate as a war memorial seems like a unique snapshot into the social, political, and historical dynamics of its village. The 20-odd people mentioned clearly comprise a subset of the people considered notable in the village—and more generally, too, given that a quarter already have Wikipedia articles and more probably deserve them. There's also some value in mentioning the village's institutions that were present for the commemoration—from the band, to the Girl Guides, to the choir—that undoubtedly formed part of the social fabric of the community, and would have been most visible on days like these.
  • All in all, I must oppose. I have sympathy for the desire to have an article on the memorial, but I'm afraid there just isn't the quality of sourcing to have that article be FA. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

edit

With apologies if I am oversimplifying others' concerns, but I think this broadly boils down to a debate around Reliable Sources and the FAC Criteria, specifically 1.c. "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". For me, the other criteria are met, and everyone agrees that the memorial is Notable, the issue being whether this article about it meets FA criterion 1.c. For me, it does. I agree, as noted above, that The East Knoyle Newsletter (and the Royal British Legion Updates within it), and The East Knoyle WW1 History Trail (I'm personally less concerned about the Western Gazette) aren't the strongest sources. But they are likely the only sources, they are not being used to support controversial content, they are authored by local, and knowledgeable enthusiasts about whom it is reasonable to assume good faith, they appear to have some editorial oversight, they are published, and by a bona fide company. Looking at Wikipedia:Verifiability; it contains the standard policy caveat, "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" (my bold). Newsletters are listed under "Sources that are usually not reliable" (my bold again). If one takes a strict (some will say correct) interpretation of these, and 1.c., particularly the "high-quality" reference, one will likely Oppose. If you take a more flexible interpretation, as I do, one can probably Support. As an aside, I think the contested sources underpin the last four sentences of the article. For me, they could be deleted without too much detriment to the article overall. But that's not my call. KJP1 (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I've had citations to local historians (woolly mammoth) and blogs written by experts (Nemegtomaia) specifically accepted at FAC (see nomination pages), since they also contained non-controversial information not found elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are not judging the sources against Wikipedia:Verifiability, we are judging them against the FAC criteria. What WP:Ver, or any other policy, says is irrelevant; are the sources "high-quality reliable" ones. It seems clear they are not high quality. That they may be the only available sources is unfortunate, but also irrelevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog - I don't think I'd agree that the policy is irrelevant. Criterion 1.c. draws on it and indeed, in relation to "reliable sources", is defined by it. But I absolutely accept that others may take a different view, as you do. We shall see what the coordinators think, which will be helpful both here, and for future FACs. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For me, some of the sources do not meet WP:RS; obviously, others may disagree. But if they did, to meet criterion 1c they would need to be "high-quality reliable sources". They aren't. As you say, it is down to the coordinators to agree or not with this, so I am trying to be as clear as I can on where I believe the criteria are not met. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Usernameunique

edit

This nomination currently has two opposes—by Gog the Mild and Ealdgyth—and an oppose on sources, by Buidhe. As the concerns are largely the same, I'm addressing them together. Since big blocks of text follow, I'll summarize my response up front: The two sources which the opposes take issue with—a village website and newsletter that provide limited, noncontroversial information about the village's war memorial—are contextually reliable. There is no higher bar to clear, because the relevant historical discussion shows that the "high-quality" threshold is a weighing mechanism that applies only when multiple reliable sources for a fact exist. As a result, the sources are high-quality reliable sources. Finally, the article is in the best shape it can be with the sources we have, which (I believe) takes it to featured-article level.

The concerns center around the use of a village newsletter which, as of writing, is cited for a single sentence in the article: According to the village newsletter, a ceremony was held there on 11 November 2018 to mark the 100th anniversary of the end of the war. Per the opposes, the newsletter is likely not a reliable source, but certainly not a high-quality one. Gog the Mild has also voiced concern with citations to the East Knoyle website, which sustain two related sentences about how the village marked the centenary. Other information that was sourced to these sources at the outset of the nomination has since been removed. Ealdgyth, however, has written that given the state of the extant sources, this article could never become a featured article; and while Gog the Mild's positions have jumped around, the best way of cohering his logic is probably to understand his objections as mirroring Ealdgyth's. If push became shove and the outcome of this nomination depended on removing the three sentences, I would probably do so. But I don't think any of the above votes would change if I did so, and more importantly, I think the article would be worse as a result.

A third reason for keeping the sources behind the three sentences in question is that the sources are arguably "high-quality reliable sources" under the FAC guidelines. The gravamen is context. As KJP1 has discussed above, the definition of "reliable source" is context driven; village sources on the village memorial may even count as self-published sources as sources on themselves. Although the oppose votes seem to treat "high-quality" in a vacuum, the discussion that birthed the phrase shows that it is both context dependent, and qualified by the prefatory language "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The discussion involved an attempt to ensure that, within the pool of reliable resources that exists for a fact, the better ones are used. Significant effort was made to create a standard that neither requires editors to read thousands of sources on a topic (appropriately, World War I was the exemplar) and select only the few highest, nor excludes articles (e.g., pop-culture pieces) which lack academic-quality sources. As Ealdgyth put it at the time, As long as the sources used in the article meet RS, if there are no 'better' ones available (such as for wrestling, where there are few scholarly articles on the subject of wrestlers) then everything would be fine.

To me, this article represents the best possible version of itself (or close to), which is what I understand the FAC criteria to broadly ask for. Sure, it would be nice to have more, and better, sources. But we're not waiting for the next fossil to be uncovered before giving T. Rex a bronze star, and Jesus graced the main page with or without a reliable source stating that he walked on water. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Usernameunique on this one. We're always going to struggle for sources for small village monuments (part of the reason most of my war memorial FAs are on big city memorials like the Manchester one). I don't see a big problem in using a local newsletter or local historian for a couple of uncontroversial facts about the village's war memorial. It's about appropriate sources for appropriate material; for details on Maryon's career, I'd expect to see more scholarly sources used, for example, but the material that's available for, say, the Cenotaph is going to be massively disproportionate to the material available for a small village memorial. If anything, I applaud Usernameunique for developing the article to such a high standard and making it the best it can be with the material available; it's inspired me to go back and look at some of Lutyens' smaller memorials to see if I can do anything more with them. There is little doubt the article is comprehensive and thoroughly researched; the sticking point is that it uses the best available sources, which is the same argument applied to (eg) wrestling articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for what it's worth, I've been through all my books on war memorials. Sadly, none of them mention East Knoyle or Maryon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Theramin

edit
Signing off

I am afraid I have a laundry list of nits which, taken together, suggest this article could do with some more maturation. First the small stuff.

  • Capitalized (and linked).
  • You have linked John 15:13 to Wikisource, where the same text appears without any context, whereas linking to our encyclopedic article on John 15 might be more informative.
  • I've split the baby and gone with both: John 15:13. The John 15 article is a bit undeveloped at the moment, and would probably work by itself if built out.
  • Good call, done. (And yes, I was the one to add that church and image to the list.)
  • The flower pot is not inscribed "best kept war memorial 1973": like the memorial, the inscription here also uses upper case throughout.
  • Done.

More importantly, given the article is quite short, and this almost has the flavour of a family memorial, you could spend more time on the personal relationships of the people involved.

  • Who was F. W. Barnes? His name appears twice. He is mentioned in the text in the section "Commissioning" but relegated to a footnote in "History", unlike the other main, and some secondary, characters. If he is important enough to mention the first time, perhaps he should be added to the second list in the text?
  • I've spent quite a bit of time trying to find out more information about him, but have had little luck beyond a string of mentions of him at civic causes. And frustratingly, his full name remains elusive. (He doesn't appear to be listed in East Knoyle on the 1911 census; I wonder if he might have moved to the village subsequently, but the 1921 census is not yet available.) We're not completely out of luck, however, as one news article mentions his general contributions to civic life, particularly his "extreme willingness in helping on anyone or any cause in the village". I've added this to the article, along with brief blurbs about the others on the committee. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I've not had much luck either. Perhaps he was a local official, or an estate or family functionary. Absent better sources, I guess this is a dead end. Theramin (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why mention Dr and Mrs J. Blythe? Or Inspector Townshend? Who are they?
  • They were considered worthy of note by the Western Gazette, as they were specifically named. It's clear that "Dr and Mrs J. Blythe" were Joseph Charles Blythe and his wife Frances Louisa Blythe (née Browning), though little other information is available other than that the former was a physician and surgeon from East Knoyle. That's probably why the Western Gazette considered him worth mentioning; as a local doctor, he would have been well known. At any rate, I've changed the mention to "the local physician and surgeon Joseph Charles Blythe and his wife." It's difficult to tell as to "Inspector Townshend," especially without even a hint as to his first name. It seems likely that he was a local police officer or similar, which would also explain why he was considered worth mentioning—he was likely a known presence in the village. But without more, I don't think there's anything we can add. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I think saying "the local physician and surgeon" helps; else, like "Inspector Townshend", they pop up here without any more context than Messrs Miles, Alford, Francis, Jones, Burton, and Bath, and he like them should probably drop to the footnote too. Theramin (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm comfortable leaving "Inspector Townshend" in the body, since I think "Inspector" is sufficient for a reader to draw a reasonable guess as to his role at the gathering (as outlined above). Unlike those in the footnote, he is given a title rather than just a "Mr". But it's not a big deal, and if you see it differently I'm happy moving it down. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lord Rawlinson" and not "General Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baron Rawlinson"? And then, do we know why was he asked to perform the unveiling? Some local connection, or a connection with the Herbert or Wyndham families? Perhaps he was in South Africa with Guy Wyndham during the Boer War?
  • One of your comments caused me to re-read the Western Gazette article more closely. Henry Seymour Rawlinson grew up in East Knoyle. His mother Louisa (née Seymour) was the daughter of Henry Seymour, who owned Knoyle House. There is the local connection. Theramin (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well spotted. I've added this and some more information to the article; he was also friendly with a number of the Wyndhams, including George (whose letters were published after his 1913 death). Incidentally, this perhaps suggests that George Wyndham's son Percy Lyulph Wyndham was the one Rawlinson had in mind when he said that "Among the names recorded on the memorial was that of one who was an intimate friend and aide-de-camp of his own, one whose character and example were such as it would be well for every young man of the present day to follow, and whose loss to his King and the Empire, to his regiment and his family, had been irreparable." --Usernameunique (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. And indeed the London Gazette shows Percy Lyulph Wyndham was seconded from the Coldstream Guards to act as Rawlinson's ADC in 1912. He returned to the 3rd battalion on 5 August 1914, the day after Britain declared war on Germany. He was killed in action little more than a month later, as the years of trench warfare started at the Battle of the Aisne. [22] [23] [24] (This is somewhat irrelevant, but again goes to the social circle and millieu: I had not previously noticed that his mother Sibyl was the widow of the Duke of Westminster's son, and brought with her three step-children when she married George, including the future 2nd Duke; or indeed that Percy's wife was a daughter of Thomas Lister, 4th Baron Ribblesdale, with his own outstanding Sargent painting.) Theramin (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The family groups at the unveiling (and commemorated on the memorial) could be grouped and linked more effectively. Two of those who attended the unveiling, Captain Guy Richard Charles Wyndham (redlink) and Olivia Wyndham, were the (second) son and daughter of Guy Wyndham and his first wife Edwina. One of those named on the memorial, Lieutenant George Heremon Wyndham, was the first son from the first marriage: he was killed in action near Ypres in 1915. Another, Percy Lyulph Wyndham, was killed in the First Battle of the Aisne in September 1914: he was the only son of Guy's elder brother George Wyndham, who had himself died in 1913. All this could be mentioned.
  • Good point. I've grouped the families together as you mentioned, and added a few extra sources to define the relationships. The death of George Heremon Wyndham is now mentioned in "Commissioning", since he was the son of the committee chair. I'm not sure Percy Lyulph Wyndham's specific relationship needs to be made clear, however, since he's merely Guy Wyndham's nephew. --Usernameunique (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Much better, but can I encourage you to answer the question that naturally arises when someone sees that Percy L. Wyndham's name is prominently mentioned below George Wyndham at the bottom of the second list on the "right" column on the memorial (that is, what connection does this Percy Wyndham have to those named, particularly as we have already mentioned one Percy Wyndham, the grandfather?). His death is the reason why Guy (second son) and Richard (second son of the second) are in charge at Clouds.

    There is also the elliptical reference to "the matriarch of the family", meaning Madeline Wyndham (née Campbell). Is there enough to justify an article on her (and so a redlink) or a redirect to her husband Percy? Theramin (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes indeed—at this point, there's a wealth of potential branches out of this article. As a member of The Souls—and likely in a position of patronage—her connection with various artists does make a fair amount of sense. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says "five members of the Wyndham family" are commemorated. Who are the other three?
  • Lady Muriel Jex-Blake (née Herbert) was the younger of George Sidney Herbert's two elder sisters (i.e. the second daughter and third child of Beatrix, Dowager Countess of Pembroke). Their father Sidney Herbert, 14th Earl of Pembroke had also died in 1913. And yet Reginald Herbert, 15th Earl of Pembroke did not attend the unveiling...
  • Who was Colonel Henry Bouverie? Why was he there? What connection does he have?
  • He's given a number of mentions in the 1920 Western Gazette piece on the memorial's unveiling: "They were indebted very largely to the Seymour Estate for the extensions to the hall and he was very pleased to see that Colonel Henry Bouverie, a Trustee, was present to help him in declaring the hall open. They welcomed his presence and he was sure that the people of East Knoyle would welcome him whenever he came amongst them. (applause). He (Lord Rawlinson) wished he were able to accompany Colonel Bouverie. Matters of duty were calling him away for the next four years, but when he returned he hoped he would find the place as prosperous as it was that day." I've added some information based on this ("The Seymour estate was represented by Colonel Henry Bouverie, a trustee"); there are a number of "Henry Bouveries," however, so absent a source which gives more details and mentions the trusteeship, it would be too speculative to add more. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that is interesting. The Seymours owned Knoyle House, which I think was sited across the road, where the playground is now.[25][26] And it was owned by the General's relatives. See above. In 1920 (and until her death), it was let the Dowager Duchess of Pembroke, but it was owned by Jane, daughter of Alfred Seymour and grand-daughter of Henry Seymour. And then Henry Seymour's daughter, another Jane, married Philip Pleydell-Bouverie. I haven't found a definitive source yet, nothing I can find in the London Gazette to support a colonelcy at this date - there was a Peninsular War officer and governor of Malta, Henry Bouverie: but I think it is likely that our "Colonel" Henry is one of the (Pleydell) Bouverie family - probably Henry Hales Pleydell Bouverie (the banker - the bank Ransom, Bouverie & Co, later Barclay, Bevan, Tritton, Ransom, Bouverie & Co, was one of the major parts of the merged firm that became Barclays Bank - who was named as executor of numerous wills including, one assume, one of the Seymours; and also former major in the West Somerset Yeomanry - in some army lists as "Henry H. P. Bouverie" - also JP, deputy lieutenant and former High Sheriff of Somerset) and not Henry Rivers Pleydell Bouverie. Have you traced other Henry Bouveries that could have attended the unveiling in 1920? Theramin (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rev. Marshall Winder Lumsden, formerly an army chaplain, was the incumbent at the next village, Hindon, with the parish soon to be joined with Chicklade and Pertwood. Captain Guy Richard Charles Wyndham was the Patron of the Pertwood parish, and about to give up his right of presentation to the living. [27]
  • I am afraid you have misinterpreted the Western Gazette article. Two (not three) clergymen conducted a brief service. Rev. William Neville (son of Frederick Neville (redlink but perhaps notable), and grandson of George Neville-Grenville) was the Rector of East Knoyle from 1912 to 1932. Before that, he was the incumbent at St Mary's, Reading, aka Reading Minster. (See article in Western Gazette, Friday 4 June 1926) (Speculation, I wonder if this brings the connection to Herbert Maryon: did he do work for St Mary's?) (And who was Rev. E. A. Reader? I suspect another local incumbent, but I haven't found a source to support that yet.) A third clergyman, from the Primitive Methodist chapel, read a lesson.
  • Of course, the curate. The current text - "The rector, Rev. William Neville and Rev. E. A. Reader, the curate, … " - reads a little strangely. Perhaps "The rector and curate – Rev. William Neville and Rev. E. A. Reader – …"

    It is nice to see the additional content going in, but it will need cold re-reading to make sure it is integrated nicely. When you are done, I'd encourage those who have already supported to go back and take another look. "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow", as they say. Theramin (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make of it what you will, but there is more that can and should be said. Theramin (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Theramin. I've addressed the "small stuff," and will take a few days to address the others. Interesting questions—I appreciate you digging in and finding areas to explore. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't encourage me :) I am risking going off at tangents here, but I think we need a little more background to set the scene. See some sources below.

  • So, the Wyndham family patriarch Percy had died in 1911, and his wife Madeline (née Campbell) in 1920. Within a space of three years, the grandfather Percy and the grandmother Madeline, their first son George and his only son Percy, all died. Guy's wife Edwina also died in 1919, and his own eldest son George in the war, leaving Richard. The death duties must have been punishing. It seems Richard inherited Clouds, skipping a generation (and explaining why he had the advowson at Pettswood). And then there is the Grade II listed memorial enclosure by Detmar Blow in the burial ground nearby.[29]
  • Ah, I see the five Wyndham cousins are all commemorated in the church, but the other three are not mentioned at this memorial. For the record, the three others are Edward Wyndham Tennant (son of Guy's eldest sister, Pamela Wyndham and Edward Tennant, 1st Baron Glenconner), and Hugo Charteris (more than just a cricketer) and Yvo Charteris (two sons of Guy's youngest sister Mary Constance Wyndham and Hugo Charteris, 11th Earl of Wemyss). The mothers are two of the Wyndham Sisters, which tells its own story (and the German article on the painting is outstanding - and here is their mother).
  • To get a sense of the social circle, consider that Lord Glenconner's brother Harold Tennant was Under-Secretary of State for War. And the Charteris's sister Cynthia married Herbert Asquith, son of the Prime Minister. And then Herbert Asquith's brother Raymond Asquith was married to Katharine Horner, sister of Edward Horner, whose extraordinary memorial is already featured. You probably need a link to The Souls and The Coterie.
  • If you need sources for the five grandchildren, and the social context, and the effects of the war, here you are: [30] [31] [32] [33]
  • I see you have already linked to the "Shaftesbury Remembers" website already for the Jolliffe brothers, so here are some others for the Wyndham cousins: [34] [35]
  • On the location, we probably ought to mention that it is about 100m east of St Mary's Church, on a green which was beside the main road from Warminster to Poole (formerly the A350 road, but the village was bypassed in 1995).

There is an interesting vignette here, over and above a simple stone cross unveiled on a village green in 1920, perhaps distilled down to an extra paragraph or two. Theramin (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, this is all getting a bit long, and probably would be better thrashed out on the article's talk page. Let me know if you'd rather deal with it there, outside the heat of a FAC. For what it is worth, I think it is making the article stronger and more interesting. Theramin (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theramin, no need to apologize at all! Parsing through details such as these and making sense of them is perhaps the thing that I find most fun on here. It's enjoyable to go through a review with someone who is similarly interested—not to mention so proficient at tracking down and tying together details that I had missed. So by all means keep adding your thoughts, and I will continue working through the list. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having read some of the other comments above, I see KJP1 suggesting adding more on the families involved from the history of Clouds, particularly the Wyndhams, so it is not just me.

On the sources, I don't know how much is still taken from the village newsletters etc., but from spot-checks, what is there looks reliable enough to me. For example, here are the CWGC listings for the three Jolliffe brothers Victor, killed 12 March 1915, aged 17, Fred, killed 18 May 1915 aged 18, Edwin, killed 21 October 1918, aged 22 (all sons of William G[eorge] and Caroline M[ary] Jolliffe, of The Green, East Knoyle, Salisbury; two in the Wiltshire Regiment, one in the Somerset Light Infantry). Sobering to consider them sending these three young sons off (17! damn) and so nearly getting one of them back. Theramin (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

This nom has been open a long time and there have been strong, thoughtful arguments on both sides regarding the quality of the sources. Plainly we don't have consensus as yet so just going on what's here I really couldn't see myself promoting this. That said, the nom has responded to points raised by Ealdgyth and Buidhe and I'd like them to come back on those before a final decision. That would still leave Gog's concerns, so I don't know if we'll resolve everything but I'm prepared to leave this open a bit longer to see -- it might incidentally give Theramin a chance to finish their review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the smaller issues I raised have been fixed, I remain opposed based on the sourcing. Much of it is primary - there is very little secondary coverage, much less high quality secondary sourcing. I recognize that there is some variety of opinion on what/how much/etc secondary sourcing is required and the proper use of primary sourcing, and that my oppose is not as easy to quantify like prose-quality. I remain concerned that what we have with this article is actually not an encyclopedia entry like we are supposed to be writing, but a historical research article ... albeit an excellent one. If the coords choose to ignore my oppose, I won't be pleased but I won't throw a stink either, but I must oppose because I do not think this excellently written article is an example of Wikipedia's best work because it isn't a summation of secondary sources, but rather a secondary source - a historical research article - itself. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Ealdgyth's comment, I just don't see enough secondary sourcing on this subject to write a FA quality article. buidhe 00:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to everyone who's participated in this review. At the very least, this can be held up as a standard for collegial disagreement in such reviews. I think we've had all the time we should take to try and resolve critical comments, and unfortunately that hasn't occurred, so I'm going to archive it. I don't know if the concerns can be resolved over time and the article re-nominated in the future, but I'd hope so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, it is surprising to see the nomination archived a mere half hour after the last reviewer commented. What is more disappointing, however, is that besides the opinions of a vocal few, there appears to be a consensus supporting this article's promotion. Consensus "does not mean unanimity"; rather, it "involve[s] an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns". Ealdgyth has not disputed the fact that her interpretation of what it means for a source to be "high quality" is inconsistent with the featured-article criteria—let alone her prior statements. And 23 hours before switching gears, Buidhe wrote that her comments could be resolved by removing three sentences from the article. Such concerns are by turns irrelevant and transitory; it is hard to see how they are legitimate. --Usernameunique (talk)
Hi, half an hour after the last reviewer commented is one way of looking at it, nine-and-a-half weeks after the first reviewer commented is another. I also don't think the close should be such a surprise given how I signalled my reading of things a fortnight ago. Certainly consensus doesn't mean unanimity, but this isn't a case of a lone voice of opposition; those voicing their concerns are as experienced and reasonable as those voicing support, and if their comments can't be resolved then regrettably we don't have consensus to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

edit

I reviewed this at GAN and I'm pleased to see it's been considerably enhanced as a result of some of the preceding diligent reviews. While the concerns over sourcing may have some merit, I would like a more pragmatic approach to the issue, i.e. is there any reason to cast any doubt on what they may be verifying? I'm content that sourcing here is just about adequate, and the article is a fine addition to FA. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 June 2020 [36].

