This article is about the Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number, a top-down shooter indie game released in 2015. While not being influential to indie games as a whole like its predecessor, this game is still particularly for being refused classification in Australia due to a scene which depicted sexual assault, where it remains banned to this day. I've been working on this article basically since I started editing Wikipedia, and got it to GA status with Jaguar back in October with an additional pre-FAC peer review being done by ProtoDrake earlier this month. After eight months of work, exhausting all sources of substance that I have been able to find, and two reviews being conducted from other editors, I believe that this article meets the FA criteria. This is my first time nominating an article for FAC, and I look forward to reading and addressing any comments. NegativeMP123:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Panini!
I don't know anything about this game going in, so I should give good insight on making sure explanations make sense. I did play this game called SUPERHOTline Miami in middle school which was a blend of Superhot and Hotline Miami. I remember it being fun. I played a few technology classes that had a row of computers in the back to play on. It was pretty difficult game, probably not because it was actually hard, but the computers were just so slow. And computers were doing real good around this time, they just had some cruddy, outdated computers. Some of their DVD slots were busted and couldn't even eject. Unlike computers, however, those weren't doing real good, and we never used DVDs for educational purposes. I did in elementary school, though.
What am I doing here? Oh, right.
Lead
"The game takes place before, during, and after the events of Hotline Miami..." - Oh boy. I hope I don't get a headache.
"...the player is tasked with defeating every single enemy inside through any means possible..." - But the couples are fine. "single" can be dropped.
Done.
"...and was confirmed to be in development via Twitter..." - I suggest specifying when (what year, or both year month if you need to discern dates) instead of how ("via Twitter"), since the means of announcement isn't as important.
Done.
"A localized version released in Japan on June 25, as part of Hotline Miami: Collected Edition. An Android port was released on August 4 of the same year." Is there any gameplay or quality changes in these ports that need to be specified?
Besides Collected Edition being localized into Japanese, to my knowledge no.
"...received generally positive reviews from critics, with reviewers praising the soundtrack, but having divisive opinions on the story and gameplay..." - Story and gameplay are pretty much what makes a game a game. Metaritic reads "generally positive reviews" and whatever they say is always used in video game leads; stating "mixed reviews on story and gameplay" suggests a 50/50, so if the game were attending school it would fail. In short what I suggest is getting more specific with what was liked and disliked: when it comes to story, did critics like the characters but hate the plot? With gameplay, did they like the mechanics but not the combat? Stuff like that. For example, my first FA reads "Critical reception of the combat system was mixed; while praised for its innovation, there was criticism for its lack of difficulty and purpose."
As weird as this sounds when the game has a 74/100 on Metacritic, this is basically how the game was received by the major outlets that I included in the Reception section. I've specified that critics were more divisive towards the ending than the story itself though.
Okay no, scratch that, I reread the section and I don't know why I did this. Reverting that part but the point remains the same.
I haven't read the rest of the article yet (I'm reading top to the bottom because that's how you read) but from a quick glance there seems to be more development info that can be mentioned in the lead. Most people usually give a detailed announcement to release timeline in their leads but I think that doesn't give enough WP:DUEWEIGHT to the development section, which usually details why the developers made certain design choices. Does this game introduce any new mechanics? If so, why did they add it? Stuff like that. Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon's third lead paragraph details development details if you need an example, but keep in mind the development section of that article is like a mile long and you might not have nearly as much details.
Yeah there's nothing I can really place into the lead except that the game was designed to be the last in the series, which I've added. The game doesn't have that much specific development information.
Infobox looks like it's fully cited in the body from a glance.
Gameplay
Yuck, too much blood in that image. I hate it! Get rid of it.
I can't tell if this is a legitimate review comment or not, but this game and its predecessor are known for violence, so having a gameplay screenshot that does not show blood may as well not be possible.
You do not need to write out Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number in every instance it appears outside the first; just Wrong Number will suffice. It looks like you only do that at the beginning of every section though, which is fine. I think I do that too? I can't remember. I haven't written about video games in a while.
I think you should link level (video game) on "broken down into several stages" instead of "divided into several chapters". Unless I'm missing something about how these levels are organized?
Stages and Chapters refer to two different things here. A chapter is the actual level, which typically takes place in a building, whilst a stage is an individual floor of the building.
Interesting. What you've specified here about the floors in the building I think would be good to specify in the article, since it's not the the traditional "video game stage" per se.
Made the specification, hopefully that doesn't count as original research.
This section is very solid.
Synopsis
"The plot of Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number is told out of order, before, and after the events of the original, focusing on events in 1985, 1989, and 1991." - Following "out of order" should be a colon. Also, the lead specifies the game also takes place "during".
You do link the former eventually, but it should be linked in its first instance.
Delinked in this instance.
Is the fact that Jake is obese necessary to understanding his character? As in, is it important to the plot?
No, it was a description of the character himself. Removed this bit.
Following "...member of 50 Blessings" should be one more semicolon, not a comma
Done.
"As they make their way through the building, they're Colonel - having apparently gone insane - murders..." - You should use em-dashes (—) here instead of regular ol' dashes. What's the difference? I don't know, they're longer or something. Why does it matter? I don't know, they're longer or something.
Done.
Development
I feel "patching" is too jargon-y compared to "fixing bugs"
Changed to the latter.
The sentence at the end of paragraph one is pretty long and full of a lot of engine names. Can you split it in two?
Done.
"The game was designed to be the final game in the series" -> "The game was designed to be last in the series
Done.
Remove the hyperlink from cutscene at the end of "Music" as it is linked above.
Done.
Reception
Specify "Steven Burns" in his first mention, not just Burns.
Done.
Merge ref 49 and 54, they are the same
See below response.
Actually, it looks like most if not all of the review sources have two duplicates: one for the table and one for the body. Most of the table refs already have ref names so hopefully this will be an easy fix.
Opposite of that actually because I edit in visual editor. I'll fix this soon but not in the same edit as where I'm changing everything else.
This section consists of individual opinion after individual opinion. It's okay to summarize similar reviewer thoughts into one sentence or two with multiple refs if they share the same opinion, similar to what you do in the intro sentence to each paragraph. For an example of what I mean here's this format I made a while back for reference. It's pretty outdated to me nowadays (and in general, USGamer no longer exists), but it shows what I mean by summarizing. See also this essay that does a much better job.
I attempted to follow that essay as much as I could, but I can make some adjustments or rewrites to the section to follow it better shortly.
I'm unsure what "Rezzed" is.
Specified that it's an expo.
"Many viewed it as a "deeply troubling moment in an otherwise excellent demo" - This implies many said this exact sentence. I would change it to "Many viewed it as what ____ referred to as a..."
Alongside all adjustments I made yesterday, I just did a full article restructure to define sources with source mode in Reflist instead of the visual editor format (defining sources as ":1" or etc.), which should eliminate the duplicated references in the Reception section. I've also made some adjustments to the Reception section writing. NegativeMP105:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I had noticed your note about the visual editor earlier I would have offered to fix them for you! Sorry to leave you with a hard job. But, hey, FAC is hard.
I wish I could sit down and do a bit more thorough review but I've been short on time recently, and I'm just about to fly upstate very soon. One more note about references; Destructoid is listed as situational per WP:VG/RS and goes on a case-by-case basis when it comes to the author of the review. If the author is a credited and reliable one it can be kept, but is rarely is. If you can prove they're a credible source then it can stay at a FA level, but in FAC Destructoid is usually cut. This isn't too big of a deal for you since the only use of them outside the review table is a one-off statement. Other than that, the article is rad! I also left one comment above. Panini!•🥪23:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! As for the visual editor thing, no worries as it was honestly long overdue to convert the references over to source, I don't think I'm going back to visual editing after seeing how much more convenient the 2017 wikitext editor is. Anyways, the only Destructoid reference in use here is a review from Chris Carter, whom isn't just a staff editor, but is the managing editor/reviews director of the site. The review is probably acceptable to include because of that, but if more people review this article and object to the use of it then I can supplement it, the review is only used for the soundtrack section at the moment anyways. NegativeMP100:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to FAC, comrade! I'm glad to simultaneously be helping this great game get more much-earned recognition, pay tribute to a dearly departed friend who loved it by doing so, and helping out a new friend take the next big step of his Wikipedia journey. At first, I was going to limit this to a source review, since those are usually the biggest hangup for FACs—at least in my experience. But since it's your first time here and I was doing a complete text-source integrity check rather than just spot checks, I was looking at the prose anyway so I thought, "why not just do a prose review too?" Usually I don't do this since it feels like taking two bites out of the apple, you know? Anyway. Uh. I hope you can forgive this mountain of comments! –♠Vamí_IV†♠12:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prose comments
Lead
allowing them to create their own levels and share them around the world. Every word after "them" can be cut with no loss in quality.