Lebanon national football team

edit
Nominator(s): Nehme1499 (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking to nominate this page, which is about the national association football team of the country of Lebanon. I have dedicated (most of) my Wikipedia career to this page, and I feel that it fits all the requirements. I'm open to discussion, and to improvements. Feel free to let me know if anything needs to be changed! Nehme1499 (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kosack

edit

I'll hopefully undertake a more thorough review in due course, but a quick thing that's jumping out at me is the switching between the use of singular and plural at times when referring to the team itself. For example, a sentence such as "In 2007 Lebanon was seeded in the first round of the qualifiers for the 2010 World Cup, where they faced India" switches mid sentence. Kosack (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid this would happen. I guess the copy edit (and the GAN) didn't take care of this. I'll look into this as soon as possible. Which form would be preferred? Singular or plural? Nehme1499 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further inspection, I don’t think that the sentence you highlighted is incorrect. Isn’t the singular “they” for subjects without a gender correct? Nehme1499 (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to keep they, then the sentence would have to use Lebanon were instead of Lebanon was. This isn't the only example of this in the text. I'm not sure which is the preferred method, I've looked to use singular myself but there are FAC candidates at the moment which use the plural. I think consistency is the issue really, stick to one style throughout. Kosack (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack: How would the singular work then? "In 2007 Lebanon was seeded in the first round of the qualifiers for the 2010 World Cup, where it faced India"? It seems a bit odd. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Using it can sound a little odd in places, but there are alternatives. Using the side or the team would switch the subject of the sentence to the players or restructuring the sentence with something along the lines of "the 2010 World Cup, being drawn against India". Kosack (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get it through GOCE then. I'm having a hard time trying to turn everything into singluar/plural without making certain sentences awkward. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack: Done. @Twofingered Typist has been kind enough to run a copy edit of the article. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are still one or two contradictions I can find. I would say it's more about consistency than anything, as it sounds odd when the article switches for no apparent reason. The majority of the article appears to go for the plural, so I can highlight the stray singulars when I go through this. Kosack (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

  • World Cup > FIFA World Cup. I would use the full title on the first usage.
  • "they did participated twice in", doesn't really work. have participated would fit.
  • "finishing at the bottom of their group", perhaps simply "finishing bottom of their group"?
  • Note b is displaying a ref error message.
  • Image captions are considered separate from the main text, so add links for Majdalani and the LFA in his picture.
  • "representatives of thirteen", numbers over 10 should generally use digits.
  • What are renaissance athletes?
  • "He was one of Lebanon's most successful coaches, winning eight of 22 official matches during his 11-year tenure", source?
  • Link hat-trick and Levon Altonian.
  • "in 1966, Lebanon was drawn with Iraq", singular usage.
  • Link Joseph Abou Murad.
  • Ref 21 should be repeated after the tournament placing.
  • "In the first round they lost to host Kuwait", this is likely a singular usage as well. The plural here would be hosts.
  • There's a big jump from 1979 to 1993 with little explanation? Presumably they played matches during this period.
  • "Lebanon's first official World Cup qualification after the civil war", what does official mean in this context? Also I would change to "qualification campaign" as it sounds a little like they actually qualified at the moment.
  • Drew into a group is a phrase that's used a few times in the text. I can't say I've ever seen it used before and I'm a little unsure of it, rather than simply "were drawn in a group". Are there any examples of its use?
  • "at the 58th minute" > in the 58th minute?
  • Link North Korea to the national side.
  • "it was reported that Theo Bücker was Lebanon's new head coach", this makes it sound more like it was a rumour. I'd rewrite to something like "Theo Bucker was reappointed as Lebanon's head coach".
  • Quotes should generally be directly sourced when included.
  • "they were required to win", required might not be the right word, needed perhaps?
  • Use Maatouk's full name in his first mention.

This is what I picked up from a run through of the history section. Something to get started with. Kosack (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: Everything should have been taken care of now. To answer your questions: "renaissance athletes" were a name the AUB gave to one of its sporting divisions. As far as I can read from the source, they had "Varsity" athletes, and "Renaissance" athletes. The source for the "winning eight of 22 official matches during his 11-year tenure" claim is the FIFA official results list. If one were to look at the results between 1958 and 1969, they would see that Lebanon had won 8 matches out of 22. The jump between 1979 and 1993 was due to the Lebanese Civil War (between 1975 and 1990). Nehme1499 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think some sort of explanation or inclusion is needed for the 79–93 gap. The RSSSF shows the team did compete during this period and suffered some pretty crushing defeats as well, there maybe a story behind those. Kosack (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack: The 1985 matches (1986 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)) were subsequently not regarded official by FIFA, as Lebanon withdrew in the middle of the qualifiers (due to the war). Lebanon played 3 (official) matches in 1988, and two in 1989 (respectively 1988 Arab Nations Cup games and friendly games). I'm unsure on what we should write, thoughts? Nehme1499 (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd include that. Withdrawing from a major tournament is pretty notable I would say. With a brief mention of the games the side actually did play as well. Kosack (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kosack: Done. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further points:

  • The competitive record section is a bit lacking in prose with just an endless list of tables. The only other two national team FAs for comparison are Belgium and Peru. You can see what I mean looking at these articles, the tables are supported by prose rather than just standalone items. Similar comment with the player records.
    • @Kosack: The issue with Lebanon is that, for most competitions, the prose will be an endless "Lebanon took part in the [year] qualifications, they finished Xth in their group and didn't qualify". Lebanon's only majour tournaments have been the 2000 and 2019 AFC Asian Cups (with Lebanon playing the former only on account of being hosts). Most of the info would be copy-pasted from the history section, so I really don't know how I should go about doing this part. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notes are probably going to need references.
  • There's a bit of inconsistency with the rsssf refs, some use www.rsssf.com while others use RSSSF.com. Also, rsssf pages tend to have authors and these seem to be missing from a considerable amount of the later usages. Kosack (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kosack, how is the nom looking to you now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I would hold back on supporting, largely due to the issue with the results tables. I feel there needs to be some supporting prose for these rather than a wall of statistics. I understand finding a balance between this and the history section is difficult, but the two FA rated articles mentioned (Belgium and Peru) have managed it. Other than that, any further complaints would likely be minor. Kosack (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose and Kosack: I should have taken care of the "Competitive record" section. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
@Nikkimaria: Done. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size
What is preferred? Nehme1499 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|upright= Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nassif_Majdalani.jpg: when is this image believed to have been created?
It's not known. The person who uploaded the picture to Commons isn't active on Wikipedia, so it will be difficult to ask them. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an approximate date? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be between the 1970s and 1988. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. This is a bit weird - the Exif data indicates a much more recent work. Wondering if the uploader truly has the right to release the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I would guess that the uploader took a digital picture of a physical picture in their possession. Regardless, I have removed that picture as, due to recent changes in the History section, it is no longer needed. Nehme1499 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Camille_Cordahi_v_Mandatory_Palestine,_1940.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US?
The template for PD Israel doesn't seem to indicate that a US PD tag is needed. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In order for something to be hosted on Commons, it needs to be free in both its country of origin and the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very likely Mandatory Palestine, 1940. Nehme1499 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lebanon_national_football_team_1966.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Joseph_Abou_Murad_(colour).jpg
I can't seem to find any file in c:Category:PD-Lebanon that also has a US PD tag. What would a plausible tag look like?
When are these believed to have first been published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very likely in 1966. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that the photo was taken in Iraq, not Lebanon. The tag for PD-Iraq states that the country "is not a participant in the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright with the United States". Nehme1499 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was it also first published in Iraq? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to assume so. The picture is of Lebanon's line-up in the 1966 Arab Nations Cup, hosted in Iraq. I'm very confident that this picture must have been released by an Iraqi newspaper at the time. Also, the opening game of the tournament was, indeed, Iraq (the hosts) against Lebanon. So it's even more likely that the image in question is Lebanon's line-up in the opening game, and that it was first published in an Iraqi newspaper to talk about the opening game of the tournament. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, It's used once. The second image is a cropped version of the first. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the image used twice, once in full and once cropped? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's the only image available of the Lebanese national team in 1940 (during their first game). The full picture is useful in the history section, while the cropped one is functional to highlight Lebanon's kit in 1940. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

I see there haven't been a lot of comments here, so I will be posting comments soon (within the day). epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lebanon's main venue is the Camille Chamoun Sports City Stadium in Beirut, however they also play in other locations such as the Saida International Stadium in Sidon. - "however" should really be replaced with "but", or a semicolon should be placed before "however"
  • but it was not ratified by FIFA. Lebanon's first FIFA-recognised game, however, was played in 1940 against Mandatory Palestine. - I don't think you need "however", and the second sentence can be worded in active voice
  • by finishing bottom of their group. - "finishing at the bottom"? Though this may just be a different variety of English. However, I don't think you need "by" either.
  • reached their highest rank to date—77th—in September 2018 - this reads strangely
  • Lebanon was one of the first nations in the Middle East to establish an administrative body for association football. - Why is this placed after the mention of LFA itself?
  • In 1944, Lebanon lost to an unofficial Iraqi national team representing Iraq's Ministry of Education and coached by George Raynor. - also, this does not flow smoothly compared to the preceding sentence.
  • The side played three official games, only managing one draw against Syria in 1953. - and the others were losses or wins?
  • From 19 to 27 October 1957 Lebanon hosted the second edition of the Pan Arab Games; In 1958, Joseph Nalbandian was appointed coach of the national team.; In 1963 Lebanon hosted the inaugural edition of the Arab Cup - I suggest rewording the sentences, so not all of the paragraphs start with a date.
  • I think, generally in the history sections, there is a lot of emphasis on scores. Is this normal?
  • Due to the country's civil war, Lebanon only played nine games between 1975 and 1990. - which is when the civil war occurred?
  • However, an Abbas Chahrour goal in the 28th minute, Lebanon's first in the competition, and a goal by Moussa Hojeij in the 76th minute gave Lebanon their first point of the competition.[36] [...] However, the point was not enough as they finished last in the group, with only two points.[36] - there are two "However"s in such a short span, which I would not recommend, especially as it's one of the words to watch.

More later. epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to skip around a bit to "Home stadium".

  • The Lebanese national team plays their home games in various stadiums throughout the country. - This single sentence paragraph has no source. Which is technically fine because it summarizes the next two paragraphs. However, should it be combined with what is now the second paragraph?
  • Other stadiums in which the national team plays include the Tripoli Municipal Stadium and the Beirut Municipal Stadium. - this also doesn't have a source.
  • The choices originate from the national flag of Lebanon (red, white and green); green is typically reserved for the goalkeeper. At home, Lebanon usually wears a red shirt, shorts and socks (with white or gold details); the away kit is a white outfit with red (or gold) details. - neither does this
  • Previous manufacturers include Diadora and Adidas. - or the fact that Diadora was a manufacturer
  • The Lebanese national team plays - didn't you refer to the team as "they" before? "Plays" is singular, so the sentence should really be "The Lebanese national team play their home games in various stadiums throughout the country." There are other sentences where the team is referred to in the plural, but the verb is singular.

I skipped ahead because these caught my eye. More in a bit. epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lebanon hosted the 2000 AFC Asian Cup, despite FIFA's concerns about stadium conditions.[33] - Where?
  • They then drew 2–2 to Kuwait in Beirut on 11 October 2011;[60] 32,000 spectators were at the Camille Chamoun Sports City Stadium for the first time since 2005, when the LFA barred fans from the stadiums due to behavioural issues.[61] - I would not recommend putting numbers next to years. The second part is also too close to a brand-new sentence, and it is grammatically frowned upon to put numbers at the beginning of a sentence, so it should just be spelled out as "thirty-two thousand".
  • I noticed that a few paragraphs start with "They". I would recommend clarifying these, e.g. "The team..."
  • They drew into Group A of the round, with South Korea, Uzbekistan, Iran and Qatar.[67] - When was this? It seems like quite a lot of text is dedicated to 2011.
  • before the remaining games were postponed, on 9 March 2020 - that comma isn't really necessary.
  • The heading title Other Tournaments should have lowercase "tournaments".

More later, probably tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Sorry but this has been open over two months and we don't have sufficient commentary to form a consensus to promote, so I'm going to archive. I'd generally suggest a Peer Review before another FAC nom but that's a bit hit-and-miss. An alternative is to try the FAC mentoring scheme, for which you'd be eligible. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 13 June 2020 [37].

Reginald de Warenne

edit
Nominator(s): Ealdgyth (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...a rather obscure but important Anglo-Norman nobleman and royal official. By birth he was related to a large number of the nobility, and he served both his brother and the king as an administrator and official. He married an heiress and played a very small part in the Thomas Becket mess. It's been a while since I've brought an article to FAC, but hoping to be more frequent here now that we've finally finished (mostly) moving. I present you with Reginald de Warenne, who could stand in for many of the royal officials of King Henry II of England. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Must note for the record that through the agency of the fates, etc., the current version is 1216 words long. Brilliant  :) serial # 15:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

edit

Place holder. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With some trepidation I note that this article seems to lack anything aimed at 1b "and places the subject in context". There are no doubt several ways of addressing this, but I would have expected a background section explaining the socio-economic situation in England in the 12th century. Something on the political and religious background would not go amiss either. As it is I worry that much of the article can only be followed via constant use of Wikilinks. I also have qualms about 1a "prose is engaging": for example "... Reginald was fined just over 466 pounds by the King for the right to inherit his father-in-law's lands and become Lord of Wormegay, or Baron Wormegay. This lordship was assessed at fourteen and a quarter knight's fees ..." is likely to make sense to only a small minority of readers. Yes, there are Wikilinks, but I am not sure that reference to stub- and start-class articles to follow the basic narrative of a FAC is acceptable. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this but we're ... busy. I hope to be able to discuss this this weekend, but it might be next week. Stupid pandemic! --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I"m going to try to not sound cranky (but it's likely I will, since I just spent an hour and a half dealing with promoting FACs). If you're expecting a background section on this article... why did you not expect one on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harriet Leveson-Gower, Countess Granville/archive1, where there is not any background on the surrounding historical circumstances - nothing on the Napoleonic Wars, etc, which surely must have had some impact on the subject's life, since her husband was a diplomat? And ... on the talk page of the article, you didn't seem that upset with the prose back in January and February . Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to do improvements and stuff, I just don't want to do a bunch of stuff while other articles get a pass. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I try hard to be consistent in my checking of different articles against the criteria; although, obviously, "to err is human".
I don't think that I "get" your "nothing on the Napoleonic Wars, etc, which surely must have had some impact on the subject's life" comment. I don't see that any reviewer would expect information on anything which had "some" impact on the subject of an article. There would be no logical end to it. Congruous to not requiring information on the Napoleonic Wars I have not asked you for information on the 1167 war with France or the 1171 invasion of Ireland.
Part, to me, of "places the subject in context" is that the mythical typical Wikipedian reader might be expected to understand the article without too much recourse to checking blue links. Clearly a judgement on this is going to contain subjectivity; clearly (IMO) the further away a topic is culturally and/or temporally from what a reviewer considers our current shared experience, the more explanation will be needed.
In terms of "while other articles get a pass" can I flag up my oppose to East Knoyle War Memorial for lack of background or my effective oppose to Hyborian War for the same thing, just to mention two which are currently ongoing. (A lot of the discussion of the latter is off the FAC page.)
Yes, I did sign off on a pre-FAC copy edit of this, and I can see how that might hack you off. Apologies. I was busy personally, there seemed to be a lot of people in and out of the article, I got the impression that we were fairly early in an articles development, and I was a little reluctant to push an editor of your status and experience too much. Mea culpa. I do note that I ended with "This copy edit is proffered with no warranty, express or implied." which I have never done before, so I imagine, I don't remember, that I had a bit of a nagging feeling. I also note that I somehow missed the "Last check in".
Could we concentrate the substance of my queries? Hopefully you have read enough of my reviews to know that I am very reluctant to push my way of expressing something just for the sake of it. In my initial comments above I was inviting discussion around a couple of points. Might it help if I restarted and endeavoured to make my points much more specific to sections of text? Eg there are several mentions of witnessing documents or charters - could it be explained in line in the text what the (socio-political?) significance of this was? And so on?
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • The lead and background seem thin. (BTW I did complain that the Leveson-Gower article was thin on the background.)
  • "signing some of his father's charters as a witness.[1] On their father's death in May, William became the third earl of Surrey" The switch from his father to their father seems to me jarring. How about. "His father died in May and the younger William became the third earl of Surrey"
  • "Reginald was one of the main administrators of his estates until William's death in 1148" I do not have Crouch, but ODNB says he was involved in the administration of some Norfolk estates and was left in charge when William went on Crusade in 1147, which is a bit different.
  • Maybe also quote King saying Reginald "was clearly seen as a safe pair of hands". p. 283 Dudley Miles (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ealdgyth, E 40/6692 is of de Warenne. ——Serial # 15:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to folks - my main desktop tower just ... went wonky this morning. It MAY be repairable, we're taking it to the repair guy today hopefully, but I'm going to be more out of touch for a bit. And that's the tower that has all the research files on it... so... I can't actually get to any of my research for a bit. (Yes, I have backups but ... need computer to do so. I do have a very ancient laptop and a gaming PC but will wait to start shifting to those until I know for sure the desktop Mac is belly up). --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. I'm going to archive this because it appears the next couple of weeks are going to be occupied with other people's FACs and I just won't have the time for this. I'll get with Dudley and Gog on the article talk page and we'll try to get this sorted out before returning. I don't think anyone is going to be upset that I archived my own FAC ... heh. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 13 June 2020 [38].

Dimple Kapadia

edit
Nominator(s): Shahid • Talk2me 22:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a well-known Indian film actress who was particularly popular during the 1980s and early 1990s and was later acknowledged for her experimental work with arthouse cinema. She was launched by Raj Kapoor, but the film buffs among you will probably see her in Christopher Nolan's next. I visited this page several years ago when it was a stub. I started working on it, hoping to just slightly improve it, but got increasingly engaged in the process. Today there are several FAs on Indian actors but hardly any on those whose work goes back to the 1980-90s, since so little coverage of those years is available online for India, particularly for cinema. Nonetheless, all the digging paid off and it was promoted to GA soon after. A few days ago I came back to update and polish it and today, having gone over everything, I believe it meets the FA criteria. I will appreciate and be more than happy to address your comments. Cheers, Shahid • Talk2me 22:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Fowler&fowler

edit
  • I'm not really commenting, only curious. I don't know much about Bollywood movies, but years ago had met an Indian gentleman whose last name was Kapadia, and who was Zoroastrian. That curiosity brought me here, thinking naively maybe she is a relative, but I discovered something entirely different, I think. The article says, her mother's name was Betty. Why is no maiden name (née) mentioned? Well, I was curious, so I clicked on the citation. That took me eventually to a youtube channel which showed (around the 6-minute mark) the Salat al-Janazah, or some other Muslim prayer, being read when her coffin returned to the house before the funeral. It obviously means that the mother was Muslim. Why is all this not mentioned? No sources? Or is it that under Mr Modi, Bollywood has to hide everything, even the religion he does not fancy? I'm curious. Was her dad Muslim too? I would recommend that you dig up the maiden name of the mother. That is generally done in most biography articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's an interesting question. I obviously did look for Betty Kapadia's maiden name but couldn't find it. But now I've found this text from a book on Raj Kapoor:
"Chunnibhai Kapadia was — and is — a maverick. A rebel in the stronghold of Gujarati conservatism, Chunibhai had from his early days been a non-conformist in everything. He was an attractive catch in the wealthy Gujarati community's marriage-market because he belonged to the wealthy Kapadia industrial family. Chunibhai, however, took his non-conformism seriously enough to by-pass all the huge dowrys and wealth that went hand-in-hand with making an arranged match with a girl from another wealthy Gujarati family. Instead, he opted for a love-marriage. Falling for a pretty young Muslim girl whom he nicknamed Betty, Chunibhai married her. The marriage created a furore, shaking as it did the very foundations of this community's traditionalism. And it was Chunibhai's eldest daughter Dimple, now about fourteen years old, who Mrs. Raj Kapoor's close friend Munni Dhawan had mentioned as a good choice for the title role of Bobby."
Indeed, her mother was Muslim, but there isn't evidence her father was, and this quote actually implicates he wasn't. Shahid • Talk2me 01:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, keep digging. Maybe you'll find a maiden name for her mother and restore her some biographical heft. Even if you can't, you should certainly restore her mother's religion to her. You could even recount the story of the parents' marriage. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I'll work on it, currently looking for sources from the horse's mouth. Shahid • Talk2me 01:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you (still) don't have a maiden name for the mother. (The absence of sources is a little perplexing, unless the marriage was considered so "scandalous" at the time that everything was done to suppress the identity of the mother.) Anyway, I just did another search. It turned up an interview with Ms Dimple Kapadia ca. October 2013 in a Magazine, Masala! which is apparently published in the United Arab Emirates. It seems like a legitimate interview. Speaking of coming from the horse's mouth, or in this instance the next of kin's, Ms Kapadia is heard saying there about her mother:

"My father had gone to see my mum's older sister for an arranged marriage but he fell in love with the younger one instead. My mum was only 16 then. And the next year, she gave birth to me. I was very attached to my mother but I was scared of dad."

So that seems to insinuate that the father was Muslim as well! For, we do know that the mother was Muslim, and arranged marriages in India never involve two religions, they mostly do not even involve two different castes within the same religion. Anyway, in the absence of any other source directly stating the father's religion, that would likely be WP:SYNTHESIS. But why are you not adding the mother's religion? There is a good source for it. The mother, moreover, is deceased; so no BLP issues are at stake. Why the reluctance? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No reluctance as such. I just think that mentioning her mother's religion while not mentioning the father's would make it look quite weird. Secondly, now that you're saying her father was probably Muslim as well, mentioning Betty's religion could implicate he wasn't of the same religion. Then, I think we should avoid synthesis and while I did see this interview you quoted, it seems as though the two quotes, the one from the book and the other from the interview, bring contradicting conclusions. I would recommend moving this discussion to the talk page of the article, because it seems unrelated in this nomination. Shahid • Talk2me 01:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean mentioning the father's last name, but not the mother's before marriage does not look weird? You have two reliable sources which seem to contradict each other. Per WP FA Criteria, it is your duty to report both and point out the contraction. That is being Comprehensive. This discussion very much belongs to this page. If you want, I can formally oppose the nomination for suppressing information that is available in two reliable sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please chill and do not use threats to force me into editing - I do not appreciate that kind of attitude. You proclaim the article is not valid because it's missing one word? I wish I knew why her parents' religion is so important to you, to me it means nothing. I have so far not seen a single source (and you can imagine I did look for many) where Dimple Kapadia (mind you, she is the subject here) identifies by a particular religion and so it probably is not very important to her. And no, we actually do mention both the father's last name and the mother's last name, which is Kapadia. Her mother was referred to as "Betty Kapadia" in every single reliable source I've seen, so her maiden name is not available and there's nothing I can do about it, and there's nothing weird about it. Now, her parents' love story is not part of Dimple Kapadia's biography, in my opinion. Even her own story with her husband would be just trivia in my book. Now to the sources, both give us absolutely no information about her father's religion, and yes, writing "Chunnibhai Kapadia and his Muslim wife Betty" sounds really weird to me because it would mean he wasn't Muslim, and while I do think he was, we can't be sure. Do you really think this version would be good? Comprehensive means "major facts or details and places the subject in context" are not neglected. This is not a major fact, definitely not about the subject, which is Dimple Kapadia. If it was major, we would find better sources from the horse's mouth. As a matter of fact, out of all the FAs on actors (Indian and non-Indian) which I checked now, most of them do not mention any religion while I'm pretty sure one could find sources. So if you have some good version which could be worked out, then propose it here instead of wikilawyering. Shahid • Talk2me 13:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most "sources," by which I mean those on the backs of which poorly-written articles on Indian movie stars have traditionally appeared at FAC, don't say anything other than repeating in a regimented fashion the banalities about two sisters whose names are advertised as "Dimple," and "Simple." I note in this instance, but also in plentiful others, citations to The Times of India or its sister publications; see an assessment of TOI at RSN. Some sources, however, do blurt out the name of the third sister, "Reem," a Muslim female name from Arabic, riʼm, rīm, A milk-white doe, and the brother's, the Muslim male name, Suhail (i.e. سہيل, i.e. Canopus, the second-brightest star in the sky whose variable visibility was employed by Arab astronomers in the early second millennium CE, to posit that the earth was round). Speaking of first names, since when did "Betty" become a name for an Indian woman of that vintage who was not Anglo-Indian (or Indian Christian), the nickname for "Elizabeth," the same as in Crocker, Ford, Boop, or Grable? Why have you not given credence to very reliable sources, which have reported the mother's first name to be "Bitti," a more likely Indian name, a diminutive for a daughter? See for example, The Calcutta Telegraph, here. The same spelling appears in a biography of Dimple Kapadia's first husband published by Penguin/Random House. See here and note the picture as well of the parents. Do you see the tell-tale bindi, worn traditionally by married Hindu women? For if you do, please tell me where and I'll bring out the microscope.