Done.
Dennaton began work on creating downloadable content. Recommend addition of "for the game" at the end.
Done.
After the proposed length... You started the previous sentence very similarly, with "Shortly after..." Consider "When the proposed length..."
Done.
with Dennaton incorporating all concepts they had from the development of the first game into the sequel. This is one of those funny little moments in English where the grammatically correct form of the sentence is to have a double had. "all the concepts they had had from..." Or you could tweak this sentence a bit, something like "had during/leftover/cut/etc."
Done.
but having divisive opinions on the level design and ending. Having looked at the reviews myself now, I remember the bugginess of the game being criticized, too.
I do not remember any discussions about the game being glitchy in substansive amounts to warrant a mention in the lead or a unique reception paragraph.
Gameplay
Additional methods of killing available to the player include knocking-out enemies with a door or kicking them against the wall. Knocking out is not killing. Not immediately, anyway. The fix here perhaps is probably to revisit the preceding sentence and render it as In most chapters, the player is tasked with defeating every enemy, usually lethally...
I think I fixed this?
composed of large open rooms Comma required between large and open.
Done.
Some characters have the ability to choose from a selection of weapons or masks, the latter of which will modify the player's abilities depending on the mask chosen. The player's abilities or the player character's?
Done.
allowing the player to rethink and fine-tune their strategy until succeeding. "until succeeding" here is superfluous here since the alternative to success in this game is death.
Done.
Alongside this, Delete.
Done.
the enemy AI is unpredictable and will respond arbitrarily. See spot-check.
Synopsis
"Beard", the basis of the shopkeeper from Jacket's hallucinations in the first game who is part of a commando squad with Jacket in Hawaii; I think I would have used "was" here since most of the game takes place later. The war chapters give context to the not-war chapters.
Done.
Jake, a violent and nativist member of 50 Blessings That Jake is violent is obvious just by being one of the playable characters. Suggest cutting "violent and".
Done.
Development
Ten days after Dennaton announced downloadable content What? This is the first use of a kind of date in the article. And when did he announce any DLC?
Fixed this by stating a date (which I assume is what you're asking for)
Ten days after Dennaton announced downloadable content, Söderström announced Hotline Miami 2 to be in development through Twitter and that a preliminary soundtrack for the game was already completed, though the developers were still focused on fixing bugs in the original game. The whole sentence feels unwieldy.
Fixed up.
Similarly to the predecessor, the sequel was made in Game Maker 7. Rewrite this.
Done.
Dennaton prioritized developing the game specifically for the fans of the original, comparing their development strategy to the Mega Man series, being unconcerned with trying to attract a larger audience and to "just give people that like the first game another game that they will enjoy." Very long.
Chopped up.
Expanding the universe of Hotline Miami was a primary focus of the sequel's development, with several new characters being created that were noted to be given far more personality than Jacket from the first game, as making characters like Jacket would have made them "all be bland" in the words of Söderström. Also overly long and unwieldy.
Condensed.
leading artists to scramble to send their music to Dennaton Games to try and get their music in the sequel. Rewrite in a way that deletes "to scramble".
Rewritten.
By the time the slots for the full soundtrack of Hotline Miami 2 were finalized, How about By the time the soundtrack of Hotline Miami 2 was finalized,"?
Done.
Marketing and release
It was announced here that the game would be the last in the series Replace "here" with "at E3 2013.
Done.
and a gameplay showcase followed in a trailer across the street from the Los Angeles Convention Center. ...what kind of trailer? A promotional trailer or a physical trailer parked outside the venue?
I think I made this more clear?
A month later, the game was given an official release date slated for next month. Specify.
Don't know what specifically to specify so I specified both.
As a promotion, Jacket was added to Payday 2 as a playable character Pretend that the reader does not know what Payday 2 is. What is Payday 2?
I feel as if it'd be implied by "playable character" that it's a video game. Either way I specified "video game", assuming that's what you're asking for.
A mask pack was included in the game for both the standard and digital special editions. You should clarify that "the game" here is Payday 2.
Done.
featuring a digital download code for the game as well the game's soundtrack on featuring the game's soundtrack on vinyl. Huh?
I think this just happens where my brain fails and I end up leaving leftovers from past rewrites. I've fixed this.
On 19 August 2019, the game alongside the original Hotline Miami were rereleased as part of the Hotline Miami Collection for Nintendo Switch. Suggest On 19 August 2019, Hotline Miami and Hotline Miami 2 were rereleased...
Done.
Reception
with it being considered that the ambition of the narrative had rubbed onto the gameplay This simultaneously confuses me and does not feel encyclopedic.
I think I fixed this?
These larger levels were reported by Alex Carlson of Hardcore Gamer as making levels feel more realistic in their design and delivering more diverse level design. This can be condensed.
Done.
The second paragraph generally needs to be whipped into shape.
Done, I think?
As I note below, the claim Several critics considered the soundtrack the best aspect of the game; is not representative of the sources cited. I suggest, instead, Several critics considered the soundtrack one of the best aspects of the game;
Done.
Sexual assault scene
I must apologize, but I'm going to rip this section to pieces.
Completely fine with me, I wrote this section whilst short on time.
In the game's opening tutorial where the player plays as the Pig Butcher, after clearing out all other enemies the player must knock out a girl, where the game afterwards the game instructs the player to "finish her". As the player "finishes her", control of the Pig Butcher is taken away from the player as a cutscene plays he attempts to assault a woman sexually whilst she struggles to escape her situation. Rewrite, too many words and some contradiction. If the rape victim is knocked out, she must be unconscious; how then does she resist? Rather than mention her waking up or something, I would instead advise cutting "knock her out". This will open the door to further shrinking of this prose to something better.
Trimmed up a bit to hopefully make it better.
Many viewed it as what Nathan Grayson was Huh?
Fixed.
No need to give Wedin's first name here.
Removed.
to demonstrate that sexual violence was not what the Hotline Miami series is about. Use a quotation here, rather than seeming to take a side.
Done.
they mentioned that they have added a cut and uncut option for the scene. Cut "they have", the sentence will be more clinical without it.
Done.
Dennaton also reconfirmed that the context of the scene is important Why is it important? Why are you saying this in Wikipedia's voice?
I'm relaying what the source says, I don't know why it's important either.
I just completely removed it since I literally could not think of a way to make it sound any better.
Burns of VideoGamer described the scene as "merely existing for throwaway shock value", calling it a grave mistake in the game that didn't feature into the narrative. "Grave mistake" needs to be in quotations; it is lifted from Reference [6].
Done.
Myers of Paste was indifferent, criticizing the scene for giving "no narrative pay-off" and further mocking it by saying that the fact it was in an in-universe movie justified the player's actions. The back half of this needs to be rewritten. See my note on Reference [49] below.
Will do this when I tackle the source review.
In contrast to other critics, Astrid Budgor of Kill Screen took into account what they viewed as the developers' true intentions with the scene; to develop the narrative of the Pig Butcher as a psychopath and positively viewing the option to skip the scene for those that find the topic sensitive. Rewrite this. Let Budgor speak for her(?)self; use quotations to communicate her(?) thoughts on the game.
All references are from reliable sources, barring the YouTube one which is a trailer and a Steam forum conversation(???). I advise removing this (see below). Otherwise, all good. –♠Vamí_IV†♠12:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to get to this on a different edit but for now I have infact removed the Steam community post. The YouTube video however is from Eurogamer and I believe should be acceptable. λNegativeMP118:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, here is the complete spot check of every in-line citation to/for all 61 in-line citations in the article.
Both uses are legit.