In other words, there is very reasonable doubt that the mother's nickname is Betty; it is more likely that it is "Bitti." There is every likelihood, that the mother was Muslim and some likelihood that the father was as well. As for why religion needs to be mentioned in a biography, it (religion) had been a defining feature of an upbringing until very recently, especially in traditional societies such as India's, even among people who are being reported to have flouted tradition. There is no reason that the first sentence in the background and personal life section—which has a scant mention of "background," and which is already laced with an asymmetrical mention of the mother's birth and death years, but not the father's—cannot have her religion instead. What is wrong with saying, "Dimple Kapadia was born on 8 June 1957 in Mumbai to a Muslim mother Bitti— and her husband a Gujarati businessman Chunnibhai Kapadia?" It was after all Bitti to whom the primary credit of the birth and early upbringing of her daughter belongs. Please see ancillary discussion at WT:FAC alluding to the various forms of gender imbalance. There are other issues here: the lack of probing into her inordinately early marriage, probably running afoul of the Indian Age of Consent, at least in the spirit of the law, and of the general manipulation of vulnerable girls in Bollywood. I'm sure there are sources, such as Virdi, Jyotika (2003) Cinematic ImagiNation: Indian Popular Films and Social History, Rutgers University Press, but it is not my job to find them. This is as far as I go with comments here. I will not be returning nor registering support or oppose. This is mainly for the benefit of others who might be doing so but do not know much about Indian culture. Make what you will. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for some reason, I do have a feeling that if Dimple Kapadia wanted to be identified by a religion, she would have mentioned her religion at least once in her long career. Interestingly, she does wear a bindi from time to time, and that's why the confusion. Even in a long monologue by Kapadia about her childhood and early life, which you cited to Masala (but the text actually comes from another source, which is already on the article - DNA India), she makes no mention of religion, which makes me believe that religion is, at least in her case, not necessarily "a defining feature of an upbringing" as you have nicely put. Mind you she married a Hindu and so did her daughters, so you can imagine what role religion really played in their family. Her husband, by the way, was secular.
As for The Telegraph, yes I'm aware of that source, but thought it's just a single source among many. The book that you mentioned actually called her Bitti because of this very Telegraph source (it's cited in there), so it's really just one source (anyway, I'll use it for now). Newspapers and books from as early as the 1970s and the 1980s call her Betty, including a journalist who visited their house and wrote a piece for The Illustrated Weekly of India. Wikipedia is all about verifiability, not truth, and I don't think people are allowed to practice their WP:OR on here, as tempting as it is for knowledge-seeking people, including me.
Somehow I find it difficult to mention her mother's religion basing it off one single book which is a biography of Raj Kapoor. I'll try to look into some of the documentaries, maybe I'll find something more concrete. In any case, if nothing is found, I should consider adding "and his Muslim wife Betty". Shahid • Talk2me 08:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, not Dimple Kapadia, it was the mother Bitti or Betty, and secondarily her father, I was talking about (to which your first two paragraphs constitute replies). The "defining feature," etc. applied to them. It is clear that Dimple Kapadia herself is neither particularly religious nor shy about reminiscing about her failed early marriage to a Hindu actor. You could use both names Betty or Bitti. Even if the second source which uses "Bitti" cites the first, it is written by a reliable author who found the spelling convincing. Anyway, good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, already applied Bitti. Thank you, Shahid • Talk2me 11:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay finally found something. Her father was from a Khoja family which accepted Hinduism. Look at this article by Open magazine about her daughter Twinkle:

...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family and shared with a beloved guitar-playing, ink sketch-loving uncle. Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby

I've added the following sentence: "Chunibhai belonged to a wealthy family of lapsed Ismaili Khojas who accepted Hinduism but continued following Aga Khan as their mentor, and Bitti was Muslim." Shahid • Talk2me 13:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! The Khojas are Nizari Ismailis, therefore Shia Muslims. What we have are "histories," attempted by three generations, whose accounts are equally reliable, and equally unreliable per WP standards: a) The friend of a friend of Chunnibhai who states that CB came from a conservative Gujarati family but fell in love with a Muslim girl. b) Dimple Kapadia states her dad, CB, went to "see" her aunt for a prospective arranged marriage, but fell in love with her mother. And she was born the following year. c) Dimple's daughter Twinkle, tells us what Bollywood ignoramuses such as I had guessed in a few minutes, that the family is indeed Muslim. The business about "lapsed Muslims" who had "embraced Hinduism" but continued to follow the Aga Khan, is adaptive lying, not based in any reality that I am aware of nor I'm sure is the Aga Khan. (Lapsed Muslims who have embraced Hinduism don't name their children Reem and Suhail.) In Wikipedia we cannot state whatever a source states, only what is reasonable in it. What is reasonable is: "Chunnibhai was of Khoja Muslim heritage; Bitti was Muslim." Short and sweet. So, I would get rid of everything else in what you have added. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS There is plenty evidence that she was married in March 1973 (see here for example), which means she was 15 when married, well short of India's Age of Consent (which is 18 now, but was 16 in 1973). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm still looking for sources though. Well, I'd suggest keeping the Hinduism part because it seems like there was some sort of balance which could say a lot about their lifestyle, and it wouldn't necessarily contradict the names given. Naming your kids is not a sign of religious practice, but often just a way of preserving your history and heritage. I found exactly the same information, by the way, in an article by Sumit Mitra dated as early as 1985, so it doesn't appear far stretched. I really want to stick exactly to what the source says, because Kapadia has really never mentioned her religion and I wouldn't want this page to include anything other than was has already been published so far out of respect for her family.
Personally, I would assume they didn't really convert, but accepted Hinduism without completely abandoning their ethnic/cultural/religious identity. That's not very common, I guess, but then they were indeed quite an eccentric family, and that explains to me why at the end of the day they were actually quite a secular family, not having any reservations about their daughter marrying so early and to a Hindu man in a Hindu ceremony. Removing it or making conclusions based on common knowledge would be too much of OR (my own conclusion now is that a and b are now not that contradictory: their mother was a Gujarati Muslim just like her dad, though not necessarily Khoja, and indeed, he was to marry her aunt and ended up marrying Bitti, which was scandalous - the versions kind of complete each other). Shahid • Talk2me 17:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is not clear from the syntax of that sentence who it was that embraced Hinduism; it seems like Lalji but it could have been his son Chunni, but either way, Hinduism traditionally in the period 1930s to 1950s—when they would have likely effected this reorientation of religious outlook—didn't really allow conversions, so entrenched was caste a feature of it. For the same reason, there is little chance they could have given their children names that harkened back to the religon they had just disavowed. What you are suggesting are the easy vanities of a much later era. There were also the questions of the disparate succession rules in Hinduism and Islam. On the other hand, if he was just a fan of Hinduism, we could say that if there was clear mention of that fact, not ambiguous mention as in "embrace." The most I think we can say with the current evidence is that "Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, but living unconventionally; Bitti was Muslim." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to this entry in the Cambridge Dictionary, embrace means "to accept something enthusiastically", and one of the examples given is "This was in the days before she embraced religion". Similarly, this entry in The Free Dictionary, gives a definition of embrace which is "to take up (a new idea, faith, etc); adopt: to embrace Judaism".
Exactly because of what you just wrote, I wrote that it was the family and not a particular person. It might have been the father, but as you can assume, if it was the father, then it was everyone in the family. While everything you're saying is interesting and I'm definitely taking your words at face value personally, I can't think how we can interpret written text from two reliable sources so freely. This is exactly what WP:VNT is all about. Actually, I don't really think there's much of a problem here - no one is saying they converted, the only conclusion that could be drawn here is that they sort of kept exploring, since everything is presented fairly - both the so-called embracement and the fact that they kept following Aga Khan and even gave their kids Muslim names. Shahid • Talk2me 19:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you had written was unsustainable in the light of the sources; I reverted it. Per BRD please gain consensus here before you revert back to your version. Alternatively, we can say, "Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, but by his adulthood was professing a more pluralistic religious outlook; Bitti was Muslim." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No please do not revert until consensus is reached. Shahid • Talk2me 19:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, but by his adulthood was professing a more pluralistic religious outlook; Bitti was from a Muslim family." That is what the sources are saying, in toto. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but this is not at all what the sources are saying. The source is saying "...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family and shared with a beloved guitar-playing, ink sketch-loving uncle. Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby."
How exactly is it unsustainable, if that's what the source explicitly says, and why are you so against the mention of Hinduism? I really don't get it. Shahid • Talk2me 19:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was added off-handedly by a granddaughter in a magazine, Open, which has not been commended latterly for its journalistic uprightness. All sources are not equal on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By this idea, the source should not be used at all. Why use it partially for the claims that one agrees with. Shahid • Talk2me 21:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose is not based on a few sentences in section 1. But those sentences exemplify the issues found in other implausible and unrepresentative ones. The better sources are not used. Section 2.1, for example, has a rich scholarly literature, including the following (with initial page numbers):
  • Nandy, Ashis (1998), The Secret Politics of Our Desires: Innocence, Culpability and Indian Popular Cinema, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 117–, ISBN 978-1-85649-516-5
  • Dwyer, Rachel; Patel, Divia (2002), Cinema India: The Visual Culture of Hindi Film, Rutgers University Press, pp. 64–, ISBN 978-0-8135-3175-5
  • Joshi, Priya (3 March 2015), Bollywood's India: A Public Fantasy, Columbia University Press, pp. 99–, ISBN 978-0-231-53907-4
  • Varia, Kush (31 January 2013), Bollywood: Gods, Glamour, and Gossip, Columbia University Press, pp. 22–, ISBN 978-0-231-50260-3
  • Dickey, Sara; Dudrah, Rajinder (24 October 2018), South Asian Cinemas: Widening the Lens, Taylor & Francis, pp. 8–, ISBN 978-1-317-97729-2
  • Banerjee, Srivastava (13 September 2013), One Hundred Indian Feature Films: An Annotated Filmography, Routledge, pp. 54–, ISBN 978-1-135-84105-8
  • Abbas, K A (1 December 2013), Bobby, HarperCollins Publishers India, pp. 1971–, ISBN 978-93-5029-554-0
  • "Karma of 'Bobby' Lovers Stirs India's Filmgoers" By Bernard Weinraub, Special To the New York Times, Dec. 12, 1973
  • Jain, Pankaj (2009). "From Kil-Arni to Anthony: The Portrayal of Christians in Indian Films". Visual Anthropology. 23 (1): 13–19. doi:10.1080/08949460903368887. ISSN 0894-9468.
  • Lutgendorf, Philip. 2005. "Sex in the Snow: The Himalayas as as Erotic Topos in Popular Hindi Cinema." HIMALAYA 25(1).

Instead this source is used repeatedly. It has sentences like:

  • "Dimple does a Nicole Kidman in Hum Kaun Hai, inspired by Hollywood's The Others."
  • "Of course, Dimple's fans may not mind that too much, thanks to the ravishing actress."
  • "The eternal headturner: She is the best looking grandmom in films today."
  • "Auburn-haired Dimple Kapadia looked as resplendent as a Botticelli angel in her youth but hers is the kind of beauty that gets only better with age."
  • "One can question Dimple's choice of films but there are no two opinions about her being a headturner and one of the more sensitive actresses that the industry can lay claim to in the 1970s and the 1980s."
  • "Dimple was pronounced the 'it' girl in her debut film, Bobby, itself. Master showman Raj Kapoor signed her on when she was barely 14 and did the mahurat of his first directorial film without himself in the cast on Dasshera day in 1971."
  • "Her expressive eyes effectively conveyed teen angst. And when she emerged nymph-like from the pool in a red bikini, Dimple, despite her puppy fat, had teenagers enthralled. Her knotted polka-dotted blouse and earphone hairstyle were wildly emulated."

The last of these is quoted in the section. A reviewer cannot say anything more actionable than: Comprehensivess fails in section 2.1. The best sources are not included. Very poor ones are. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so now that you've already opposed the nomination based on one word, you're presenting a list from Google Books without even going into what they include? Do you realise this article is on an Indian actress and not the film Bobby? Is there anything you think could be added to the section? Something actionable? Because trust me, I spent weeks on Google Books, and took anything that could be added. All these books talk about (or merely mention) the film, not the actress.
  • First, the Rediff.com column that you are making fun of is written by Dinesh Raheja, a journalist, author, and film historian, and his language is the lingo used in film magazines. What did you expect? Academic terminology? Needless to say, your last line is a lie; this quote does not appear on the article and never has.
  • The section includes quotes from Padma Shri winner Bhawana Somaaya about her role.
As for the books, having gone through them just proves that I have not missed anything on my Google Book search, and that you probably (or most certainly) just listed random results elicited by your Google search, without even checking out if Kapadia is mentioned in them in the first place, and much less what they can contribute to the article. Here it goes:
  • First book - "The Secret Politics of Our Desires: Innocence, Culpability and Indian Popular Cinema" - does not even mention Dimple Kapadia's name!
  • Second book - "Bollywood: Gods, Glamour, and Gossip", does not say anything about her but the film itself.
  • "South Asian Cinemas: Widening the Lens, Taylor & Francis" - speaks about neither Kapadia nor Bobby the film! It just has a quote from the film in a list of quotes from Hindi films.
  • Please tell me, please, why the scholarly article "From Kil-Arni to Anthony: The Portrayal of Christians in Indian Films" makes your list when it really is about the portrayal of Christianity in Indian films with no discussion of Kapadia at all!
  • And this one - "Sex in the Snow: The Himalayas as as Erotic Topos in Popular Hindi Cinema" - what is it in there that you think could be added into this article and make it better in terms of comprehensiveness? This article has a mere line about the Bobby film and a brief mention of Kapadia!
  • Did you even read the NYT article "Karma of 'Bobby' Lovers Stirs India's Filmgoers" which you just cited? Because I did! And nothing here could add any worthy information to this article.
  • The book "Bollywood's India: A Public Fantasy", is cited now on the article.
  • Moreover, the book "One Hundred Indian Feature Films" says only the following about her:

Dimple Kapadia, a Kapoor find whose buxom unworldliness had charmed a whole generation of Indian youth, disappeared from the screen soon after, eloping with the reigning superstar, Rajesh Khanna, while she was still a minor. Subsequently, after two daughters and a divorce, and years spent away from the studio floors, she has fairly recently begun trying to revive her career.

  • What is it that you see here that does not appear already in the article other than the factual error that she was divorced (she was never divorced)? What do you mean by the best sources? What does WP:RS say about it?
  • The article uses sources from Encyclopedia Britannica, and other books, where necessary, but if anything, your problem is not comprehensiveness. It's just a clear attempt to try to justify your automatic opposition to this article.
Shahid • Talk2me 17:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Section 2.1 is about Kapadia's debut role in Bobby. The book might not mention Kapadia by name, but it says plenty about her character. The plot is described there in more interesting detail:

"... the Abbas-Sathe team pieced together a simple love story, a story of true love thwarted by family prejudices and the class divide. The boy is rich and Hindu. The girl, Bobby, is from a working-class Christian family. Bobby’s father is loud, boisterous and crude and devoted to his only child. The hero's father is a stiff upper-lip aristocrat and wants to extend his financial empire by arranging an appropriate marriage for his son. But the class rivalry was only spice for a recipe that stressed breathless, obsessive juvenile love. Armed with memories of the Hollywood hit Love Story and countless Archie comics that sold the idea ‘sixteen is not so young anymore’, Raj flung himself desperately into the shooting of Bobby."

It points out for example that Bobby's background is working-class, not middle-class as the article puts it. The author is Ashis Nandy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Fowler&fowler, please propose something actionable. What is this huge block of text good for if the only good thing out of it is the variation between middle and working class? Articles about actors should provide two short, one-sentence summaries of the role and then the film at most, and sometimes just the former would suffice. Unfortunately, all my attempts in the past to add more about characters have been objected. Bobby is a love story between a working-class Goan girl and a wealthy young man, to which their parents opposed. I wish we could write more than just that but sadly it's not possible, because actor BLPs are more about actors, their roles, the reception to their films. Look, just for example at Julianne Moore, an FA, where the section about her Oscar winning role just writes, "In the drama Still Alice, Moore played the leading role of a linguistics professor diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's disease." You see what I mean.
I did change it to working-class (although I don't agree with it because other sources do mention that he was prosperous, just of a lower social class), and this mistake is exactly what an FAC is for, offering constructive feedback on points like these, among others. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a short prose review of the first four sentences of section 2.1:

1)Kapadia always had aspirations to become an actress when she was a child, calling herself "film-crazy".

  • A problem with using the participial clause "calling ...crazy" as an adverbial is that we don't know when she called herself "film crazy." It is probably better in in an encyclopedia to say:
  • Kapadia, who calls herself "film crazy," aspired to be an actress even as a child," or
  • "Kapadia, who has called herself "film crazy," ...., or
  • "Kapadia, who had once (or with date) called herself "film crazy," aspired to be an actress as a child
  • Also, you don't really need "always," for to "aspire" is to long, to yearn, which are forms of desire exending over time.

2) "She was introduced by Raj Kapoor in his 1973 teen romance Bobby. "

  • Given the previous sentence about yearning, some reference to it would be better:
  • "She landed her first film role in 1973, when Raj Kapoor chose her for the teen romance Bobby."

3) "While the film was to be Kapoor's son Rishi Kapoor's first leading role, Kapadia was given the title role of Bobby Braganza, a middle-class Goan Christian girl."

  • When "while" is used as a subordinator in the sense of "whereas," you are contrasting two things that belong to the same category. It was her first leading role too. Would it be better to contrast: "Raj Kapoor's son Rishi was cast in his first leading role as the son of a wealthy Hindu businessman" " Kapadia was picked for the title role of Bobby Braganza, the granddaughter of his former Ayah, or governess, a Christian woman from ...."

4) The story follows how Bobby falls in love with Raj (Rishi), the son of a wealthy businessman, and how the two face the disapproval of their parents

  • The storyline follows Bobby and Raj, their falling in love, their parents disapproving, their ... (you need to add something more).

And so forth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, Would the first four sentences be better as:

"Kapadia, who calls herself "film crazy," aspired to be an actress even as a child. She landed her first film role in 1973, when Raj Kapoor chose her for the teen romance Bobby. Kapoor's son Rishi was cast in his first leading role as the son of a wealthy Hindu businessman; Kapadia was picked for the title role of Bobby Braganza, the granddaughter of Rishi's former Ayah, or governess, who is a Christian woman from the former Portuguese colony of Goa. The storyline follows Bobby and Raj, their falling in love, their parents disapproving, their ...

I think the article is not at FA level yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finally one actionable comment (which is very easy to fix but you dismiss the article in advance, which is funny since it's just two lines and you haven't read past it), but I agree with part of your comments actually, especially the first two points, which I've applied. You just need to remember that actors' articles can only provide short summaries of the plot, and not that long plot you have provided ("short and sweet", remember?). Words like "landed a role" are unencyclopedic. Moreover, the use of "While" is to stress the fact that in spite of being his son's debut vehicle, it was she who got the title role, but I fixed it and removed it.
As for the fourth point, I disagree with your version, which I honestly find to be quite poorly written and the story must be somehow presented specifically through her character. As for this: "Rishi's former Ayah, or governess, who is a Christian woman from the former Portuguese colony of Goa" - it is just too much information according to me, and a previous reviewer on this FAC, who's asked to shorten the section. Shahid • Talk2me 18:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"While" is to stress the fact that in spite of being his son's debut vehicle, it was she who got the title role."
  • The title role, that of a teenage girl, is the doing of the writers or the director. That has nothing to do with "while:" It needs to be contrasted differently: "Kapoor's son Rishi was cast in his first leading role as the son of a wealthy Hindu businessman; the director/screenwriters chose the title of the movie to be Bobby, from Kapadia's character Bobby Braganza, the granddaughter of Rishi's former Ayah, or governess, who is a Christian woman from the former Portuguese colony of Goa." You are contrasting the wrong semantic categories there. You may need to rewrite the previous sentence for coherence. As for length, this is Kapadia's major claim to biographical fame. On Google Books, for example, all things being equal, "Dimple Kapadia" "Bobby" at 1,310 constitutes fully one-third of all the returns of "Dimple Kapadia." It is the rest of the article that needs to be shortened. The main point here is: there are prose issues in pretty every sentence that I have read thus far. I cannot rewrite the whole article. At some point I have to say: "It is not at FA level, and it is not looking good." As for you other objections "landed her first role" is not the point; it is reference in the sentence to the aspiration, longing, yearning of the previous sentence. You can easily change it to: "She made her film debut in 1973, when Raj Kapoor chose her for the teen romance Bobby." That is not what you are saying. Your version has no link syntactically to her aspiration, but someone else's choice.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But I did change it! I think I did tell you above that most of your comments were applied, with some modifications (including the use of "while") - there it is:

Kapadia, who called herself "film crazy", aspired to be an actress even as a child. She played her first film role in 1973, when Raj Kapoor cast her as the lead in his teen romance, Bobby. The film starred Kapoor's son Rishi Kapoor in his first leading role as Raj Nath, the son of a wealthy Hindu businessman, and Kapadia was given the title role of Bobby Braganza, the teenaged daughter of a working-class Christian fisherman from Goa. The film follows the love story between Raj and Bobby in the face of his parents' disapproval of their relationship.