The source doesn't really support the passage, "Both the player and enemies are not resilient, and it may take only one attack from one to kill the other immediately. To compensate, the player is able to quickly restart the current stage after death, allowing the player to rethink and fine-tune their strategy until succeeding." It's more of an expansion of what the source says on the topic of the gameplay, which is not good. It also doesn't support the passage about the AI being unpredictable, but does support the clause after that about enemy types like the dogs. Danny O'Dwyer (hello old friend) does not say that the game's ST is "just as good as the first game's."; he says the music is "absolutely outstanding". When he does refer back to the first game's ST, it's to mention returning contributors like Perturbator. O'Dwyer also does not identify the ST as "the best aspect of the game", but he does specifically praise it and mention it at the end of his review in the pros/cons. Additionally, the bit about the possibility of non-lethal takedowns is supported by [4], so the use of [2] with [3] can also be removed. Thus, I recommend cutting [3].
Like [2], this source does not support an unpredictable and arbitrary AI. It says that AI is "inconsistent" and that there are a lot of bugs; it does not imply that either is intentional and it certainly isn't a compliment. Does not identify the ST as "the best aspect of the game."
Only in passing supports the existence of a letter-grade for levels.
Doesn't mention any letter-grade at all; instead points out flaws in the scoring system. Quotations do not adhere to MOS:PMC, which states, "Quotations ... must be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, bracket the changed text".
No mention of letter-grading; just that the game grades your performance.
No mention of character or weapon unlocks.
Source says nothing about weapons having less ammo.
Only thing this source supports unfortunately is that a level editor exists as part of the game.
Both uses are legit.
Supports everything it's used for except the clause "with Dennaton focusing on including ideas they were unable to use in the first game".
Both uses are legit.
All good here.
All good here. However, I think the wording "which sold 130,000 copies in its first seven weeks," is a little close to the source article and could be cut, since the very next sentence talks about the financial success of the first game.
Both uses are legit. They are also right next to each other, with no other reference/in-line citation between them.
All good here.
I'll give a pass for this one.
Delete this. [19] has everything this has without being a Steam forum thread.
No problems here.
All good here.
I am not jazzed about using the store page to prove how many tracks are on the ST but beggars can't be choosers. Replace with something better if you can.
McCarthy describes the use of "You Are the Blood" as "harrowing", not "unforgettable". Compare: "One that's always stayed with me is Hotline Miami 2's harrowing use of Castanets' "You Are The Blood" in its end credits" versus "But rarely do video games have excellent musical moments: a point in time punctuated with music to make it unforgettable." Please change this.
All good here. Like [15], there are two uses of [23] that are right next to each other without an in-between citation.
This is legit.
This too.
This too.
Doesn't mention a delay; this mentions the possibility of a delay.
All good here.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
All good. Same note to this as [15] and [23], though.
All good here.
Ditto.
I'm just going to assume good conduct with this one :)
Good enough.
All good here.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Mostly good. Myers does not say the player's actions as the Pig Butcher are justified. Myers is mocking the game for a lazy copout.
Good enough.
Checks out.
Good, but you lifted a line from the source without quoting it. Please revise.
Good, but as the article presently is you close-paraphrase from this source. It would be better to just quote it.
The source does not mention a red light over a black background. It does mention red underwear, though, and other details of the rape.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Ditto, but move this to the end of "the game became briefly available in Australia via the Nintendo eShop,".
All good here.
What I can say of the usage of this source is that at least the thesis of the source is communicated.
I believe all issues have been patched (most of them just boiled down to me completely cutting text due to lack of better sourcing, though) except the following:
There is unfortunately no alternative for 21.
from 54: "This visual depiction of implied sexual violence is emphasised by it being mid-screen, with a red backdrop pulsating and the remainder of the screen being surrounded by black." what's in the article is simply just paraphrasing.
Please tell me if I missed any issues pointed out in the source review that needed fixing but I think I got what needed to be fixed. λNegativeMP105:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, but I've got to oppose based on prose. The article is much improved from where it was before the FAC, but I think it's still tough to read and grok if you aren't intimately familiar with the content already, and could use a lot of trimming for content that doesn't strengthen the writing. A selection of some issues:
"The game takes place before, during, and after the events of Hotline Miami, with the majority of it focusing on the aftermath of Jacket's massacres against the Russian mafia in Miami. "—who is Jacket? We might not know anything about Hotline Miami 2 except it's a sequel, why is the most important thing for us to learn its time period vis a vis the original (which we also might not have content for?)
"In each level of the game, the player is tasked with defeating every enemy inside" every enemy inside what?
"Shortly after the release and success of Hotline Miami, Dennaton began work on creating downloadable content for the game. When the proposed length of it surpassed that of the base game, the project was turned into a standalone sequel and was confirmed to be in development via Twitter in December 2012." This is just a really weird, awkward way of saying that the game grew out of downloadable content plans for the original game, smashing the mention of its development on Twitter in at the end even though it doesn't really connect with the rest of the sentence.
I don't necessarily think the use of ex. is directly in violation of MOS:ABB, but it's also not pleasant to read either.
"In most chapters, the player is tasked with defeating every enemy with a variety of melee and ranged attacks. " What about the other chapters?
"Both the player and enemies are not resilient, and it may take only one attack from one to kill the other immediately." Why do we have this repetitious "one.. one" structure when you could just say "Both the player and enemies can be felled from a single attack" or similar?
"additionally, enemy AI is inconsistent" I don't know what this means in this context.
"Exclusively for versions of the game released on Steam," I'm confused why this is plural. How many versions of the game are there on Steam?
"The trials are widely publicized, resulting in the creation of a film depicting Jacket as "The Pig Butcher", as well as journalist Evan Wright writing a book on the killings while trying to learn more about the events as his marriage and finances are strained. " Holy excessively long sentences, Batman! (Also, the final part could be read as his marriage and finances are strained as a result of trying to learn about the events, or his finances prompted him to write the book. Unclear.)
The second "paragraph" of the characters section is technically a single 164-word sentence.
"The game was made in Game Maker 7, the same engine used for the first game. Additionally, Abstraction Games ported the game to their own SilverWare engine using their Game Maker conversion program GameBaker. This replaced the Phyre Engine used for the first game." I have no idea why the game engine is being ported, or what the Phyre engine is, or how this is relevant.
"The success of Hotline Miami was noted to lead to the success of the artists behind the game's soundtrack. " — awkward construction, repetitious "success... success", and arguably overstating the content from the source (which mentions exposure and posits it helped the artists, but doesn't demonstrate that was the case.)
If I got to fixing these issues within a couple of days would you consider striking the oppose or looking at the article any further? Currently a bit busy but I can probably fit it in as it seems like I could fix these issues without too much issue. λNegativeMP117:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hotline Miami 2 Gameplay.png: The use rationale needs a bit more explanation of why this image significantly adds to the understanding of the article.
File:Hotline Miami 2 Rape Scene.png: The use rationale needs a bit more explanation of why this image significantly adds to the understanding of the article.
I feel as if what can be used in the rationale is already there. If necessary it can be removed instead, since the rationale is basically all it can be.
I've addressed the above issues and added improved alt text to the images, which describe more of what the image actually contains now. λNegativeMP117:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly six weeks in, several in depth reviews but a lack of consensus to promote regrettably means that I am archiving this nomination. The usual two-week hiatus regarding any further nominations will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first edition of the Tour de France Femmes (a cycling race) - held in 2022 after years of campaigning for a women's Tour de France race. This is my first FAC, it's a GA and has been through the WP:GOCE process. Wish me luck, I'm looking forward to this. Turini2 (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Airship
As always in my reviews, these are recommendations, not demands; feel free to refuse with justifications. Welcome to FAC, and best of luck.
Lead
The first paragraph notes "[it] followed years of campaigning by the women's professional peloton for an equivalent race to the men's Tour de France." Per WP:LEAD, the opening paragraph should define the topic. If the years of campaigning were important enough to highlight in the first paragraph (or indeed elsewhere in the lead) I would think that adding a "Background" subsection to the body would help.
I don't quite get the organisation of the lead, with the focus on van Vleuten's race from start to finish coming before anything else. It seems much more logical to me to follow the whole of the race chronologically, especially as it had "only" eight stages. As it is, the person who led three-quarters of the race is only mentioned in the third paragraph.