You see, when an actionable comment comes along, and in this case, as I said, I respected your perspective, I do my best. I'm always willing to learn.
As for the length of the section, I'm bound not only by your comments, but also by comments of other reviewers here, most of whom are more experienced, as you know, with articles on film actors. One of them claimed that the section is too long, and I applied his actionable comment. The fact that the search for 'Bobby' and 'Dimple Kapadia' brings so many returns has one really obvious reason though (or maybe more than one) - it's her first film, which happened during the time of her marriage, and was followed by a long hiatus, and would therefore obviously be mentioned every time some piece about her. You better tell me how many articles actually discuss Kapadia and Bobby in the context of her work in the film. Even the books you cited above trying to cast doubt on the sources (quite unsuccessfully) don't mention her.
I'm going to your "At some point I have to say" part - that's not how reviewing FAC goes. Shahid • Talk2me 19:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, even if a mention was made of the governess, the use of the word Ayah would be irrelevant because that wasn't its use in the film, Bobby. According to Urdu Memoirs of Cinema Legends, the film's screenwriter (the great Khwaja Ahmad Abbas) expressed his disappointment writing, "by the time Bobby came out, I had to say that it was Raj Kapoor's film, not mine. My story was about a rich boy falling in love with a poor girl. It had an ayah and Raj Kapoor transformed her into a governess; he put a refrigerator stacked with liquour in her house." - in other words, turned her into a Christian, which she was in the film. From what I understand, the writer wanted it to be the love story of a Muslim girl and a Hindu man, but Raj Kapoor changed it. Very interesting, I should add it on the film's article, because I want to expand it. Shahid • Talk2me 20:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parents' religion
edit
(Invited other reviewers to weigh in but removed it for now) Let's try to work it out here before inviting other reviewers. So here's what we have:
Open magazine (2019) in a piece about Dimple Kapadia's daughter says:

...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family ... Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby

India Today (1985)

The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, and which accepts the Agha Khan as its religious mentor even now, disowned Dimple's father the day he agreed to Raj Kapoor's proposal to let her sign for Bobby.

My version is "Chunibhai belonged to a wealthy family of lapsed Ismaili Khojas who accepted Hinduism but continued following Aga Khan as their mentor"
Yours is "Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, but by his adulthood was professing a more pluralistic religious outlook"
What do you guys think is best? Maybe you have another suggestion? Looking forward to your opinion. Shahid • Talk2me 20:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize the irony of your suggestion? I came here out of curiosity, knowing nothing about this actress, knowing only that Kapadia was the name of a Zoroastrian person of my former acquaintance. Based on my curiosity, my knowledge of India, and some rummaging, I conjectured that the mother, and perhaps both parents were of Muslim heritage, something that neither you, nor a single one of the dozens and dozens of sources you had hitherto marshaled in this article had uttered a peep about, nor for that matter had any of the other reviewers whose opinion you are now quick to elicit. My conjecture has turned out to be more or less true. You are now attempting to dispute how stable or serious was the father's, the parents', or the family's, belief in Islam, chalking it mostly to an innocuous ecumenicalism. Well do what you want. I have lost interest in pursuing this beyond what I understand to be the likely truth. I am tired besides. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm grateful to you for bringing it on, while I do think that mentioning religion is not necessarily important for actors' biographies. The irony is that I did exactly what you said. You wanted religion to be included, and I spent hours digging in the archives. Now that finally sources have been found, I'm not sure who's attempting what here. I'm following the sources, and you are suggesting your own interpretation of the text, which is far stretched and not supported by the sources. Why not just write what the source says? You have been proposing different explanations as to why it's not very likely that what the sources are saying is true. That's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and I'm following the sources, I do not "do what I want". If I find something else in some book or documentary, I'll be the first to write exactly what they say. Thank you for the help, Shahid • Talk2me 20:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one source. 1985. (The musings of the granddaughter recorded in 2019, repeating the words of 1985, including "embracing," don't constitute anything reliable) 1985 starts out peremptorily, "The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, ..." Where in the story was there previous mention of Hinduism to warrant the use of the definite article (The)? What evidence is cited for this statement? Nothing. However, a little later, we do have Dimple Kapadia's own words:

"When I was a child, my parents took me to Agha Khan, and he named me Ameena. Beautiful name, it means the dignified one".

So you do have a birth name, by her own acknowledgment, which you can add to the article, and which is far more beautiful that "Dimple." If you are worried about respect, please give her her name back. It is "Ameena."
However, the Hinduism mumbo-jumbo is just that. No citation, no previous mention, no story, no anecdote, is offered. There is such a thing as plausible truth in Wikipedia. For something to be plausible it has to have a context, a causal and chronological sequence. None is given for the family's continuing to regard the reigning Aga Khan, the Hazar Imam, as their spiritual head, but also "embracing" Hinduism. She was born in June 1957, so it was likely Aga Khan III, and not the current Hazar Imam, who named her. The Aga Khans were themselves quite cosmopolitan, regularly appearing at the races at Derby and Ascot, but they were clear about Ismailis being Muslims. Aga Khan III founded the All-India Muslim League. It would be a bizarre distortion of Indian and Pakistani history were Wikipedia to state he was going around christening Hindu babies, giving them Muslim names. By the way, I'm not even remotely one of those Hindu nationalists who on Twitter like to out Muslims, casting them to be traitors. But a biography needs its reliable truth, not a fantastic or accusatory one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm removing the invitation for other opinions for now.
Well Ameena is indeed a beautiful name. Her birth name from what sources say is Dimple though - she was a child when they visited the Aga Khan who gave her a second name, which sadly didn't stick. You're right should be mentioned. She herself said on DNA India:

When my sister Simple and I’d travel together, officials at the airports would ask, “Are your names for real?” I suppose Dad had a crazy sense of humour. Actually, I was given another name by the present Aga Khan’s father. It was Ameena but no one ever called me that."

In another source, she is quoted as saying, "I was born with a cleft in the chin but Dad didn't know the difference between a cleft and a dimple. So I was named Dimple." So Dimple is basically her birth name given by her dad (which as implied appears on her passport).
Again, I do not say they converted to Hinduism, nor does the article. It says they embraced/accepted it while still maintaining their heritage. That's exactly what the source says. No one christened Hindu babies because they're not officially Hindu. They kept their tradition and followed Aga Khan, and it's written there. How can there be any problem with that? But do you realise how much all of what you're writing is your free analysis based on your belief and knowledge and not facts as presented by sources? Shahid • Talk2me 22:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The causal sequence is: a) The present Aga Khan's father, Aga Khan III died on the 11 July 1957. b) Dimple Kapadia was born on 8 June 1957 c) Sometime before Aga Khan III died, he named her Ameena (which along with Amina, Aamina, is a variant of the popular Muslim female name, Arabic آمنة which means honest, or trustworthy, and is the name of the Prophet Muhammad's mother.) d) She was, therefore, less than 1 month and 3 days old when she was so named, i.e. she was an infant.
Ameena was, therefore, her name, her original name, for the Aga Khans are not known to give second names, pious Muslim names, of the Prophet's mother's no less, to infants of their Jamat whose parents have chosen frivolous names such as "Dimple" as the primary ones. Passports however are made much later in life. She might have had her name officially changed to Dimple later, but it is unlikely to have been her birth name; two siblings after all did have straightforward Muslim names: Reem and Suhail Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, much as I have enjoyed this back and forth—and it has been enjoyable for me as I had never imagined so much new material surfacing—I do have to go. I will leave you with my final proposal for the first few sentences of the background section.

Dimple Kapadia was born on 8 June 1957 in Mumbai to a Gujarati businessman Chunibhai Kapadia and his wife Bitti, or "Betty." Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, but was thought to hold somewhat unconventional religious beliefs; Bitti belonged to a Muslim family. When barely a month old, Dimple was given the name "Ameena" (Arabic آمنة, literally, "honest," or "trustworthy," also the name of the mother of Prophet Muhammad) by Sir Sultan Mahomed Shah Aga Khan III, the spiritual head of Nizari Isma'ilism. Dimple is the eldest of four children, her siblings—all of whom are deceased—being the actress Simple Kapadia, a sister, Reem, and a brother, Suhail."

I can give you sources for the Arabic etc. later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS (Added later): a) 1) آمنة (p. 101) A آمنة āmina, The name of Muhammad's mother. F.J. Steingass, A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary, page 101. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PPS See also the Wiktionary entry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She did not say she was named after Muhammad's mother, but gave the translation of the name. Shahid • Talk2me 11:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:) Again, we cannot accept everything she says, including her translation; she is only the source of the name being given to her by the Aga Khan. The meaning of the name exists independently. It is our encyclopedic duty to provide it, correctly. Hers is incorrect. See the Wiktionary entry. I'm sure I can find other sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Ameena does mean 'the dignified one' as well, that I know for a fact! I have no problem adding the translations which appear on Wiktionary, which are all true (all these translations are close in meaning anyway), it's there now anyway. But I don't think other uses of the name are noteworthy unless she said she was named specifically after someone. Shahid • Talk2me 12:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aminah is the Prophet's mother. It is a very important aspect of Dimple Kapadia's name. It doesn't really matter what spin she puts on the name. It was given by the Aga Khan, who traces lineal descent from the Prophet. It is an important requisite for explaining the naming. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree with you. As for your claim that "It doesn't really matter what spin she puts on the name." - well, according to me it's the only thing that matters. No WP:OR. The very basic link of Amina on Wikipedia goes to the Zazzau warrior queen, so you can never know. Why not just link the name and that's it? I think giving the translation is enough, and the readers are intelligent enough to make the link between Aga and Muhammad's mother and draw conclusions if they need to, just like you did. Shahid • Talk2me 14:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your help Fowler, it has indeed been very useful. I'll be looking for other sources, but at this point Hinduism stays because that's what is said in the sources, unless other sources are found. What matters is what the sources say, not what we think they meant or was less likely (WP:VNT). The readers can make their own conclusions based on the information presented, which must be presented fairly in accordance with sources. Secondly, she said several times that she was named Dimple by her father. She was given "another name", in her own words, Ameena, so her birth name is Dimple, and speculations about when she got her passport are, again, inappropriate. But anyway, your version is very good IMO, except that scripts are deprecated on Indian articles anyway, and I shortened it a bit. If you disagree with the versions we'll open it up to other editors so that they weigh in on the issue, but this rather small issue has been going on for too long. Shahid • Talk2me 08:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDICSCRIPTS is about Indic scripts in the lead or the infobox; this is Arabic in Section 1. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not used for her full name in the lead, why would nay script be used at all? Shahid • Talk2me 10:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason they are used in the FA India, in Section 1 (Etymology). The etymology of someone's name is of encyclopedic interest. I'm not saying that the Arabic script has to be in the lead or the infobox; but the name Ameena does need to be in the infobox as an alternate name. I don't know if the template has that argument; it probably does. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are not mentioned on film-related articles though. This is an actor's article. Moreover, she never said it's her second name - it's a name given by Aga Khan which hasn't stuck. Not a single reference mentions it as her second name or her full name as Dimple Ameena. Shahid • Talk2me 11:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My proposed version says simply she was given a name Ameena as an infant (for the Aga Khan III died when she was 1 month and 3 days old) by Aga Khan III. Short and sweet. It makes no claim to being the only name, "another" name, or "second" name. But she does say he gave her a name. Adding "infant" is not original research. Elementary math is allowed. You cannot use the word "child," which can mean a period between infancy and adulthood, even if she used it. We know she had to be an infant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! :) I'm using exactly what you wrote (when she was barely a month old). Shahid • Talk2me 11:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are? Can you please communicate those edits to me (here)? OK, I've taken a look. It is better, but Hinduism is problematic. You can footnote it, if you'd like. But it is too incongruous, too implausible, in the light of everything we know about Khoja Shia Islam. We can't add whatever a source says; however, there are many sources that attest to his unconventional, rebellious, ways. You could change it to "Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, and a rebellious spirit;(footnote about the family "embracing" Hinduism) Bitti belonged to a Muslim family." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A footnote could be a solution. But look, I have no bias here. I couldn't care less about her religion. But it appears that neither can Kapadia herself; almost 50 years in the movie business and never a mention of her or her parents' religion. Maybe this complicated self-exploration of her father's family is the reason for it? She married a Hindu, as a matter of fact. I can't understand this anti-Hindu sentiment. Please try to explain to me how you are willing to exclude text that is mentioned by a reliable source. How can we ignore the fact that a reliable source says they "embraced Hinduism" and that they are lapsed Muslims based on your own belief or interpretation? It is the most unfair incident I can imagine and is totally contradictory to the spirit of Wikipedia. What you're doing here is exactly what Wikipedia is against. Shahid • Talk2me 12:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility is:

"Chunnibhai was rebellious by temperament; he was from an Ismaili Khoja family, which according to one source had come to "embrace Hinduism," in the previous generation, without entirely relinquishing Ismaili loyalties. Bitti belonged to a Muslim family."

That is about all we can say reliably. (Khoja, btw, is a caste designation used for a former Hindu caste which converted to Shia Islam during the 13th or 14th centuries. Some of these converted Shia did adopt other faiths such as Sunni Islam, and even Hinduism, to escape persecution, but that happened much earlier. But unless we have sources that specifically attest to a late 19th-century or early 20th-century reconversion, we cannot state it in a manner that implies it, in our voice, that is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but rebellious by temperament sounds a little unencyclopedic to me and too much information about her father when really this article is about Kapadia the daughter. How about - "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, which was reported to have 'embraced Hinduism', without entirely relinquishing Ismaili loyalties (and here footnote: quote about them continuing to regard the Agha Khan as a religious mentor)". Shahid • Talk2me 13:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source starts out with, "But there was something oddly rebellious about Chunibhai himself, ..." Rebellion is an important aspect of his personality. It was mentioned in the very first source about Bitti being Muslim. It underpins his behavior. All I can accept is: "Chunnibhai was considered rebellious; he was from an Ismaili Khoja family, which according to one source had come to "embrace Hinduism," in the previous generation, without entirely relinquishing Ismaili loyalties. Bitti belonged to a Muslim family." "according to one source" is necessary, for we have only one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our versions are practically the same. I just removed him being a rebel since this article is not about him; his rebellious nature is attributed here to him allowing Dimple to act in movies and in the book to marrying Bitti. See the India Today article. The rest - "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, which was reported (can add by India Today) to have 'embraced Hinduism', without entirely relinquishing Ismaili loyalties (and here footnote: quote about them continuing to regard the Agha Khan as a religious mentor)" - is similar to yours, just instead of writing previous generation, I'm writing, "the family he came from" - which is, indeed the previous generation. Shahid • Talk2me 14:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - I personally strongly believe Bitti was Gujarati and Ismaili as well just like her husband. Sadly, nothing exists on it. My suggestion is,
"Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, which was reported (by India Today) to have 'embraced Hinduism', without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; he and Bitti followed Aga Khan as their religious mentor."
I think that would be true considering Dimple's self-reported story. Shahid • Talk2me 16:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a small issue. It is the matter of someone's heritage in a section which is titled "Background." There is no possibility for any a Narazi Ismaili to "accept" or "embrace" Hinduism within the fold of that Shia Islam faith. See here, the official website of the faith:

The Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims, generally known as the Ismailis, belong to the Shia branch of Islam. ... Throughout their 1,400 year history, the Ismailis have been led by a living, hereditary Imam. They trace the line of Imamat in hereditary succession from Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him). ... They firmly believed that the legacy of Prophet Muhammad could only be entrusted to a member of his own family, in whom the Prophet had invested his authority through designation before his death. That person was Ali, Prophet Muhammad’s cousin, the husband of his daughter and only surviving child, Fatima. The institution of Imamat was to continue thereafter on a hereditary basis, succession being based on designation by the Imam of the Time. ... In time, the Shia were sub-divided. The Ismailis gave their allegiance to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq’s eldest son Ismail, from whom they derive their name. The Ismailis continue to believe in the line of Imamat in hereditary succession continuing from Ismail to His Highness the Aga Khan, who is their present, 49th Imam in direct lineal descent from Prophet Muhammad.

I have changed my comments to an oppose. I see the issue of the parents' religion to be symptomatic of the overall weakness of this submission, of the inability to source, to cite, to paraphrase, to separate what is plausible from what is not. This submission, and the nominator's recalcitrance in the face of numerous sources, is the reason that knowledgeable editors do not like to waste their time on FAC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost funny - an oppose put to impose the removal of one word, which is perfectly sourced, without even reading this article. Anyway, you have already posted threats of opposing this article based on this one sentence appearing or not. And now that it's on, you demand that it be written your way and according to your belief, and not according to sources. I'm not intimidated by this oppose. I do not let religious agenda become part of my work.
The quote you've added, how is that even related to Dimple Kapadia?
Hi there, user:Aoba47, user:Encyclopædius, user:indopug - please weigh in on this issue and let's work out a version.
User:Fowler&fowler does not want the word Hinduism to be mentioned despite the fact that it is mentioned in the sources. Shahid • Talk2me 10:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, this is exactly what I just found - I tried Twinkle Khanna Ismaili, among others.
But why should Hinduism be removed from the mention of Chunibhai's family? These sources do not contradict at all the previous ones; the previous sources maintain the same claim, that they are Aga Khanis.
I would suggest, "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Khoja family, which was reported (by India Today) to have 'embraced Hinduism', without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; he and Bitti, also an Ismaili, followed Aga Khan as their religious mentor."
This version takes all sources into consideration, which we, as neutral editors, should be doing. Shahid • Talk2me 16:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone back to my final proposal (please scroll above). It is what the sources say reliably. You are welcome to nickel and dim off-handed remarks in whatever fashion you would like. Ismailism, which is an integral part of Shia Islam, of necessity and non-negotiably monotheistic, does not allow its adherents, even the wayward ones, to "embrace" Hinduism, a polytheistic religion. I am done. My oppose stands. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you even realise how much your "final proposal" (which is rather - "either my version or oppose") is inappropriate on FAC. Please don't think that I would comply with violating Wikipedia policies just to have this oppose removed. FAC voting is supposed to be based on constructive criticism and not disagreement with a single word based on personal opinions.

Well, for your information, Twinkle Khanna is half Hindu, so how can you speak of Ismailism being the "necessity and non-negotiably monotheistic, does not allow its adherents, even the wayward ones, to 'embrace' Hinduism"? You see, your theories are practically just yours, and your knowledge is clearly defied by reality as it is reported in reliable sources. See what she says on Rediff.com (November 2016):

My grandmother is an Aga Khani so she would take Rinke and me to the jamatkhana. I had a multicultural exposure, that's why I don't believe in a particular religion. I have respect for most because I grew up surrounded by so many.

I think that's a serious case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it on your part. You have several sources which do not contradict each other in any way, but the word Hinduism is the one that you just can't deal with. I wish I knew why. Here's my modified version (based on the sources and not what is "likely" or "possible" and adhering to Wikipedia policy:

Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, whose members had—according to India Today—"embraced Hinduism" without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; Bitti was an Ismaili, too, and the couple followed Aga Khan as a religious mentor. When barely a month old, Dimple was given the name Ameena (literally, "honest" or "trustworthy" in Arabic) by Aga Khan III, although she was never referred to by it.

What do you say? Shahid • Talk2me 17:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability or truth?
edit

Dear @FAC coordinators: and anyone involved: Hi there, everyone. This article has been nominated for a month. User:fowler&fowler stepped in and suggested that her religion is added although no sources seemed available. He even posted a threat that based on the absence of religion in her background, he shall oppose. I finally did find sources for her father's religion. And here they are:

Open magazine (2019) in a piece about Dimple Kapadia's daughter says (link):

...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family ... Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby

India Today (1985) (link):

The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, and which accepts the Agha Khan as its religious mentor even now, disowned Dimple's father the day he agreed to Raj Kapoor's proposal to let her sign for Bobby.

Based on these sources, I've added the following sentence on the article:

Chunibhai belonged to a wealthy family of lapsed Ismaili Khojas who accepted Hinduism but continued following Aga Khan as their mentor; Bitti was Muslim

User:Fowler&fowler demanded that Hinduism be removed and suggested a rather weird version, IMO, which clearly violates WP:VNT, WP:POV, and WP:OR. He said that it's not likely that this would be true. I did not agree and I identified right away that something is really strange in his insistence to remove that word and to include her Muslim background without any additions that appear in the two sources. I don't mind removing the mention of religions altogether. But this oppose is solely based on this one sentence. User:fowler&fowler admittedly did not even read the article and now opposes it because I follow sources and not his personal will. Shahid • Talk2me 10:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her parents religion is just not important. It should obvious to the delegates in reading the above comments and being aware of Fowler' s history at FAC.† Encyclopædius 12:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shahid - Don’t sweat it. When the FA coordinators come to consider this candidate, they will give the above Oppose the weight it deserves. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, User:Encyclopædius and User:KJP1. I find fowler's remarks really offensive - to not read the article and still oppose it based on one word and some weird anti-Hindu sentiment (not referring to the user's intentions, I don't want to speculate, but specifically to the bottom line of his comments). I can't understand how I'm expected to accept his insistence to accept only part of what the source says because he finds it "unlikely" or less "possible" in view of his common knowledge. This is against everything that Wikipedia is about. Shahid • Talk2me 13:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the late response. I am honestly uncertain about how to feel on this situation. Maybe it's because I know next to nothing about India and its culture to really understand this discussion on religion or it's because the above discussion is rather long and dense with information. For those reasons, I do not feel comfortable offering an opinion on it, but I still wanted to post at least this response since I was pinged. I agree with the above commentators that the FA coordinators will take everything into account to reach some sort of conclusion. They are far more qualified than I am to weigh in on this discussion. Apologies again for not being much help here. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Trust me, this long discussion is forced upon me because I'm not willing to give up Wikipedia policy in the face of ferocious attempts which I think everyone knows what stands behind them. I wrote an article about an actress, what I'm interested in here is her art and work. Instead, I'm stuck discussing one sentence in the background section, which is treated with such fervent worry by the other user that he is willing to oppose a nomination on nothing but his interpretation not being accepted. This is amusing even to me. Shahid • Talk2me 16:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered ignoring what Fowler&fowler has to say and putting it down to simply someone who knows nothing about featured articles trying to convince everyone that they know everything about featured articles? CassiantoTalk 07:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, I have, but I also have to make sure the co-ords are aware of how preposterous this oppose is. Shahid • Talk2me 08:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The disruptive behaviour displayed by this third-rate reviewer is nothing new and has been going on for a while. I'm sure at least two of the coords can see this. I will take a look at this article tonight. CassiantoTalk 11:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto Please don't ping me with ungrammatical sentences. "Putting it down" needs a possesive: "to someone's trying to convince ...." Also, Shshshsh Please be aware that I too can wildly ping people. FAC regulars know nothing about India. I can ping people who do: such as Abecedare, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Sitush, Kautilya3, Dwaipayan, Joshua Jonathan, Spaceman Spiff, Doug Weller, ... , which I am not, only pointing out a whole other level of relevant expertise. Contrast this submission with Pather Panchali or Satyajit Ray. Please also read my comments on the sources used in Section 2.1 (above). That's just one section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, I pinged only the coordinators, and before that, only those who are already reviewers on this very page, so get your facts right. Dwaipayan is a editor whom I consider a wikifriend if you like, and he would never have adopted the kind of behavior you have been adopting on this page. As for Pather Panchali, I happen to have been its GA reviewer, so I don't need to contrast. I still am amused by your inexplicable insistence to do everything you can to remove one single word simply based on your POV and nothing else. But I realise now that this behavior is not news to anyone, so you might want to consider altering your ways, including accepting Wikipedia's spirit and its policies, including WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:VNT, and WP:AGF. Shahid • Talk2me 17:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does it matter who you pinged? I did not ping anyone. I obviously read the FAC review of Pather Panchali. It doesn't matter who reviewed it where. Your article is nowhere near that level. That is my considered view. Anyone reading this can compare the two. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was my reply to your statement, "Please be aware that I too can wildly ping people", which I didn't do. The comparison between a film article and an actor article, is puzzling, and it shows how little you probably know about this area. Other than that, I can't bother myself to take your words seriously knowing that you simply opposed this article based on some minor religious issue, and now doing everything you can to seemingly justify this oppose in what I see as an attempt to destroy this FAC. I can't appreciate that. Neither can I appreciate your unconstructive comments; throwing empty lines that this article is "nowhere near that level" is not what FAC requires of its reviewers; constructive, actionable comments are. Also, this is not my article, as you wrongly put it, I'm merely a contributor and I'm trying my best. I'm always excited contributing to articles about Indian film articles; that's my only motivation. Shahid • Talk2me 19:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shahid I suggest that you disengage with Fowler and let the coordinators decide whether or not to take into account their comments. If you continue to struggle to reach agreement, you will be bombarded by walls of text that boil down to little or nothing that is actionable. This unacceptable, confrontational approach to "reviewing" by this editor has been seen before. While we cannot easily prevent such "reviews", we can ignore them.Graham Beards (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, when F&f ridicules the reliability of

Her expressive eyes effectively conveyed teen angst. And when she emerged nymph-like from the pool in a red bikini, Dimple, despite her puppy fat, had teenagers enthralled. Her knotted polka-dotted blouse and earphone hairstyle were wildly emulated.

from which you had quoted, please don't write at 17:53 on 25 May: "Needless to say, your last line is a lie; this quote does not appear on the article and never has." and then at 10:01 on 26 May, quietly change the quote with an opaque edit summary. No worries that we are talking about India of 1973 the monthly income of whose citizens was $70 and the literacy rate of whose females, 80% of whom lived in villages, was 20%. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A) This quote in its entirety did not appear on the article, as you wrongly suggested. B) Even if it was, there would be no problem with that - that's the style of writing employed in articles about films and is legitimate critique of her performance and appearance, written by film critic, author and historian Dinesh Raheja. Ask me whose reliability is stronger, yours or Raheja's, and I'll have a clear answer. C) It was replaced by a different quote, because I thought it was better and more detailed in the description of her clothing, so what's the problem? D) The literacy part which concluded your message is irrelevant. E) It appears that your "comments" are found to be grossly unconstructive by numerous prolific editors who are responsible for many FAs, so you might want to reconsider your style and repeated pattern of behavior, which does not contribute but rather aims to do the opposite when your agenda is not satisfied. Shahid • Talk2me 19:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Historian? No.
Historians are those whom I cited in the lead of the India page when it appeared for its second TFA on 2 October 2019, Gandhi's 150th anniversary. See India. The great historian of India, Peter Robb (at SOAS) or the great historical demographer of India Tim Dyson at LSE, both cited there, do not have Wikipedia pages. The even greater historians of India Judith Brown at Oxford, the late Eric Stokes and D. A. Low at Cambridge or Thomas R. Metcalf at Berkeley did not have WP pages until I made them. But please, let us be clear. We are talking about people who edit their own Wikipedia pages and write: Dimple: A Most Unusual Woman Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - film historians, they exist. Assuming it's him editing, he did not create his own article, just made minor changes. Anyway, whom you cited on the India article is of really no relevance here, not that what you wrote here before is. Shahid • Talk2me 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and Inference
edit

I have examined the sources and inference in the Lead, sections 1, 2.1, 2.3, and 2.6 of Dimple Kapadia. Better ones are often available and their views are at variance with that of the article. The conclusions drawn are not always supported by the sources. Important details of DK's background, childhood (the makings of a child star), and marriage (the toxic relationship with her husband) are not made explicit. Unimportant details of adult life, such as DK's candle-making hobby, are dwelled on. Unfavorable views of DK are largely avoided, making the article complimentary in tone. Much is made of Indian film awards such as Filmfare which seem to be vanity awards. There is a dutiful enumeration of her films, which on account of her having made over 90, constitutes the bulk of the article. In the instances in which third-party (i.e. NY Times, for example) views are available, they seldom match those of the Indian sources. In the period 1985–2020, the Indian sources used seem to be given to adulation. I have presented the evidence at Talk:Dimple_Kapadia#Sources_and_Inference. I would request the nominator, or others, to comment (if they need to) either below or at the talk page. I have also preserved a copy at User:Fowler&fowler/Sources in Dimple Kapadia. I will however now not be commenting further in this article, unless I am requested to do so by the FAC coordinators. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised to ignore your comments because of their lack of validity. What you presented here is indeed not very worthy of comment, but to make it easier for the co-ords, I will still reply as briefly as I can. As for you "not be commenting further in this article", you have said it several times but never kept this word. Anyway:
Generally, most of what you present here is, for the nth time, mostly reliant on WP:OR. Just empty blocks of unrelated quotes which do not refute anything in the article (User:HJ Mitchell read it as well and commented on its "relevance" below). My general overview is (including response to your general remarks here in this section):
  • The only partly relevant points: her residence in Santa Cruz was addressed (just required moving one citation but you dedicated whole unnecessary quotes to it), so was the part about her marriage experience, which was elaborated on (required adding two words) and information about film offers as a child.
  • "Unfavorable views of DK are largely avoided" - is a blatant lie, and it shows you haven't read the article (please note this, dear co-ords). Throughout the article - you can see quotes about her that she is "over-the-top and jerky", "laughably wrong", "loud and forced", "forgettable", "embarrassment" (twice), "inconsequential", "excessively overacted", "pales into insignificance", "preachy", "she wears a permanent scowl" and her films labelled "embarrassing", "sleazy sensationalism", "vulgarity spattering through the screen", "B grade movie". Even in her public image, it is mentioned that she is considered to be aggressive, and that her "unpredictable nature and moods have distanced many well wishers". If you'd read the article and not just a few lines, you would never have written what you wrote.
  • Details of her business are important. It's not a hobby but an official business which is still going, and it is perfectly sourced.
  • The relationship with her husband - according to me very important - if you did read the article you would see that often times critics cite her relationship with her husband as the possible reason for her convincing performances in Kaash, Drishti and so on. Mahesh Bhatt actually cast her in the former because he believed her marital experience might benefit the part; author Virdi mentions that she picked roles where she "drew from the well of her own experience" - the reader would never get it unless he/she saw some of her statements about her own marriage. I elaborated more on the specific reasons she cited for the seaparation.
As for your points, which I kept reading without understanding in 95% of the time what you want. But here it is:
  • p. 1: Your assertion that the first source supports only the fact that she was a leading star in "commercial" Hindi cinema is first in violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. But even if it wasn't, the book, which is cited on the article, makes a distinction between Hindi cinema and Bengali art cinema (mentioning Satyajit Ray). Actually no clarification is needed because the article already does it by linking Bollywood, mainstream Hindi cinema, as the Hindi film industry. That is, the claim is totally rational here, not to mention the fact that the lead mentions in the second paragraph that she later moved from mainstream to art cinema, which only clarifies it more.
  • p. 2-4: And again, most of your text is about the same thing which is the only reason for your oppose: her parents' Islamic religion and your mantra of 'remove the Hinduism part because I don't like it and it makes no sense to me' and so on - sorry but no, only reliable sources will be followed, and not your opinions on what is likely. Can't you let it go and just accept what the sources say? Your points from 2-4 are exactly what we have already discussed about religion and most editors here disagree with you. You even went as far as to look for her paternal grandfather's brother's death notice, which does not have any relevance to this article and makes no mention of religion in the first place? Sorry, I'll ignore this part and this consistent OR. Move on.
  • p. 5: As said above, this comment just required moving a source, but you chose to just fill it with so much unnecessary text.
  • p. 6: (partly actionable although not very necessary: added information about her early missed opportunities to act in films) Saying that the article "neglects the child star in the making" because her mother sang songs to her and she was considered for some role but eventually didn't do it, is really just trivia according to me. You filled your section with many quotes of pure trivia, evidently added to make it look as though you're saying something of note, but actually is says so little. Why is it really relevant that she was the neighbor of some sound recordist? I think it's really ridiculous. Anyway, I did add information about her early opportunities to act in films due to her father's contacts - you see you just need to ask, it's that simple, and if your comment is constructive or actionable (which, sadly, it mostly isn't) I'm more than willing to address it as I did here.
  • p. 7: Saying that author Elisabeth Bumiller's words are more important that what Dimple Kapadia herself says, namely information right from the horse's mouth, is really funny. I'd rather use her later quote from an interview. But anyway, this comment is quite unnecessary - there's absolutely no contradiction here because the article exactly mentions "Reportedly, it was Khanna who had forbidden her acting career following the marriage" (in accordance with Harry's comment below, changed it from disapproval to forbidding).
  • p. 8-9;12: Empty point - Not sure what you want here. The Bobby part includes many books now as sources ("Bobby book", "Bollywood: A Guidebook to Popular Hindi Cinema", "100 Essential Indian Films", "Bollywood's India: A Public Fantasy"), but you're adding a NYT article suggesting it has more weight? Sorry, I do not accept it. Moreover, I can't see how it contradicts what the other sources are saying - I could just add it to support the existing text (did). I removed the "critical" success part, it was a mainstream success and it's enough. I don't think a NYT critic has more weight than an Indian one - Qurratulain Hyder - that sort of Western sentiment is not one I'm convinced to follow. Other than that, you really loaded one section with many quotes including critics' biographical entries from Britannica (?) and I can't understand why. Then you gave the entire quote by Hyder wondering why I didn't include it all - well, the answer is simple, I believed just using part of it ("acted with natural ease and freshness") was enough and I can't understand the complaint - two editors who reviewed the article suggested to cut down some of the quotes and I followed this actionable/constructive comment. As for the 12th point, your addition that such culture (Kapadia's clothing) did or did not exist in India, talking about some authors presenting conflicting observations about the fashion of those times in India is, again, just WP:OR, totally irrelevant, and quite tiresome. We follow sources - I've used direct quotes from books and included journalists' words about the influence of her outfits, from Dinesh Raheja, Bhawana Somaaya, The Tribune, and Hyder, and two books. Another book was added now called "Raj Kapoor Speaks". Why is this penchant trying to put on that one actress's shoulders the entire history of India's religion and fashion instead of strictly focusing on what the sources say?
  • p. 10: Saying that Filmfare awards are "vanity awards" is really not relevant here and is again pure POV. You could say it about any award, and your claim that "much is made" of them on this article is false - nothing is made of them - it's just mentioned that she won them! And it is supported by reliable sources! I really do not understand this comment. You know how many people write excessively on the Oscars and their perceived lack of credibility? I really do not understand its relevance here.
  • p. 11: Empty point - Please explain your part about Leela. I presented two reviews, one from Maitland McDonagh and one from an Indian critic from The Hindu (out of which only two words are quoted), and you're presenting another one which neither adds not contradicts anything, and does not even discuss Kapadia's performance. What exactly are you trying to say.
  • p. 13: More on the same - Wikipedia is not our own personal project - it follows policies and guidelines which we must abide by. This article uses 22 books - book sources were used where books were available. Your claim that most of the sources are from 1985 and on is, again, a clear proof you haven't read it, because in actual fact 95% of her career is from 1985 onward. As for the type of source, I can't see what's wrong with newspapers and magazines for this subject, these are the primary sources used by every BLP actor FA, and I can't see why that wouldn't be so. On this article, I made sure the best sources were used - WP:RS and WP:V are largely followed, and I consistently tried to find the better authors (authorlinks provided as well where necessary). The article uses views from the feminist magazine Manushi by acdemics such as Madhu Kishwar, Ruth Vanita and Mukul Kesavan. Famous and noted critics and film historians (including Chidananda Dasgupta, Khalid Mohamed, Subhash K. Jha, Dinesh Raheja, Saibal Chatterjee, Anupama Chopra and Vinayak Chakravorty, most of whom appear to have written books on cinema, and shouldn't be downgraded for writing in newspapers). What I can't help is your gratuitous comparison between this article and Pather Panchali (1955) for the second time already (nothing wrong with it, I was its GA reviewer). Is this some kind of a joke? You're comparing an actress to a 1955 art film and questioning the significant difference in the sourcing? Do you even realise the huge difference between actors and films, and that naturally their articles can never look the same or will actually rather be necessarily different? Do you realise this film was released before Kapadia was even born? What type of a comparison is this? Why wouldn't you compare it to FAs on Julianne Moore, Rani Mukerji, Vidya Balan, Kate Winslet, Angelina Jolie (almost none of which use books at all)?
Anyway, I really can't take this seriously. You opposed it based on one word(!) and now trying to dismiss it with empty, really empty comments, which seem to be just trying to do one thing, waste time. Shahid • Talk2me 08:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
F&f's continuing source review
edit

Section 1, paragraph 2

  • (sentence 1) Where does it say, "Kapadia separated from Khanna in April 1982?" The source says only that she walked out; it mentions sepration somewhere else. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sentence 2) Where does the source say, "She returned to acting two years later" (i.e. in some form that can be paraphrased so)? I see only, "And when she decided to walk out on hubby Rajesh Khanna after 10 years of marriage and two daughters, Ramesh Sholay Sippy paired her opposite Rishi once again. A triangular love story set against the backdrop of a fisherman's colony, Saagar (1985) ..." Am I missing something? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, please take your comments to your original section instead of messing up the FAC. As for your comments:

  • The source explicitly says "...thus virtually came to an end when, one day in April 1982, Dimple, accompanied by her two daughters, Twinkle and Pinkie, then aged eight years and five years respectively, arrived in her parents' home, determined not to go back this time"
Where does it explicitly mention 1984 as the year of her first film of return? All I see is: "After false starts including Zakhmi Sher (1984), Dimple made a thumping comeback with a double role in Mukul Anand's Insaaf (1987)." And what is this new source, you need to engage me here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I added the Virdi source, you can look at it - "Eleven years after her debut, she returned to make a comeback film". Shahid • Talk2me 14:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you did, but again you need to engage me here, and also not to make up stuff, "explicitly mentions 1984 as the year of her first film of return." OK. I'll look at Virdi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make up stuff, the Raheja article mentions 1984 as the year of Zakhmi Sher, her first film. Shahid • Talk2me 14:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again: "After false starts including Zakhmi Sher (1984), Dimple made a thumping comeback with a double role in Mukul Anand's Insaaf (1987)" It says nowhere that it was her first film. This is symptomatic of the errors of paraphrasing that populate the article.
The Virdi source proves it already. Stop using words like "symptomatic" unless you prove it. Shahid • Talk2me 14:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, my error. Apologies Anyway, let's move on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence 4) "The hostility between Khanna and Kapadia had faded over the years, and in spite of not having ever reunited, they were seen together at parties, she worked in his self-produced film Jai Shiv Shankar (1990) and even campaigned for his election.
  • Need a semi-colon after parties.
  • The first source says, "He turned a leaf, and donned the hat of producer and started a film called Jai Shiv Shankar, with Dimple cast opposite him in the lead. For reasons unknown, the film was never released, although the shooting was completed." (It is page 153, by the way.)
  • Would "acted opposite him in his unreleased film Jai Shiv Shankar (1990)" be better than "worked in?" "his" means produced by him.
  • Also, the reader as this point in the narrative is not aware that Rajesh Khanna is dead. Would it be better to write: The hostility between Khanna and Kapadia subsided over the years; they were seen together at parties despite never having reunited; she acted opposite him in his unreleased ...?" Semi-colons can separate a list .Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence 5): "In a later interview after Khanna's death, she reflected back positively on her marriage, referring to it as her "biggest high".ref
  • She is not reflecting about the marriage only reliving her first year of stardom (Q: You became a teenage sensation after ... Could you relive that moment for readers of this generation? "DK "I wish I could relive ... [pauses]." Interviewer: "Go on..." DK: "The biggest high for me was to marry Rajesh Khanna. That was a high and I don’t think my success was as much of a high as getting married to this superstar. I used to be a big fan of his, it was dream come true.") i.e. "reflecting back positively" implies a reassessment of marriage. This is not that. Also "after his death" is POV for it implies in the face of his death. The article, however, was written in 2014; he died in 2012. This entire sentence has to go. It is POV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with you that it's POV because the article states exactly what the source says. But it might be good to remove it anyway. Maybe we should not say "the marriage" but other than that I see no problem including it. Shahid • Talk2me 15:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to mention her reliving this time, then it belongs to the second paragraph just before "She retired from ..." You could add there: The wedding, performed ... her first film, Bobby. Reliving this time many years later, she called marrying Khanna "the biggest high" of her year of stardom, "a dream come true." She retired from acting Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sentence 6): Asked in Filmfare whether she would want to remarry, Kapadia replied, "I'm very happy and content ... Once was more than enough."(deadlink)
You should state which year it was she was asked this; it was 2000. It is important in the biography of an evolving actress. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Shahid • Talk2me 15:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by an interested bystander

edit
  • I am not a FAC reviewer, nor do I write articles. However I read them and am always interested in whether and/or how the subject of an Indian BLP identifies. Is there a reason why info regarding her religious background is hard to find for your subject? Is it a career move, for example? I don't think it is a small issue. See (Violence against Muslims in India, Religious violence in India. Thank you, Kalbbes (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be terrible, and I don't think so (or at least would refuse to believe such things ever existed around her time in the movies) - for the past 30 years, the biggest stars in India have been Muslim. Back in the day (40s-60s) some stars such as Dilip Kumar, Nargis and Meena Kumari did change their names, but I'm pretty sure today they wouldn't even dare to think in that direction. As for Kapadia, I'd be very surprised if that was the reason - women like Shabana Azmi and Zeenat Aman came around the same time and hid nothing. Actually I assume she has never explicitly mentioned her religion because she does not really identify by one. To me she gives the impression of being quite a secular person. Today, you could sometimes see her wear a bindi and look totally traditional and at others look as Western as you could imagine. Also, her family indeed was quite unusual from what I understand - wealthy, socially conservative but at the same time somewhat experimental (for lack of a better word) as regards religion on the father's side; she went on to marry at a very young age a man from a different religion; her grandfather disowned her father not because of this marriage but for allowing her entry into films. Bottom line - I think it just doesn't matter to her, but I really don't know enough. Shahid • Talk2me 20:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kalbbes: That is my suspicion. I don't know at what age two of the four children, potential child actors, legally changed their names to nicknames "Dimple" and "Simple," and two kept their Muslim names (Reem and Suhail). The decision was obviously made by the parents, i.e. by the earlier generation. ( The older Bollywood actors, Dilip Kumar, Meena Kumari, Madhubala, Suraiyya, ... (not Nargis, whose name is a Muslim name, Persian نرگس for narcissus) were it seems openly known to be Muslim. I've just been ramping up on Dilip Kumar's much-publicized wedding to Saira Bano in 1966.) My suspicions became aroused, at the lack of evidence, the complete silence about the mother's funeral, and so forth, and the unlikely post-dated stories about the followers of the Aga Khan embracing Hinduism, stories being doled out in trickles, many years apart. India was much more secular then than it is now. As for the bias, the NPOV lead in 2020 Delhi riots survives, but barely. See the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS It is not uncommon, it seems, for Bollywood actors to make up stuff and for the media, even the Economist, to carry it. Ms Kapadia's son-in-law, a Bollywood actor, Mr Akshay Kumar, had made up stuff about his dual citizenship: "I have a strong affiliation with Canada and also have dual citizenship." I had to correct Mr Kumar's page. For it seems the Constitution of India does not allow it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe User:Fowler&fowler is a "third rate reviewer". That is not what I've observed on enwiki. Quite the opposite. Whoever they are, they are obviously very smart and knowledgeable. Kalbbes (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know whom you're quoting, I didn't use that language. I do have to say, however, that personal knowledge notwithstanding, this is not what reviewing is all about. The FAC is very clear about what it requires of its reviewers. What he's been doing here is not reviewing, but rather imposing his own POV, and then, just nitpicking. An article on a film actress, who has never identified by a religion, has become the subject of one ongoing, pointless and fruitless "debate" on her parents' religion. This is really unfair. Wikipedia, as I'm sure you know, welcomes people to share knowledge, but not conduct original research. Everything should be properly sourced in accordance with policies and not personal opinions, a concept which this user is probably not familiar with. Shahid • Talk2me 13:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Kalbbes. In my experience, paying attention to what Fowler says always leads to better articles. Shahid, I've said this before and will say it again, you should either address comments you don't agree with or just ignore them. Attacking the messenger is never a good idea.--regentspark (comment) 16:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't attack him, RegentsPark. Others did in the section above and on the FAC talk page, and apparently for reason. Actually they didn't attack him, but dismissed his review as a non-review just along the lines of his own dismissive, unconstructive attitude. All I see is one user's persistent attempt to destroy an FAC with empty walls of text just because no one agreed with him. So please note that it's not a matter of agreement, there's nothing to agree or disagree with. The only thing which has come out of his comments is one line which on religion which has become the subject of an ongoing, fruitless discussion. Anyway, we're not here to discuss this user, so let's move this to another place, because frankly there's a lot to discuss. Shahid • Talk2me 16:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by indopug

edit
Initial comments
  • Kapadia is barely visible in the infobox. Please add a closer, well-lit portrait crop of her face so that the reader can see what she looks like.
  • Since Commons has many free pictures of her, you should sprinkle a few throughout the article. See if you can justify a few non-free stills of her iconic roles.
    • Most of the images on commons are of poor quality. The only one that can be used has been added now in 2010s section. As for non-free stills, I wish I could use some. I did add some in the past for her famous roles, using fair-use rationale, but all of them were sadly eventually removed and deleted, so I'm avoiding the use of non-free images. Shahid • Talk2me 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bombay, Bombay State, India (present-day Mumbai, Maharashtra)" in the infobox is needlessly complicated. Just "Bombay, India" will suffice IMO, at most "Bombay (Mumbai), India".
  • No Indian has a clue how much ₹2.13 billion is LOL.—indopug (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, it's "₹2.13 billion (US$26 million)" now.
  • I meant you should express Rupee figures in lakhs and crores (the $ figure you added will suffice for non-Indians). "Billions of rupees" is incoherent for Indians.—indopug (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. Shahid • Talk2me 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indopug, just wondering if you have some additional comments for improvement, now that those raised above have been addressed. Shahid • Talk2me 22:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I'm happy with the changes you've made. I think this article is very good already; I will try to do a section-by-section copyedit and detailed review over the coming week.—indopug (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Pranab_Mukherjee_presenting_the_Padma_Bhushan_Award_to_Smt._Dimple_Kapadia_on_behalf_of_her_husband_late_Shri_Rajesh_Khanna,_at_an_Investiture_Ceremony-II,_at_Rashtrapati_Bhavan,_in_New_Delhi_on_April_20,_2013_(cropped).jpg: what leads you to believe this was published under the given license? On a quick look I don't see it at the source site, and the licensing terms seem to be tailored to data rather than media. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm not the who uploaded it or added it on the article, but on its commons page, it's specifically indicated that it "was reviewed on 2018-08-22 by the administrator or reviewer GazothBot, who confirmed that it was available on that source on that date." Anyway, I did remove it for now, Shahid • Talk2me 13:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Encyclopædius

edit

I very rarely review articles these days, too much to do, but I've watched this one progress over a long time and am happy to review it. Kidding aside, it looks in good shape overall and to be fair it's balanced out as you say. I'll give it a full read later in the week. She is still on my watchlist LOL!† Encyclopædius 16:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your comments :) Shahid • Talk2me 16:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Blofeld, don't mean to bother you, but since you've shown interest in reviewing the article, this is a reminder in case it still stands and you have some free time. Shahid • Talk2me 14:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Background
Career
  • Second paragraph in my opinion is excessive, even if I understand it's her debut film. Try to shorten it. There shouldn't really be two different paragraphs covering the same topic. Where it says "Several of her lines in the film became popular, particularly, "Mujhse dosti karoge?" ("Will you be my friend?") I would say something like "Several of her lines in the film became popular, particularly, "Mujhse dosti karoge?" ("Will you be my friend?", and her "knotted polka-dotted blouse and earphone hairstyle" worn in the film made her into a fashion icon". You take several sentences discussing something which really shouldn't be more than a sentence or two.
    • Done, shortened. I actually don't know enough about the subject and the fashion; I just saw excessive amount of coverage given to her being a sort of fashion icon and felt it would be of note including it. Shahid • Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " leading and most popular" - WP:Peacock advises against the word "leading".
    • Done. Actually both popular and leading seem to be deprecated when not used in the right context, but I've removed the popular, although if you insist could keep it and leave out the leading. Shahid • Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A review by Asiaweek labelled her "a delight"" - I don't see any encyclopedic value in including this.
    • It's a film review with critique about her performance. It was important to me to find a review which was specifically published upon the film's release, and I would suggest keeping it. Shahid • Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " She later said making the film was "one big picnic", though she expressed her lack of comfort performing the "routine song-and-dance" nature of the part." -as the reader I really don't care about what she feels. "In 1984 she had a role opposite Sunny Deol in Manzil Manzil, a drama directed by Nasir Hussain, before starring in Mukul Anand's Aitbaar (1985), a Hitchcockian thriller in which her role as Neha, a wealthy young woman whose greedy husband (played by Raj Babbar) plots to murder her, received positive reviews. Again I don't care about her feeling nervous.
    • Rewrote some. As for the experience on sets, totally true. As for not being comfortable performing dance songs and being nervous while performing a role (particular the latter), I'd argue it's quite relevant to give the readers a glimpse here and there into an actor's mind and how the process of creating a character was achieved. I specifically added it because she was exceptionally unconfident about her talent after her return. Shahid • Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Feroz Khan's Janbaaz (1986) told " - "told" or "tells", we don't use past tense when referring to films.
  • " steamy love scene" - if it was just a kiss, hardly "steamy", and the shower scene in the Specialist, just "love scene" will do
  • "She has confessed to accepting these roles for financial gain rather than artistic merit during this period, noting, " - the lead implies she was a big success after returning in 1984 but if she was in a bunch of crappy movies for money not fully honest. Perhaps add "After several flops", she went on to establish herself as one of the leading actresses of Hindi cinema in the 1980s in the lead.
    • Hmmm.. they're not necessarily flops, just bad films. See, in India of the 1970-80s actors were just working non-stop and I'm sure all of them including Bachchan don't remember some of their works. The films she mentioned were often so inconsequential that their profit was hardly reported, and some of those where coverage does exists actually did very well. I actually mentioned some of them in the last paragraph. Shahid • Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1988, she played the main protagonist Kiran Dutt in Zakhmi Aurat, that of a female police officer who gets gang-raped and, after the judicial system fails to convict the criminals, abandons the legal course and joins forces with other rape victims to get revenge by castrating the rapists." - needs rewording, try "In 1988, Kapadia portrayed a female police officer who is subject to gang rape in Zakhmi Aurat, and unites with other rape victims to castrate the rapists in revenge when the judicial system fails to convict them."
  • The reviews are excessive for this film, really needs chopping for flow and clarity, you keep going back and forth between positive and negative, lacks structure.
    • Right, because critics were really divided, and the film was very controversial, I mentioned them all. Anyway, I removed some quotes and shortened some. But there's no negative and positive as such - the film was negatively received and Kapadia was received well, and the only bad quote about her I saved for the end. Shahid • Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "playing a joyous young woman who takes martial arts training " - "who trains in the martial arts" would read better
  • 8 or eight?
  • "Kapadia's part was that of career-woman Sandhya, and for her portrayal she was named the Best Actress (Hindi) of the year by the Bengal Film Journalists' Association." = Kapadia's portrayal of career-woman Sandhya earned her the Best Actress (Hindi) of the year award by the Bengal Film Journalists' Association.
  • Done, partially. "earned award.. by critics association" doesn't work, so I just shortened it. Shahid • Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Referring to it once as "the most fantastic" part of her career, she recalled the working relationship with Gulzar as "a wonderful experience".[58] To make her character more truthful, Gulzar did not let Kapadia blink even once during filming, trying to capture an "endless, fixed gaze" which would give her "a feeling of being surreal".[59] " -given that you tell us nothing about the role really, it makes no sense to elaborate on it with all that.
    • Okay will do then. Actually this thing was suggested by another editor; and I find it an interesting fact. I wish articles would mention more the technical parts of actors' performances. It is mentioned though that she plays a restless sprite, and if it's her favorite role, I'd say it's noteworthy. Shahid • Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on Rabindranath Tagore's short story Hungry Stones, Lekin.." - That should be mentioned when you first start discussing Lekin
  • "The critical response to Ajooba was mostly lukewarm" - you don't always need to mention what the critics thought, if it's luke warm I wouldn't bother, reads better without that short sentence.
  • " She played the protagonist in Haque (1991), a political drama directed by Harish Bhosle and scripted by Mahesh Bhatt. Her role was that of Varsha B. Singh, a pregnant Orthodox woman married to an influential politician. Ram Awatar Agnihotri said of her performance: "Dimple Kapadia, playing Varsha, very bravely, tries to make her role look convincing, and she succeeds to a great extent. It is a tribute to her as an actress."[64]" = "In 1991 she played Varsha B. Singh, a pregnant Orthodox woman married to an influential politician in Harish Bhosle's political drama Haque, a role which critic??? Ram Awatar Agnihotri considered to be very convincing."
  • "Bhatt called her performance "stunning" and reported that when shooting ended, she was "on the point of a breakdown" as she was "exhausted battling with the nitty-gritty" of her character - a missing quotation mark and unnecessary to write in quotes. I would simply say that "The intensity of the filming and enacting the character left her close to a breakdown after shooting ended".
  • "no role worth her"" - I don't understand what you mean here.
  • "She appeared in Laawaris (1999) because she liked the subject and considered her role "substantial"," - I don't see the point in saying she liked the subject and it was substantial if you tell us nothing about the part
  • "and Bella Jaisinghani of The Indian Express, calling the film "inconsequential", concluded her review wondering "what made Dimple Kapadia do this to herself"" = and Bella Jaisinghani of The Indian Express calling the film "inconsequential", leaving her to contemplate why she subjected herself to such film"
  • "Ziya Us Salam from The Hindu called her "a charmer all the way. Exhilarating is the air she breathes, bewitching is the glance she casts and enticingly vulnerable is her condition."[89]" - I would simply say "Ziy Us Salam of The Hindu found the film charming, describing her vulnerability in the film as "enticing".
  • I've noticed a number of instances in the article where you started a paragraph with "she" and then say Kapadia. Example: "In 2006, she co-starred with Saif Ali Khan and Naseeruddin Shah in the psychological drama Being Cyrus, an English-language arthouse feature directed by Homi Adajania. Kapadia enacted ". It should really be in In 2006, Kapadia. And then "she". Scan the article and where possible follow that.
  • 7 or seven?
  • " emerging as the popular film " - most popular?
  • If it was a huge film and commercial success I would expect to see more than a two word quote even if she wasn't praised.
  • "wrote of Kapadia that she" - there's a few of these which don't read well, I'd remove and reword
  • "and Rajeev Masand found Kapadia to be "droll"." - I'd chop out this for readability, the "but" and then the "and" is jarring
  • "Karamvir Kamal of The Asian Chronicle, however," - avoid "however"
Image and artistry
  • Too many quotes, please convert more of them into your own prose. I find it very difficult to read.
  • "Kapadia's screen image has been characterized in light of her perceived beauty and sex appeal. " - awkward, do you mean "Kapadia's screen image has been synonymous with her perceived beauty and sex appeal?"

Overall there's way too many quotes which affects the readability of the article. A lot of the quotes have no encyclopedic benefit and often leave me shrugging "who cares?". Give it a vigorous going through, remove anything which seems superfluous and try to be more comprehensive in how you get the information across. Give me a bell when you've finished and I'll take another look, thanks.† Encyclopædius 21:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Encyclopædius, so much, for your valid comments. Okay, I went over the article and rewrote some quotes into sentences. Considering it is an actor biography, quotes are unavoidable, because as you know the standard is to include critical commentary and reviews, and for the most part the original wording is better than one's rewording of it which might be sometimes a subjective interpretation. Thanks again, looking forward to your views. Shahid • Talk2me 00:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, but it's finding a balance so the article flows. A lot of the quotes aren't really helpful in my opinion.† Encyclopædius 05:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I get the point, Encyclopædius - I've taken care of it, you may want to have a look. Shahid • Talk2me 12:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More quotes removed and some converted to regular prose. I think it's pretty balanced now, Encyclopædius. What do you think? Shahid • Talk2me 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The film was described as an "extraordinarily adroit entertainer" by Subhash K. Jha, who preferred it over the "sleazy sensationalism" of Zakhmi Aurat and noted the "unusual restraint" with which the "metamorphosis of the frisky Bijli into the ferocious fighter is achieved", further crediting Kapadia's physical and cerebral travails.[36] In the same year, she made a short appearance in Mahesh Bhatt's action thriller Kabzaa, a critical failure.[46] " I would delete all that and if it's a short appearance in a critical failure wouldn't mention it.† Encyclopædius 17:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Encyclopædius. Shahid • Talk2me 23:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the Antareen paragraph, Best Bengali and Filmfare awards are unsourced.
  • Check return to cinema 1996 and Anichakra, are they supported in the next citation?
  • Check 2006 "with similar thoughts expressed by several critics" - is several critics supported in the citation?
  • Image and artistry is greatly improved now, well done!† Encyclopædius 07:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Looking into this more, there's sourcing issues keeping this from being promoted at present. Aside from the ones I identified as needing citations for unsourced claims there's others with OR issues, claims like "Reviews in India were similarly approving, with The Hindu finding her condition to be "enticingly vulnerable".[128]". That's one review, the "reviews" just isn't backed up. There's verification and formatting issues, ref 96 [39] and ref 10 [40] for instance (the latter source is meant to verify "that all of her siblings have died" yet the claim isn't verifiable in either source provided), the book/magazine references also don't need an accessdate. There's inconsistencies in the linking of newspapers in the sources. "Kapadia initially said it was Khanna who had forbidden her acting career following the marriage, though in later years she noted that "career has always been secondary" to her.[1][5][15]" -why does that need three citations? Makes it more difficult to verify what comes from where. This is just from examining a few sources....

  • The quotes have been further cut by you and myself. I restored only one quote partially. Are there any other examples you think need to be removed?
  • Your first point about Leela OR part - done - quote removed and another reference added.
  • Ref 96 and 10 - done - accessdate removed and changed source.
  • What inconsistencies you mean? I used an automatic tool across the board. You mean the linking? I could link them all if that's what you mean.
  • Shahid • Talk2me 12:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean you've linked some publications multiple times like The Hindu yet others you've only linked once. Check MOS on that.
  • Ref 121 is a source with Preity Zinta in it and something about candyfloss. It is supposed to verify "In Kapadia's first film of the millennium, she co-starred in Farhan Akhtar's directorial debut Dil Chahta Hai (2001). Depicting the contemporary routine life of Indian affluent youth, it is set in modern-day urban Mumbai and focuses on a major period of transition in the lives of three young friends (Aamir Khan, Saif Ali Khan and Akshaye Khanna)"
    • I see, what would you suggest? Linking them all or just link once every publication? MOS allows either option. Okay never mind Ifixed the duplicates - now every link appears only once.
    • Ref 121 - done - you're right about the source - I added the right source a few days ago and forgot to remove this one.
    • Shahid • Talk2me 13:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 25 you claim "number of exhibitions across India". The source doesn't really verify "across India", the statement is misleading in that it implies there were lots in different states yet the source indicates that it was only her second exhibition.
  • Ref 12, Where did you access that source? You've used a fair few offline newspaper sources, are you sure that none of it can be directly verifiable online?
    • They might have online links on Google (Google books, News archives, and also on some archive links) but this is not required per WP:CITE. For exceptional claims I inserted quotes inside the citation for quick verification. If you want me to do it for other claims supported by offline sources, I will. Shahid • Talk2me 13:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 28 No page number, can't verify the statement
  • Relying on This highly sugary source isn't good. "Like Elizabeth Taylor, she came to films with an ethereal beauty when just in her mid-teens. She was precocious, she was poised, she had superstar potential." " paean to her incredible beauty. She looked ravishing: auburn hair, classical face, deep eyes, an aura of sensuality." using a highly gushing source like that to make typical claims of critics I don't think is right or even remotely encyclopedic.
    • India Today is perfectly reliable and that's the lingo used for articles on films and actors. It doesn't support exceptional claims. I see similar quotes in other FAs by the way. Shahid • Talk2me 13:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 65 Manushi PDF link is dead on my computer
  • " Drishti, a marital drama directed by Govind Nihalani, starred Kapadia and Shekhar Kapur as a married urban couple from an intellectual milieu in Mumbai and followed their trials and tribulations, extramarital affairs, divorce, and ultimate reconciliation after years of separation. " can't verifity this in either ref 75 or the inaccesible ref 76

An example of the problem with the prose and sourcing. This paragraph is a whopping 310 words all on one film. I could have written what needs to be said in less than half of that. Huge claims like "For the next decade, she would go on to become one of the leading actresses in Hindi cinema." are sourced to p.185 see any mention of Kapadia let alone a claim like that?, and [41] Not viewable online at least not where I am.

"After Kapadia's separation from Khanna in 1982, she was keen on returning to acting, which she did in 1984. For the next decade, she would go on to become one of the leading actresses in Hindi cinema.[1][40] Kapadia accredited the reason for her return was because of a personal need to prove to herself her own capabilities.[12] The first film she worked on was Saagar, directed by Ramesh Sippy, after a mutual friend had notified Sippy about her willingness to return to acting.[12] She first performed a screen test, which according to her was very unsuccessful as she was extremely nervous and "literally shivering" while making it. To her surprise, Sippy ultimately signed her on to play the lead part opposite her Bobby co-star Rishi Kapoor.[12] Scripted with her in mind, the film was intended to be her comeback vehicle, but its one-year delay meant that several of her proceeding projects would be released before, the first of which was Zakhmi Sher (1984).[15] Saagar eventually premiered in August 1985 and was controversial for several scenes featuring Kapadia, including one in which she was seen topless for a split second.[41][42] The film was a critical success and was eventually chosen as India's official entry to the Oscars that year.[43][44] Kapadia's performance as Mona D'Silva, a young Catholic woman from Goa who is torn between her friend (Kamal Haasan) and the man she loves (Kapoor), won her a second Best Actress award at the Filmfare Awards.[45] A review by Asiaweek appreciated the film for its "polished narration and masterly technique" and labelled Kapadia "a delight".[46] Rediff.com noted, "Dimple, caught between a friend and lover, performed solidly and memorably, grounding the two male leads and making the film work."[47] A 1993 issue of India Today wrote: "Saagar was in many ways a paean to her incredible beauty ... It was clear she was back."[48]"

I also want to know where you accessed a lot of the offline sources like Illustrated Newsweek and The Indian Express. A lot of them seem to be dated to 1987 I think. It's a pity you couldn't take snippets of the articles within them when accessing the sources to improve verification. Google I've noticed has some Express papers form 1993, can they really not be accessed online?† Encyclopædius 19:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 162 You claim "an irate Delhi-based divorcee who begrudgingly entrusts her niece's fiancé with the responsibility of taking care of her house while she is away visiting her son." The source makes no mention of the character being Delhi-based, how does that fully verifiy what you claim?
  • Ref 112 dead on my computer.
  • Ref 156 "she was cast as Rishi Kapoor's wife and her son in-law, Akshay Kumar's mother" - where in the source does it verify it?
    • Ref 162 is not even used for this claim, it's the other sources - (163-164). We generally do not cite the plot, but if you like I'll duplicate the source for it.
    • Ref 112 works on mine. Make sure you look into the archived version.
    • Okay 174 quote was removed. You're right about it.
    • Yes, Elisabeth Bumiller says, "The three leading commercial Indian actresses throughout the mid- and late 1980s were indisputably Rekha, Dimple Kapadia and Sridevi. ... no other commercial actress came close to touching their star quality" on page 185. And the other book by Agnihotri says "Armed with dazzling beauty , an incisive intellect , undaunted determination , ample talent and an impressive array of films , Dimple Kapadia is already in the top slot" on page 159. Two books supporting one claim.
    • What is not viewable does not require links. I told you, you could find some on Google news archives, as I said I added pages or direct quotes inside the citation where necessary. You better tell me which sources you need links for and I'll see if they are online.
    • As for the Saagar paragraph - it's her comeback film, the paragraph covers her decision to return, her audition for the film, her first releases, and then the film. Shahid • Talk2me 20:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Chowdhury, Alpana (9 August 1987). "Reflections in a Golden Eye". The Illustrated Weekly of India. The Times Group. pp. 6–9." for a start
Not written anywhere near as concisely as it could be. I'll look more into this tomorrow.† Encyclopædius 20:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Reflections in a Golden Eye" by The Illustrated Weekly of India is not available online, and I can do nothing about it. However, you could probably get snippets on Google books. Which claim supported by it you want me to provide for? Shahid • Talk2me 20:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All if possible. If you accessed these newspapers online I want to see the pages to verify it.† Encyclopædius 20:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I had I'd have cited links. I no longer have access to The Ilustrated Weekly. They offer some ebook style sources on archive.org but sadly not for 1987, and the libraries are closed. As for Indian Express, there might be some on Google News Archives (I found one for the Drishti part and added it). But I can't find online sources for what I did not access online to begin with, and Wikipedia does not require it. If I were to base myself only on online source, I couldn't have made it comprehensive enough anyway. Anyway, for contentious claims, as I said, I've included page numbers and quotes inside the citations. Shahid • Talk2me 20:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 13 [42] I can't see the claim of leaving to raise her children.† Encyclopædius 20:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken, it's Ref 5 which supports the claim, and it says, "... one day in April 1982, Dimple, accompanied by her two daughters, Twinkle and Pinkie, then aged eight years and five years respectively, arrived in her parents' home, determined not to go back this time". If you mean the claim in section Bobby, it's removed anyway now. Shahid • Talk2me 20:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Kapadia worked with Rajkumar Kohli in two more movies in 1988: the action drama Saazish and the horror film Bees Saal Baad, a remake of the 1962 film of the same name." Ref 66 not seeing the two movie appearances verified or mention of Kohli.† Encyclopædius 20:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They were directed by Kohli. It's on IMDb, the articles are linked, and it would be silly to add sources even for the names of the films' directors. Shahid • Talk2me 20:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I can add this source for Saazish. It's the most non-contentious claim I can imagine. Do you think it's really necessary? Shahid • Talk2me 21:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't get the importance of avoiding WP:OR do you? Everything should be sourecable, claiming somebody starred in a directors two films yet the source making no mention of the director or the films from the right perspective is careless.

Cited. And please chill. And WP:OR is totally unrelated here. Shahid • Talk2me 21:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

says After false starts including Zakhmi Sher (1984), but I can't see where it says returning to cinema two years later, it just says (1984) in brackets. Can you find a source directly saying she returned?

Done. I think it is clear. But okay, added. Shahid • Talk2me 21:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same source you claim 1974 and 1977 for her daughter's birthdates, can't see them in the source.
  • Ref 16 you claim "According to journalist Dinesh Raheja, the hostility between Khanna and Kapadia had faded over the years, and in spite of not having ever reunited, they were seen together at parties, she worked in his self-produced film Jai Shiv Shankar (1990) and even campaigned for his election." I can't see any mention of a film named Jai Shiv Shankar (1990) and the information seems to largely be an account of what somebody witnessed, not the best of sources.

I've spent more than enough time on this now... † Encyclopædius 21:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. The article has gone through many changes today, many removals, many copyedits and additions. I've addressed all your comments now and am exhausted. Shahid • Talk2me 22:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 120 you say "Her next release was the murder mystery 2001: Do Hazaar Ek (1998), which was ultimately rejected by the audience despite a stronger opening." Ref 120 says "This so-called suspense-thriller directed by Raj N. Sippy got a decent opening, thanks to good publicity. The film stars Jackie Shroff, Dimple Kapadia, Tabu and newcomer Rajat Bedi, and is expected to do average business." No mention about bring ultimately rejected...
  • Ref 107, no page number, I can't find the info cited. What is PR in the citation?
  • You say "Mrinal Sen's 1993 Bengali drama Antareen, adapted from Saadat Hasan Manto's short story Badshahat ka Khatama (1950), was the first non-Hindi project Kapadia took part in since Vikram (1986). She played a woman caught in a loveless marriage. Insisting on playing her part spontaneously, Kapadia refused to enrol in a crash-course in Bengali as she felt that she would be able to speak it convincingly." Our sugary source makes no mention of the short story or that it was the first non Hindi project since Vikram..
  • "Though financially unsuccessful, Angaar " -would it be possible to directly source that bit online?
  • Ref 108 Not seeing the Moody source in the newspaper.
  • You say "She returned to commercial cinema in 1996, playing Amitabh Bachchan's wife in that same year's Mrityudaata, once again under Mehul Kumar's direction. The film was a critical and commercial failure, with India Today panning its "comic book-level storytelling" the source even says " commercially safe film-making." which "may yet work at the box office" - hardly verifies "commercial failure" does it?.
  • In 1987, she played the role of Pooja in Mahesh Bhatt's drama Kaash. Kapadia and Jackie Shroff starred as an estranged couple who, during a relentless legal battle over the custody of their only son, learn that the boy is suffering from leukaemia, which makes them reunite to spend the last months of his life as a family. Before shooting began, she called it "the most serious artistic challenge I have ever faced in my career." See ref 5, check all info is verified.
  • Ref 56 Can't see any mention of drugs
  • Ref 79 - watch paraphrasing with "urban couple from an intellectual milieu in Mumbai "
  • Check refs 50 and 51 verify all of "She was paired up with Sunny Deol for a second time in Arjun, an action film directed by Rahul Rawail and scripted by Javed Akhtar. It was her first commercial success since her return to films.[50][51]"
  • "In Kapadia's first film of the millennium, she co-starred in Farhan Akhtar's directorial debut Dil Chahta Hai (2001). Depicting the contemporary routine life of Indian affluent youth, it is set in modern-day urban Mumbai and focuses on a major period of transition in the lives of three young friends (Aamir Khan, Saif Ali Khan and Akshaye Khanna). Kapadia played the role of Tara Jaiswal, a middle-aged alcoholic woman, an interior designer by profession, and a divorcee who is not allowed to meet with her daughter. The film presents her story through the character of Siddharth (Khanna), a much younger man whom she befriends and who ultimately falls deeply in love with her. She said making the picture was an enriching experience and called her part "a role to die for"." -Ref 24 is an interview, it doesn't verify all of this.
  • "Critics lauded Dil Chahta Hai as a groundbreaking film for its realistic portrayal of Indian youth.[126]" - seems to be just one critic..
  • Ref 158 - not seeing any mention of praising the chemistry with her co-star
  • Ref 159 -the archive link is unresponsive on my computer
  • Ref 160 the archive link loads the page but no article
  • Ref 85 - "Kapadia acted in her first Malayalam-language film, Bombay Mittayi in 2011, for which she started learning the language. She played the wife of a celebrated Ghazal singer, played by Amar Singh, on whose behest she was offered the part" - can't see any mention of it being her first Malayalam film in the source and that Singh offered her the part
  • "When Kapadia made her comeback to movies, she faced constant comparison to her Bobby days. " - is that in the Virdi source?
  • "According to some critics, this approach has sometimes been at the cost of professional opportunities as "her unpredictable nature and moods have distanced many well wishers". In reply to this, she said: "I am moody by nature. But I have never consciously hurt anyone."[112]" - does ref 112 verify "some critics or just the one"?
  • Definite article. As this isn't written in American English, go through the article and change any example which says Author xx. or Director xx etc to The author or the director. Also watch inconsistencies in quoting, "All those who have been following Dimple Kapadia's career from Bobby, Lekin and Rudaali will assert that she is more talented than glamorous." for instance the mark is after the full stop where in most articles it's before. Personally I prefer before.
  • "who said she had always been eager to act in quality films. She said her interest in independent films was a conscious decision to experiment in different cinema and prove her abilities.[49] She normally never seeks advice before committing to a project, which she admits has sometimes cultivated in wrong choices.[188][189] She often willingly chooses to work with first-time directors, finding their enthusiasm and creativity beneficial to both the film and her performance.[190]" - rep of "she"
  • The lead mentions parallel cinema but I can't remember seeing it covered and sourced in the body??
  • "The journalist Bhawana Somaaya, who conducted a series of interviews with her during the 1980s," -not verified in source
  • "a satirical take on the Hindi film industry. She played the part of Neena Walia, an erstwhile superstar" - not seeing satirical or the character name in ref 149.
  • Mother died in early December 2019 age 80, but how can we be certain she was born 1939? Later Dec 1938 is possible though less likely
  • Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, whose members had reportedly "embraced Hinduism" without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; - not seeing this verified in refs 5 and 6.
  • Ref 91 - the first directorial venture can't see this mentioned
  • Is it possible to replace ref 112?

Shahid is in the process of checking his sourcing and improving some of the quoting, It might still be possible to fully sort this during the FAC if it is kept open!† Encyclopædius 11:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ref 96 [43] see no mention of "Arabian mythology and set in the Afghan kingdom of Baharistan"
  • ref 188 -A spiritual sequel to the 2017 film Hindi Medium,-no mention of spiritual sequel
  • She enacted the part of Katy, Shah's neurotic and unfaithful wife who runs an affair with Cyrus (played by Khan), a young drifter who enters their house as an assistant. The film was received well at a number of film festivals before its theatrical release in India,[144][145] – not seeing how ref 145 verifies this.† Encyclopædius 15:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does, saying - "Though Adajania is quite kicked about the response that his film got at international film festivals, he is obviously looking forward to a favourable reaction on home ground as well." Shahid • Talk2me 15:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the rest of the decade, Kapadia returned to film only twice for two minor roles in the action comedies Welcome Back (2015) and Dabangg 3 (2019). - the rest of the decade and only twice bit isn't directly sourced, can you find a way around that? I know the sources each show two films but it's not supported directly.
  • Ref 185 "[44] - cant see any mention of her being a conwoman
  • Ref 158 "Luck By Chance opened to a warm critical response, though its financial income was modest."

[45] not seeing it verified in the source

  • Ref 203 Can you locate "Dimple". Asiaweek. Vol. 19 no. 27–51. Asiaweek Ltd. 1993." online? I think for some sources you found online but are currently not linked, if you currently can't find them it would be better to remove them and replace with ones you can directly verify. It's not compulsory of course, but given that there's been some issues with verifying everything, I think it would be a stronger article.
  • Ref 214 (formerly 212) "Rudaali = Rudālī = Rudaali (the mourner). WorldCat. OCLC 056889403." as I said, can't it be replaced? It seems odd, why is there no publisher info available?
  • "While critics have been appreciative of her acting prowess, some have analysed it in relation to her appearance.[204][205]" your state "critics" but there are no names mentioned in even the sources and I can't verify either of them.
  • Well, the Asiaweek article described her a critics' darling, which you removed from the 1990s section. But essentially, this is an introductory sentence to the information presented in the paragraph. Just like with the lead, where we summarise the article, that's what this - every sourced statement that follows in the paragraph supports it. It's like if you say that specific "critic appreciated a performance", you need not show a source saying exactly that quoted phrase, but showing evidence to this claim. This is how I see other sections of this source written on FAs. Shahid • Talk2me 21:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Academic writers Madhu Kishwar and Ruth Vanita of the feminist magazine Manushi noted Kapadia for being unafraid to look less attractive for the benefit of convincingly expressing anguish and emotion.[67]" - Manushi was the dead link source right? Can you still verify this info in the snippet views?
  • Ref 98 - Does the Melini book have a page number which can be cited?
  • Refs 64 and 117 - ditto
  • Ref 11 - [46] three year hiatus, I see nothing mentioning that she was expected to do independent films.
  • It does mention it actually - you need to go back and read the context - "Yet, she can be her own worst enemy. After … Rudali in 1993 and looking set to become the Empress of Indies (she had already done Gulzar's Lekin and Mrinal Sen's Anta-reen), she turned her back on films." - indies are independent films - all these films which are called parallel/art/independent films. Shahid • Talk2me 21:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah "looking set to become the Empress of Indies ", missed that. Fine.† Encyclopædius 11:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 167 You say " Tum Milo Toh Sahi, released the same year, was a romantic comedy in which she starred as Delshad Nanji, a Parsi woman in charge of an Irani café, who falls in love with a man played by Nana Patekar. Kapadia employed a Parsi accent for the role and, while preparing for it, visited several Irani cafés in Mumbai to understand their cultural basics and get into the mood of the character." - the source only says she played a cafe owner and visited Irani cafes, nothing about Delshad, employing a Parsi accent and cultural basics etc.
  • 2010, Kapadia played the small part of Salman Khan's asthmatic mother not in ref 164. ref 165 book looks like a redundant source, can't access it anyway.
  • "Mrinal Sen's 1993 Bengali drama Antareen, adapted from Saadat Hasan Manto's short story Badshahat ka Khatama (1950), was the first non-Hindi project Kapadia took part in since Vikram (1986)." _ looked in the book ref 113 and searched "Vikram" inside the book and it turned up nothing. What does it reference with that? Ref 54 can't see any mention of "adapted from Saadat Hasan Manto's short story Badshahat ka Khatama (1950),"
  • Ref 118 Does that verify all "n 1994, Kapadia portrayed the journalist Meghna Dixit, a rape victim who tries to persuade an alcoholic and unemployed village man to be a champion of justice for those around him, " That looks like a self-made plot summary.

OK, I have just about fully checked all of the sources which are accessible and we seem to have ironed out most of that. Based on the significant improvements of the quote/prose issue and your hard work in addressing the problematic sources I don't see a strong reason currently to oppose. But I can't offer support until I can verify more of those sources which are not accessible. † Encyclopædius 10:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Trade journal Film Information" = The trade journal Film Information -I fixed it myself during a copyedit don't worry
  • Ref 41 "In Haque (1991), a political drama directed by Harish Bhosle and scripted by Mahesh Bhatt, she enacted Varsha B. Singh, a Hindu Orthodox woman who is married to an influential politician and who miscarries a pregnancy following a criminal assault. The story follows how Varsha defies her husband after years of subservience when, for political reasons, he refuses to take legal action against the assailants. The author Ram Awatar Agnihotri noted her for playing the character bravely and convincingly.[41]" - can't verify all of this, is all the plot info really in the book? I'd rather see a web source for this given the detailed account of the story if possible, though I know it's 1991.
  • The book used to have a full preview on Gbooks, and it was a full movie review with a plot and everything by the author. I wouldn't know the plot otherwise because I have not seen the film. Other than that, I strongly believe that such plot elements are not very contentious and the film is the source, just as in film articles. Shahid • Talk2me 10:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was followed by her final feature of the decade, Hum Tum Pe Marte Hain, in which she played the part of Devyani, the strict mother of a wealthy family" - can't see this in ref 127, is the quote about it being embarrassing there too?
  • For books in google books which have the search column in the side so you can view snippets it might be worth adding a url linkfor some books if it can be verified.
  • Replace ref 63 with [47]
Where? You use Vasudev, Aruna (1995). Frames of mind: reflections on Indian cinema. UBSPD. p. 249. ISBN 978-81-7476-053-1..
The next one - since the book covers information of both sentences, I figured it's better to cite it after the second sentence and not use duplicate refs for back to back sentences. Shahid • Talk2me 13:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drishti, a marital drama directed by Govind Nihalani, starred Kapadia and Shekhar Kapur as a married couple from Mumbai's intellectual milieu and followed their trials and tribulations, extramarital affairs, divorce, and ultimate reconciliation after years of separation. For her critically acclaimed portrayal of career-woman Sandhya, she was named the Best Actress (Hindi) of the year by the Bengal Film Journalists' Association
  • Is all that in ref 79 and 80? I don't see a mention of divorce. - I can't see any reliable source online which verifies that award which is odd as it is surely a notable award.

Nominator's note: User:Encyclopædius's source review, as he said above, is still in process, although it is almost fully addressed. Need just a little more time, almost there. Shahid • Talk2me 22:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've now given this the grilling it needed. I didn't think Shahid could do it within the time initially but he's worked hard to overhaul a lot of the sourcing and sort out the verification issues. The article is greatly improved since the start of the FAC, and given the sources which exist on her I think he's done a commendable job. † Encyclopædius 14:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?! NO WAY!!! Thank you so much! Never thought you'd support it eventually! Shahid • Talk2me 15:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • I believe several of the citations in the lead should be removed. Her birthdate and awards should be included and cited in the body of the article so citations for them in the lead are not necessary. You can keep the citations for her reputation as a leading lady and her film choices after becoming a sex symbol as it is best to have those kinds of statements supported by references.
  • The phrase "launched by" sounds weird to me in this context: (She was launched by Raj Kapoor at age 16,). I have never heard of someone being "launched". Maybe something like "discovered by" would be better.
    • Done, I think, and rewrote to add some context. "She was discovered at age 16 by Raj Kapoor, who cast her in the title role of his teen romance Bobby (1973), to critical and commercial success." Shahid • Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (In that same year she married Indian actor), there should be a comma between "year" and "she".
  • I do not know what you mean by "that period" in this sentence: (One of her films of that period was the drama Saagar (1985).). The previous sentence is about her return to acting in 1984, but that is not a clearly defined period. Also, why is Saagar highlighted in the lead and not any of the other films she did that year? What makes this film so notable to her career?
    • Well it was her comeback vehicle and the first film she worked on, but it was delayed by a year so other films were released first. It also won her a second Best Actress award. Anyway, changed it now to - "Her comeback film Saagar was released a year later, and gained her wide public recognition". Shahid • Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the lead image, I would specify in the caption where the image was taken.
  • Please use Kapadia's full name when you first mention here in the body of the article, i.e. here: (Kapadia is the eldest of the four children of Gujarati entrepreneur).
  • I am guessing we do not know Betty's maiden name?
  • I think it should be "finding" for this part: (Having been a candle enthusiast and found candle-making therapeutic,).
  • Bobby should be linked here, (before the release of her first film, Bobby, in 1973), and unlinked here (in his 1973 teen romance Bobby), as it should be linked when it is first mentioned in the article.
  • I am not sure if polka-dotted needs to be linked.
  • Was it common for women in the 1970s to get married when they are only 16? I am more so asking for my own general knowledge as opposed to suggesting anything for the article.
    • Generally not, but it depends on where they come from. In the rural areas of India obviously more likely, but in the big cities - definitely not as early. Most actresses were not at all married so early. Hers is a very weird and special case, because she grew up in a big city to affluent parents, so it was very unlikely. Shahid • Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid using the word "hit", as done in this part (in the box-office hit Arjun, an action film), as it is a little too informal.
  • For this part, (At that time, she also worked in numerous Hindi films made by producers from the South), I would say South India in the prose as "the South" means a very different thing to me as an American. It would be better to clarify it in the prose to avoid confusion.
  • For the Kaash paragraph, I would clarify from the start that Pooja is her character's name in the film. I was confused at first when Pooja was mentioned in the prose as I was not aware that it was the character's name until reading through that part more carefully.
  • The Times of India is linked multiple times in the body of the article when it should only be on the first mention.
  • I am not sure about the wikilink in this part, (becoming the second-highest grossing Hindi film of the year), as it is not immediately clear to me what the link would go to. I do not think the link is necessary.
  • For this part, (a past rape victim who now tries to persuade an alcoholic and unemployed village man to be a champion of justice for those around him), it should just be "a rape victim". The word "past" does not make sense in this context.
  • Filmfare Award for Best Actress is linked twice in the body of the article. Watch out for these multiple links. Akshay Kuma, Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actress, and The Hindu are also linked multiple times.
  • I do not understand this part, (the mother of the title character of an elephant), specifically "the title character of an elephant".
  • I do no think the link is necessary here: (emerging as the most popular film of the year in India).
  • I do not think "enacted" makes sense in this context: (She enacted a strict store owner and Kapoor Khan's mother).
  • For the 2011 and 2018 images, I would specify where they were taken in the captions.
  • In the "Image and artistry" section, do not link the film titles again as they were linked in a previous section. The same comment applies to names linked in this section that are already linked in previous sections.
  • For this part, (on another accasion), I believe it should be "occasion".
  • Is the List of Indian film actresses really necessary at the end?

I hope these comments are helpful. These are things I have noticed from my first read-through. Since this is a rather long article, I would like to read it through a few more times to make sure I can be as thorough as possible with my review. My primary concern is with the duplicate links in the article. Hope you are having a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Aoba47, for your detailed review and valuable comments. Shahid • Talk2me 09:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this based on the prose. I will leave the discussion about Kapadia's parents to Fowler&fowler. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help for my peer review on a film article. Hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM

edit

This review will be submitted as part of my WikiCup work.

That's a quick pass, I'll take a more detailed look later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your helpful and constructive comments. Shahid • Talk2me 10:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for not re-visiting sooner but this is clearly a contentious nomination. I'm happy to come back once the major drama items are resolved. There seem to be a lot of Asian editors arguing over bits and pieces that makes me feel out of my depth, so perhaps after that, I'll take another look. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly bits and pieces. Thank you for your kindness, TRM. Shahid • Talk2me 20:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Graham Beards

edit

There are many links, which is fine but some of them are duplicated. I suggest checking to see if they really need linking the second (or third) time. Here is a list of them: Goa The Tribune Rudaali Antareen Nana Patekar Amitabh Bachchan Vinod Khanna Rishi Kapoor Khalid Mohamed Saif Ali Khan Mithun Chakraborty Nana Patekar Times of India DNA India Anil Kapoor Hindustan Times Graham Beards (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Graham Beards, for pointing this out. Removed all the duplicate links from your list. Only those which appear in references kept, per WP:DL. Shahid • Talk2me 16:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few edits [48]. Please revert them if you don't think they are improvements. I'm happy to add my support, mainly regarding the prose, since this is a subject that is not something I know about. Up until now. There's some good writing in this article. I loved, "Few people went to see the film; within two weeks it was declared a flop." Graham Beards (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and for your helpful edits. The example you gave, by the way, was one of my improvised attempts to avoid the banality of repeating the same pattern of "did or didn't do well", "success or failure". I'm glad you liked it. Shahid • Talk2me 16:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

edit

The article is broadly in good shape. My main concern is that it relies far too heavily on quotes. Suggest you adjust some to use your own words and eliminate some others. You could probably trim a few hundred words. I made a handful of copy edits for concision; you could probably use those as a guide to make more as you go through. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Harry, for agreeing to take a look, and for your valuable edits. It's interesting how much your approach is similar to Encyclopædius's, by the way. Shahid • Talk2me 06:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few replies inline. I haven't been back for a thorough look yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replied, Harry. I also went over and deleted several quotes across the board. If you spot any others which are probably less needed, let me know. Shahid • Talk2me 13:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy that you've addressed all my comments, and I can see you've reduced your reliance on quotes. There's nothing wrong with quotes, especially critics' opinions in an actor biography, but the article should be written in your own words with quotes supporting major details or when you're citing an opinion. I've read Fowler's verbose source review (that's half an hour of my life I'll never get back) and the only things that stood out were the lack of detail on the unhappy marriage and details like her husband forbidding her from acting (as opposed to "disapproving", as the article says) and the very brief courtship. I would suggest addressing that. The rest seems to be a reasonable exercise in editorial discretion and summary style. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Harry, for your comments. You spent half an hour, and I've had to be dealing with this for the entire time of this FAC, just because I refused to remove one word supported by sources. I added details about her marriage, the courtship, and the subsequent inequality and infidelity on his part, which she cited. I'm not sure though there's a major difference between him disapproving of her career or forbidding it, but I changed to the latter. Is there anything else, you'd suggest, Harry? Shahid • Talk2me 16:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell: My review points out the dangers of tacking together an article almost entirely from Indian newspapers and magazines. Of the 249 citations in the article, 214 are to Indian newspapers or magazines published after 1985, the approximate time when they began to gush about Bollywood. The best-known newspapers in India are not entirely reliable in all contexts. See this Reliable Sources Noticeboard RfC on the Times of India, founded 1838. DK's father came from a socially conservative Hindu business family. The father, a nonconformist, married a Muslim woman in 1956, causing great upheaval in his family. DK's paternal grandfather and his four brothers, the Kapadia Group, were the subject of investigations and question time in the Indian parliament. The managing director of their business, Popatlal Chhaganlal Kapadia, was also a trustee of the Vishva Hindu Parishad, a right-wing Hindu nationalist organization, which is now on the CIA's list of religious militant organizations. Yet, this article is reporting the father's family to be: lapsed Khoja Muslims who had "embraced" Hinduism but continued to regard the Aga Khan IV as their mentor! When her father signed the contract for her role in Bobby (1973), the Kapadia Group fired him from the family business, putting great strains on the 14-year-old girl. At age 15, she fell for a prowling Indian superstar (aged 30), and was married within a week. The age of consent in India at the time was 16. And you @HJ Mitchell: are asking in your review, "Was the marriage arranged or voluntary?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR, WP:OR, and more WP:OR. Good luck in trying to understand what this user wants, Harry. First, when her father's religion was not included, he posted a threat to oppose the article. Then, when information was added with sources, complained Hinduism should be removed and only Islam kept (opposing and saying "not based in any reality that I am aware of"), and now he wants the Islam part removed, based on her paternal grandfather's brother's involvement in some religious group? Long, long sigh.
The point about the article using newspapers and magazines is addressed above, and it looks like another clear pretext for his original oppose. His claim about Indian newspapers is pure POV. The article uses books where books are available. It follows WP:RS, and uses the best sources possible from the best authors and critics. Looking at FAs of actors from India and others of her age and younger (Brad Pitt, Julianne Moore, Catherine Zeta-Jones) - all use similar sources. That's how actor BLPs can be sourced because that's where this field (and particularly this profession/occupation) is mostly covered.
This message to you, Harry, is merely intended to undermine your positive reaction to the article. You are probably the fifth editor on this FAC who dismisses his "review". Shahid • Talk2me 12:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
>>>"First, when her father's religion was not included, he posted a threat to oppose the article ..." It was the exclusion initially of the mother's religion, about which we have a reliable source, which you found to your credit after my initial post, but which you did not include. I gave you nearly a month before I made my second set of posts on 21 May. But as the discussion proceeded what began to show up in the sources gave me pause. It also had to do with what you considered plausible in them. I wasn't consistent at first because it took me a while to figure this out for the Indian newspapers and magazines published after the mid-1980s. Along the way, my experience on the page of her son-in-law, Indian "superstar," Akshay Kumar, gave me more pause. There I happened to agree with you and did not hesitate to say so on the talk page. You seem to think this is personal. It really has to do with the sources. You will be much better off withdrawing the article, working on adding only the more reliable sources even if it means trimming the latter half considerably and resubmitting in a month's time. I could help you there. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This message is similarly amusing in its attempt to rewrite the otherwise positive status of this FAC. Have no worries, nothing is personal, of course, and I see it pretty objectively - every person who'd follow your comments would have no doubt it's just a classic case of agenda and probably ego but I wouldn't want to speculate much. I do understand that whatever it is, you can't help it. As for the sources, the article is very well, if not perfectly sourced with reliable sources of all kinds. Both you and I know it. FAs of its kind about actors her age (all mentioned above) hardly even use books, but this one does, and for each claim, the most reliable source available is used. It is benefitted by opinions of leading critics, scholars, film historians, and authors, and frankly I'm happy with the work and research put into its development. I suppose it's hard to understand that the standard of the sources is determined upon Wikipedia's policies and not your preferences. As for your last comment, considering the fact that this nomination has been widely met with positive reactions from respected editors who actually reviewed the article, that your comments have been deemed unconstructive, that your reviewing skills have been dismissed, that I've been advised multiple times to ignore your messages (which I still didn't do out of respect for the process) maybe it's you who should consider following your own gratuitous advice. Shahid • Talk2me 22:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harry, sorry that your section of constructive and valuable comments has been slightly interfered with. If you have additional comments, please leave them. I did address your latest suggestions. Shahid • Talk2me 22:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler rant Fowler&fowler's remarks

edit
Note

This section—which was created by Encyclopædius, with its original title scratched by me—lay immediately below Encyclopædius's Oppose section, which he has since merged with his comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 34 hours (one day and ten hours) 120 edits have been made in this article, making it a paradigmatic example of how the FAC review is being employed by nominators to workshop articles that are being recommended for withdrawal, reworking off-FAC, and future resubmission—suggestions that nominators do not brook. See my analysis: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Average_FAC_duration) More relevantly for other reviewers, the article is becoming unstable even if in theory it is a part of the review process—which is meant to proceed in such pace and transparency as allows other reviewers to reasonably assess what has changed and why. The last hundred-odd edits are anything but transparent. There are other issues: as others here have remarked, changes have been made in the article as a result of my suggestions, for example, sections 1 and 2.1 have changed substantially, yet the nominator has almost never acknowledged my input anywhere. See for example my suggestions 6 in the my talk page review I made a suggestion at 04:15 on 4 June 2020. At 19:59 he copied those suggestions verbatim in this edit, with edit summary, "Add information about her early opportunities." This is a pattern I am seeing throughout the review: the nominator is perpetuating the myth that I have made my last stand on one word. I am making my last stand on the unreliable sources being used in the article and the nominator's literal interpretation of them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS And this has continued to the last remark above, "Yeh, that was Fowler's requirement before that. He objected the use of Hinduism which is mentioned in the sources, while I insisted on writing what the sources say explicitly." which brought me here. The nominator's relentless aggression leaves no room for a reviewer's evolving views. I don't for a minute buy the cock and bull story about the father's Khoja background. I checked sources about the Kapadia group, question time in the Indian parliament, Tirthankar Roy (economic historian) at LSE's description of their sudden rise to ownership of Killick Nixon, and their support of the premier Hindu nationalist organization. (It is of no importance that I actually contacted an acquaintance of DK's mother's sister's family in Pakistan (to which she had migrated), found "Bitti Kapadia"'s real name, first and last, DK's maternal grandparent's names, and what is more surprising the Pakistani family's lack of knowledge about Bitti Kapadia's birth year. Yet we don't have any issue telling stories in this article because they have bounced back and forth in the echo chamber of the Indian media. It is of no importance that I have written the major portion of the FA India. I'm being asked to believe fairy tales about India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is unstable. The frenetic editing has continued apace. In the last 48 hours, some 150 edits have been made by the nominator and Encyclopædius, constituting one-third of the total number of edits made in the article since the FAC review opened in the last week of April, which was seven weeks ago. After Encyclopædius posted his opposition and recommended withdrawal, and after what plainly is the nominator's open lobbying on the former's talk page, this wide-ranging transformation has been effected. (I will disregard their creating a separate subsection with a POV title for my comments). How are scrupulous reviewers who are volunteering their time to proceed? At the very least I will need to do a comprehensive source review; the one I posted on the article's talk page was just a casual spot check. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A comprehensive source review is being done and the issues are fully being ironed out quickly.† Encyclopædius 14:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously in the intests of transparency and neutrality, I will need to do one of mine after you have completed yours. You are now inextricably a part of the writing process. Some of the reviewing is proceeding on your user talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your penchant to get in the way of every reviewer's comments, as you have done multiple times here, is tiresome and it's just one little example of your persistent attempts to destroy this FAC at any cost. I couldn't expect less from someone who opposed an FAC based on one word and some religious agenda. I replied to your comments, the great majority of which was not constructive, and I did fairly address the few that were, instead of ignoring you like most people were suggesting. The changes are perfectly acceptable, that's what FAC is about. I'd rather keep addressing Encyclopædius's meticulous review than replying to your empty remarks. Shahid • Talk2me 15:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A note for Encyclopædius

edit

This note was written at a time when Encyclopædius was opposing the nomination in a separate section immediately above the preceding section. He has since merged that section with his comments section (in this edit) without indicating anything in the actual Wikified output (by way of scratched text) that such a change took place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Encyclopædius

I just realized you are Blofeld. Hi. Sorry to meet in such circumstances, but I sincerely believe outstanding issues remain in the article. To demonstrate them, I have gone through just one paragraph in Section 1 of the article. I hope you will understand that the issues are not trivial ones. The discussion below might seem like reams of prose, but please bear with me. The "you" is impersonal.

  • (Section 1) The family resided in Santacruz, Bombay and she studied at St Joseph's Convent High School.911
  • I'm not seeing that:
  • she went to St Joseph's
  • ("Plucked out of obscurity, the St Joseph's Convent girl went from baby doll to trophy wife in one year. ... 'I would still get married at 16,' she says" [11])
  • necessrily during
  • the time they lived in Santa Cruz
  • ("I must have been five years old. We used to stay in Santa Cruz in Bombay" [9])
  • There is a synthesis here of location and chronology.
  • She described herself as having been a precocious child, often making older friends, and, due to her father's wealth and social status, enjoyed a privileged upbringing.912[need quotation to verify]
  • Where do you see father's wealth and privileged upbringing?
  • ("We used to stay in ... a one-bedroom hall. ... Dad used to have a black Fiat, ... Dad manufactured socks, then barrels. Pa was proud of being a factory owner. ... All of us girls wore identical clothes"[9])
  • (The Fiat 1100, which saw production in India in the late 1950s, was an economy car, a people's car, albeit not the proletariat's. The "identical clothes" of that era (and earlier ones)—bespeaking the purchase of one cut of cloth from the same bolt and the family darzi's (tailor) fashioning clothes for all the children—was a common middle-class practice. This is comfortable middle-class, not wealth, in the early 60s India.)
  • How do you see "precocious" as an apt description (in literal or transformed meaning)? (" I did lie like every child, at studies I was a no-no. ... Dad (hit) me on two occasions for my bad school report card. Once mom hit me for wearing her panties... I grew up too fast. I knew it all. I had older friends ... I had seen them wearing make-up, ..." [9])
  • (Many girls in India, and elsewhere, ordinary ones, leading unremarkable lives, would identify.)
  • The source [12], an article in IWI, August 9-15, 1987 is unavailable on the internet, not even in snippet form. I'd like to see a quotation from it verifying your paraphrase, and if you don't have it, then please remove the citation.
  • She was 15 years old when she agreed to marry the actor Rajesh Khanna, then aged 30, after a short courtship. 1314
  • How do you see "agree?" The age of consent in India in 1973 was 16. (This is a very serious objection.)
  • Is "short courtship" an accurate description, when the second source says,
  • "In the quickest wedding ever seen in our filmland, Rajesh and Dimple were engaged and married inside five days." and
  • Source 15 below (page 109) says, "Rajesh Khanna made a dramatic midnight proposal to her. He'd taken the fifteen-year-old star-struck Dimple for a walk by the Juhu sea and had flung Rishi Kapoor’s ring (yes, she wore his ring on her finger) into the moonlit waters.’ The dream man of millions of girls wished to marry Dimple. With her feet hardly on the ground, she said yes. ... There was no time to send invitations ... Initially, the guests were invited by telegram"
  • (i.e. When a 30-year-old man "marries" an underage girl in five days in such manner, and description, can WP describe it as "short courtship?")
  • The wedding, performed according to Arya Samaj rites, took place on 27 March 1973 in her father's bungalow in Juhu—six months before the release of her first film, Bobby.[13][14]
  • "Father's bungalow?" not the family's? The second source says, "at the bride's residence in Juhu."
  • I thought they lived in Santa Cruz. See above. At the very least, there is an issue of coherence.
  • Do you have information about when they moved?
(Added later. Not really needed, but just in case you are curious: It was the ground floor (AmE first floor) of a rented bungalow in Juhu (owned by the Birlas) into which they had moved in December 1972. See 32-yr battle over Dimple Kapadia's home to hot up, which says, "Dimple’s mother showed the court photographs of the actor’s (Rajesh Khanna's) 'baraat' (wedding party) arriving at the bungalow on March 27, 1973. She claimed protection under the Rent Control Act." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC) )[reply]
  • She retired from acting for eleven years to raise her two daughters, Twinkle (born 1974) and Rinke (born 1977).15
  • Page number?
  • I see on page 131, which is not normally visible on Google Books, "There was no other heroine in her competition, but she gave up everything in a hurry [to get married].. .Perhaps the difference in star power and age helped subjugate her and robbed her of confidence. She wore what Rajesh liked and mixed with the people he approved of. Dimple gave birth to their first child, a lovely daughter, ..."
  • (Can this be described as "retired from acting for eleven years to raise her two daughters?")
  • Kapadia initially said it was Khanna who had forbidden her acting career following the marriage, though in later years she noted that "career has always been secondary" to her.[1] (p. 185) 16
  • It is not p185, but 186, which is not visible in the Indian edition, but is in the p 148 (US edition)] Bumiller says ca. 1991, ::*"The film made Dimple into a sensation, but instead of using it to launch her career, she married, at the age of fifteen, the country’s most popular leading man at the time, Rajesh Khanna. He promptly told his new wife that her acting days were over. 'My husband believed that my place was at home,' Dimple said. 'It was not a husband-wife relationship—it was father-daughter.' After two children and ten years of marriage, she finally walked out. 'It’s a big stigma to leave a man,' she said. 'I didn't expect to be accepted. But after I left him, it made a tremendous difference to me. The best part was that I was earning my own bread.'
  • Source [16] (published, November 2000) says,
  • "There was no question of my doing films during my marriage. My husband didn't want me to work. As simple as that. I returned to films only when I had to look after myself and my children."
  • How do the two sources together support, "in later years she noted that 'career has always been secondary to her'?"

There remain errors in citing, paraphrasing, and synthesis. And this was just one paragraph. It puts too much burden on the reviewer to sort things out. I am—in all earnestness—requesting that Shahid, the nominator, withdraw the nomination, work on it carefully for a month, and resubmit. It would save the FAC coordinators trudging through a long FAC review. I trust you, Encyclopædius, would do the right thing and support my request. And the same would apply to Shahid. I have nothing against you, but the article needs much more work and it cannot be done within the purview of this FAC review. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way she was seemingly snatched at that age is very creepy! I am very aware of claims which are not fully covered in the sources. As it's a highly tedious task to go through them all I did suggest he withdraws it initially, but the article has already been greatly improved in the last few days, and Shahid had worked very hard to improve it. I don't see any harm in it being kept open, at present, it's highly productive at the moment. But every claim and source does need to be rock solid for this to pass. I trust that he will deal with it.† Encyclopædius 08:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler - first, your attempt to convince other editors to follow your way of thought is absolutely unacceptable. You've done the same with Harry. Coordinators should note this.
Second, Fowler, most of what you do is WP:OR - follow the sources and not what you think is likely.
As for your highly unconstructive points:
  • Why does it matter when they moved to another house? How is it crucial to her life and career? They might have had more than one house and she did mention in one of the sources "The door to our house was open even when we shifted to Juhu" but I'm not sure it strongly implies they moved permanently.
  • Why does it matter if it was her father or the family's? Here - another source says: "at her father Chunnibhai Kapadia's family bungalow in Juhu, in March 1973".
  • Your Fiat analysis is one of many irrelevant points.
  • Age of consent in India as a factor is again your WP:OR and as long as she agreed and her father agreed, there's no problem. We use sources and the source clearly says she gave her consent.
  • As for two quotes - okay, kept just her early statement because that could be confusing.
  • Now, your request to stop this FAC is a disgrace. You do not realise that people have opinions different than your own. Graham, Aoba - support this article, does your view count more than theirs? No, I would personally claim the opposite because you opposed this article based on one word and they supported it after reading through. Shahid • Talk2me 08:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to my comment above about "She described herself as having been a precocious child, ..." you have changed the sentence to: "She described herself as having matured quickly, ..." in this edit.
  • You did not acknowledge my comment, neither here, nor in an edit summary, nor did you consult with me if "maturing quickly" was more appropriate.
  • Your second source, Alpana Chowdhury, says on page 9, of her Illustrated Weekly of India article: "While other children studied and passed exams, Dimple bunked school and saw movies. Of her favourite star, Asha Parekh Of her favourite hero, Rajesh Khanna. Sitting in the dark auditorium, she gave herself up totally to the silver screen."
  • In another edit, you have responded to my criticism of "brief courtship" by changing the source. That source, Jyotika Virdi does use the expression "brief courtship," but says a great deal more on page 141 of her book: "But Kapadia's success as a star was truncated by an early marriage to superstar Rajesh Khanna, a man twice her age who forbade her from working in the industry. Without understanding what her heady success really meant, the idea of being proposed to by the nation’s foremost superstar, she later recalled, was an even headier experience. After a courtship that lasted a week, she married, quit working in films, and by the end of three years had two daughters. Rajesh Khanna’s career declined rapidly and reports of trouble in this “dream marriage,” and subsequent cover-ups, appeared in the press." Is "brief courtship" an adequate precis of what Virdi is attempting to say there? Again you have made no mention of my comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your last comment was a little funny - if you want to have an argument with Virdi, the author of the book, do so but not on this FAC. I'm using her words, not yours. Even funnier though was your complaint that I didn't consult you. Why would I do it? I'm not addressing your comments, because, as Harry said above, there's practically nothing to address. The few comments that offered something actionable were addressed. Otherwise your comments are just an attempt to destroy this FAC which started with your oppose based on one word. The changes I've made relate mostly to Encyclopædius's request that I go again over the the early sources and his review. Yours is not a review, much less this section, which is a note to Encyclopædius, trying to persuade him keep his oppose. I've been nice enough to not ignore you as others have suggested that I do based on your questionable reviewing skills and motives. But as I see, it's pointless - I seriously don't know what you want, I wish I could understand the reason for your hostility. Shahid • Talk2me 14:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have now changed the text in this edit, removing the "film-crazy" descriptor for DK, outside of the review process. I did say if you don't have blurbs from the Alpana Chowdhury Illustrated Weekly source, then remove the citation. But you need to acknowledge what you are doing. Your source, which I have been able to partially access, does say on page 8, "'I was thirteen when I signed Bobby. I was always film-crazy.' Dimple Kapadia's home on Juhu beach is a most unstarlike home. It is a large bungalow where the entire Kapadia family lives. .The family being father Chunibhai Kapadia (who stopped working, one thinks, the day his daughter entered films), mother Betty Kapadia (the kindest soul in the house), two sisters Simple and Reem (the former now does dress designing and seems to be the most enterprising." Do you really need to remove "film crazy?" As for your question above, I am trying to suggest that a good, careful, comprehensive revision takes time and communication, the necessary back and forth. It cannot be done hurriedly on the fly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disliked the "film crazy" quote and fully support the removal. "Kapadia aspired to be an actress even as a child" is far superior.. Yes, Shahid has worked very hard to address the issues I have with the article and in my opinion it's now well on its way to reaching what we want. I merged my comments all into one tidy section.† Encyclopædius 16:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Strongly disliked?" How does that constitute a sufficient reason to remove, and not, for example, to paraphrase? She was by her own admission infatuated with the movies, cutting class to go to them, her mother a willing accomplice. (e.g "Mom would see a movie a day, making dad hopping mad. We’d lie that we’d gone out shopping or to a friend’s house. Ziddi was the first movie which registered on me. I wanted to be Asha Parekh, like the girl she played, ... To me, movies were very real. It was life up there on the screen."here + ref to cutting classes above)
The sentence "Kapadia aspired to be an actress even as a child" after all is mine. (See the discussion in the first section.) "Film-crazy" is not elegant, but she was obsessed, crazy, about films. We can't remove that essential aspect of her early biography. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There you go then, more elegant prose is more desirable. "Mom would see a movie a day, making dad hopping mad. We’d lie that we’d gone out shopping or to a friend’s house. Ziddi was the first movie which registered on me. I wanted to be Asha Parekh, like the girl she played, ... To me, movies were very real. It was life up there on the screen." has biographical value though I agree. Perhaps a quote or part quote and paraphrase would benefit the early life section. † Encyclopædius 18:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was taking a long nap.  :) How about: "Kapadia aspired to be an actress even as a child. Looking back, she thought her mother to have been the film buff in the family. 'Mom would see a movie a day, making dad hopping mad. We’d lie that we’d gone out shopping or to a friend’s house.' Kapadia's favorite movie star was Asha Parekh. (The last cited to Chowdury, IWI, 9 Aug 1987) Too long? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler can you find "Masood, Iqbal (10 January 1993). "The edge of mediocrity". The Indian Express." online?† Encyclopædius 19:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will look. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't. I tried. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I do understand Fowler's attempts to just fill this FAC with redundant talk (that's exactly what I was told he'd do, mess up the FAC to the point where his username is all over the place). I think "aspired to be an actress" is okay in my view, we can think of adding something later but it's not crucial. And I found the link Blofeld. Shahid • Talk2me 09:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quote would be too long I think, I was thinking of something like "Kapadia was an extremely keen daily film viewer with her mother, and aspired to be an actress even as a child. She had said: "Ziddi was the first movie which registered on me. I wanted to be Asha Parekh, like the girl she played, ... To me, movies were very real. It was life up there on the screen." -something like that would benefit it I think.† Encyclopædius 10:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's really no big deal and I see no reason to quote the Ziddi part. Shahid • Talk2me 10:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal no, but in actor biographies we often include a quote or something related to how they got into acting or why they were passionate about if we have one. If you're not happy with it, leave it as it is with the aspirations wording please.† Encyclopædius 11:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello E. I've just woken up. I'll let you guys sort this out. If you do intend to include "Ziddi," I imagine it would be the 1948 film Ziddi (1948 film) written by the master storyteller Ismat Chughtai; the remake appearing in 1964, when DK was seven, is unlikely to be the first movie she would recall seeing. The earliest memories are generally older. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're not mentioning the film but just for the record, you should give this likelihood thing which keeps guiding you (and clearly not guiding you right) a break sometimes - it's definitely the 1964 film Ziddi with Asha Parekh. She said, "Ziddi was the first movie which registered on me. I wanted to be Asha Parekh, like the girl she played". Shahid • Talk2me 11:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in this instance. My apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note from coord

edit

Okay, I've read through the whole thing. The first thing that jumps out at me is that this is a gigantic mess. There are comments all over the place, they are jumbled up with other people's comments, and the thread of the various opposes is totally lost in several places, making it very difficult for me to sort out what is still being opposed, what the basis for those opposes was, and whether those opposes are actually based on the criteria.

Some of the opposition seems to derive not from actual disenting sources but from reviewer's beliefs that something must be so without actually having a source to support the belief. Conjectures aren't what we build articles on - nor do we make assumptions like "I imagine it would be the 1948 film Ziddi (1948 film) written by the master storyteller Ismat Chughtai; the remake appearing in 1964, when DK was seven, is unlikely to be the first movie she would recall seeing. The earliest memories are generally older" - we base our articles on sources.. if the source does not specify which film it was, we indicate in our article that it is unclear which film is being referred to.

However, it does appear that there are significant concerns with the article that are being brought up. And that there are concerns with some of the sourcing that are actionable. This candidate has been open for almost two months. There is an insane amount of commentary ... so much so that it's difficult for me to untangle it totally without being concerned that I'm missing actionable items. Given that, I am going to archive this nomination and suggest that the several editors who are working on it do so on the talk page and get it straightened out before renominating. If most of the reviewers are then satisfied on the talk page and the article is renominated, I would expect that this sort of massively huge and sprawling FAC would not reoccur. It helps none of our readers when this sort of sprawling discussion doesn't help the actual improvement of articles.

I recognize this FAC sprawled out of control partly because of things beyond my control, for which I apologize to the various people who in good faith contributed here. I'm sorry that my computer died and it took almost three weeks to secure a replacement - we were hopeful we could get it repaired, and after that took over a week, then we were caught up in pandemic-related slowdowns of shipping and the like. I hope not to be AWOL again if this is renominated so that hopefully it will be able to a much more positive experience for everyone a second time around. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 7 June 2020 [49].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian

edit
Nominator(s): NoahTalk and ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 20:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian. This is one of many articles written about the powerful storm that stalled over the Bahamas at peak intensity and made at least eight total landfalls. NoahTalk 20:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Coord note -- this has been open the best part of a month and received no comprehensive commentary so I'm going to archive but will waive the usual two-week waiting period prior to a new nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 June 2020 [50].

Effects of Hurricane Wilma in Mexico

edit
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the effects of one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes. Hurricane Wilma will have its 15 year anniversary this October, so I am hoping to have it as a featured topic. The main article is in the process of being finished, but the article for Wilma's effects in Mexico is done, so I thought I'd nominate it for FAC. I use a variety of sources in both English and Spanish, from when the storm was active to follow up reports on its long term aftermath. I haven't had a formal peer review for the article aside from a GAN, but I believe the article holds up well, and I think it should be considered for FA candidacy. I'll happily address any of your comments. Happy 420 everyone! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: - my (real) life has gotten a lot busier since I nominated this, and the article still isn't quite there, so I'd like to withdraw this article's FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tks -- will action. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • I'm confused by your approach to the infobox here. I think based on the text that you're using the highest winds and lowest pressure specific to after Mexican landfall, but that's not clear, especially given that the dates provided above that are for the storm overall not just the Mexican portion
  • That's a good point. I checked with other effects articles, which don't have the data parameter there. I'm not sure if that's ideal, but considering how big tropical cyclones are, there's no perfect start/end point for Wilma's effects in Mexico. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What source are you using for the conversion from MXN to USD?
  • "the Hurricane Hunters recorded a minimum pressure of 882 mbar (26.05 inHg)" - the link here is to a general article on hurricane hunters, if you're intending a specific group that should be clarified
  • "the NHC estimated the landfall intensity" - this is the first mention of the NHC but there's no link or full name
  • What are "local materials" for houses?
  • "The storm also damaged communication antennas" repeats from two sentences previous
  • Citation formatting needs cleaning up - organizations like the Salvation Army are publishers not work titles, newspaper titles like La Nacion should be italicized, some are missing components of the citation (eg FN 20 missing author). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • I thought I should review this article as a cousin of mine and her husband lived through the hurricane confined to their holiday home on Cozumel as it was too dangerous to go out.
  • "The effects of Hurricane Wilma in Mexico severely affected the tourism industry of the Yucatán Peninsula in October 2005." I do not like this lead sentence. 1. It sounds odd to say "the effects" "affected". 2. It does not seem right to only mention tourism at the start and not the 300,000 left homeless etc. 3. Cozumel as well as Yucatan was severely affected.
  • "Over a 24-hour period, Wilma produced 1,633.98 mm (64.330 in) of rainfall" Below you say that this was on one rain gauge. You should make clear that it was not widely across Yucatan.
  • "orchestrated the response with a goal of quick revival tourist areas" "of tourist areas"?
  • "About 3,500 people worked to restore water and power service, although total restoration of electricity was expected to take about a month." "expected to take" sounds odd for something which happened 15 years ago.
  • "crews installed geotubes and dredged about 2.5 million m3 (660 ft3) of sand," What is a geotube? Also I would take dredging sand to mean removing it, not adding it.
  • The arrangement of the aftermath section does not seem logical as it mixes short term and long term effects. I think you should cover the immediate results and rescue efforts first and the longer term consequences at the end. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/June_2020&oldid=965291748"