You may also want to summarize the "Route and stages" section, otherwise sentences like "She was able to recover as the race reached the mountains" mean nothing to the casual reader—what mountains? how far into the race was this? etc.
I think you could trim your use of the jersey metonyms: "moving into the yellow jersey in the process" is only vaguely grammatically correct (surely "taking the yellow jersey" is better, but also just "taking the lead" [if you want, "...of the general classification"]?); "...won the green jersey for points classification" is essentially saying the same thing twice. The three other stage winners are surely also worthy of a lead mention, particularly Lorena Wiebes who won two?
Try and focus on concision. Look at other FA-class cycling articles, e.g. 2012 Tour de France.
Body
I'm fairly sure you don't capitalise both words in "The Netherlands".
20% of 144 is not a whole number of people. Better to just say the number of riders.
The "Route and stages" section can be specific about each individual stage in the prose. What stages are in the "Champagne vineyards" (unnecessarily poetic imo), where do the stages in the Vosges begin, and is the summit finish still in the Vosges?
"Campaigners such as Kathryn Bertine also welcomed the route." since Bertine's welcome also appears to be due to the variety of stages, you could merge with the previous sentence à la "The variety of stages was welcomed by riders in the professional peloton and by campaigners such as Kathryn Bertine", for example.
In general, parentheses in the article (when not containing team names/acronyms/etc.) would be better as commas.
Gerritse winning the QoM classification in stage 3 is not in the cited sources.
I was waiting for you to finish sorry! You said "Will continue" and I thought I would wait until you were done. Very happy to get going on this! Turini2 (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad. Tbh, the rest of the article is rather high-quality, especially the "Results and reception" subsection (the "Mountain stages" subsection is perhaps just a touch too detailed), so I'll have a quick run-through after you've addressed the comments above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for more than four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Raichu, one of the original 151 Pokémon introduced in Pokémon Red and Blue, and more specifically the evolved form of series mascot Pikachu. This article is a bit of a culmination of refining how to approach character articles but more specifically Pokémon species articles, aimed to illustrate the importance of the character but also come from an approach that helps a reader unfamiliar with the subject of the Pokémon franchise grasp pertinent details regarding the character. Reception has been refined, aiming to illustrate the character in question across over twenty years worth of reactions towards it and its portrayals in the games and anime, and cited opinions regarding The Pokémon Company's handling of it in such mediums.Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly, the franchise does have a few monogendered species. Consensus from editors though has been to use "they" across the species articles in general.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've performed a check of every source, and am comfortable that what is being attributed to them is correct. I also feel that the spelling and grammar are appropriate. I've checked the images and found that they are appropriately sourced. All sources are archived with working archive links, and every source is either a primary, reliable, or situational source, with each source used to verify the appropriate information. The rationales are also appropriate - the lead image provides the main subject of the article, the second image shows the Alolan form, whose design has been discussed by designers and critics, with appropriate rationale accompanying it. Finally, the image of Raichu and Pikachu not only depicts the rivalry, but also shows Pikachu, which the rationale points out helps establish the difference between Pikachu and Raichu, which is relevant to what is being discussed in the article. Support (striking due to high involvement in article cleanup). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note for @FAC coordinators: Cukie Gherkin has (as at the timestamp to this message) made 53 edits to the article and is responsible for 22% of the authorship, according to the page stats; they are also replying to other reviewers. While I am sure this is all in good faith, it's unusual for someone in only their second third review to do source, image and text review, as well as joining replying to other reviewers. Should they be listed as a co-nom in this process? And, again I am sure it was in good faith, are these technical reviews sufficient to pass? I have not looked at the sourcing or image licensing, but I would question the use of one of the three non-free images on the article. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are no limits on the number of images as long as each of them can individually be shown appropriate, having three in a relatively short article seems too much. Good picture in the IB, good one of the concept art - both have good reasons for being there (although I make no comment on the licensing or the rationales). File:Pokemon Raichu vs Pikachu.png is purely decorative to my eye and doesn't show anything that isn't explained by text alone: to me. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:SchroCat It's purpose is to show Pikachu's design in contrast to Raichu's alongside the visible animosity, a big part of the reception and intended as a point of reference alongside that section. Illustrating that with text alone would require a wordy comparison between the two to get the same point across I feel: Pikachu's design is different enough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an outsider to the topic, I don't see animosity in that single still image - and saying there is animosity between two characters does not need an image. SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. (By way of explanation and for future reference, the problem with the 'contrast in design' argument is that it's not addressed anywhere in the article, except to say that both store electricity in their cheeks, which wasn't strong enough for the rationale for having a third image on the page). - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: To be clear, this is a second account, my first having participated in multiple FACs as nominator or reviewer. Additionally, my bouts of edits are from two specific times: one where I copyedited it as a favor for the nominator prior to its GA nomination, and one following the opposition of another user, attempting to address the sourcing concerns. However, I will nevertheless strike it if it would make the process more comfortable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely up to the co-ords - I was just flagging it up to them, although I see that in your only previous source review (under this account name), Gog had to then do a second sweep to cover some of the basics that were missed, and in this review two people have issues with the level of sources (and I have unease with some of them, but not enough to oppose or comment at this point). - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really certain what the purpose of bringing that up is; while I did not examine whether page numbers were accurate or consistency in citation formatting, what I did do was accurate, asked to review the article and check these details. As far as high-quality source assessment, there's inevitably going to be some disagreement. I would contend that the belief that there is an issue of low-quality sources is overstated, especially considering that an editor identified IGN, which has roundly been considered a high-quality source for virtually all video game featured articles, was identified as being less preferable compared to other sources for no other reason than because they are academic or published works. Of these sources, one had a factual error, making it unusable for anything of value, and another is just a trivia book. It suggests to me that people are arguing for the aesthetic of high-quality sourcing, which is concerning to me. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly disagree with the thought that "people are arguing for the aesthetic of high-quality sourcing". It's not about aesthetics: it's about standards. And I mentioned the previous review because it wasn't of a sufficient to meet FAC standards. As I said, I was flagging this up for the FAC Coords, rather than anything else. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the over-reliance on primary sources such as the official website, included manuals, the TV show, and tweets. I strongly doubt ScreenRant is a high quality RS --GuerilleroParlez Moi20:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While Screen Rant is not the most high-quality reliable source, on the perennial sources page, the way the site is used in this article does not contradict any guidelines on its usage. It is not a controversial statement about a living person, and it is being used for an entertainment-related topic. What would your thoughts be if primary sources were largely replaced with reliable sources? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero Replaced all the primary sources possible with secondary sources. We did lose one Japanese VA credit in the process here; unfortunately I believe that is the only way to credit that individual, as with this particular franchise many voice actors weren't credited in secondary sources (and only the English end often at all). As for ScreenRant, it does have a full editorial process, and the author Niki Fakhoori has written for other publications including Prima Games and RPGFan, the latter of which she is listed on its staff page as a reviews editor. So she has some credentials.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also have some concerns about the sources, not just in that some aren't high quality, but I see very few academic sources. Compare the Kotaku and IGN articles to sources like these:
@User:Thebiguglyalien And the sources used are the best ones available to us. Looking through the sources listed above, the first is asserting something completely contrary to the developer's own statements on the character origin and the origin of its name, the second is included, and the third is essentially a trivia book. If these are the sources we are arguing in place of Kotaku's, which is giving a nuanced examination of how the character was handled and the impact on public perception, we're going to have a weak article, not to mention one that fails the SIGCOV standard of notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also contend that merely having a reputable publisher doesn't make it a better choice than Kotaku or IGN. As discussed, the use of academic sources is done to the best extent possible, whereas the third, for example, would be used for the sake of using academic sources, not necessarily because it is a quality source. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that all sources need to be "high quality". Establishing that a source is reliable is insufficient at FAC.
Oppose from Gog the Mild
The article needs a "Background" section. At the moment it comes close to being written in-universe, and certainly doesn't explain what [a?] pokemon are/is, how the concept[?] originated and how it was developed. There seems to be an assumption throughout the concept of pokemon is already understood by a reader, to the extent that I do not think that it can be said that it "places the subject in context". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild The very first paragraph of Conception and development details what a pokemon is and the basics of the concept in relation to the game. It's right at the start of the article. This information was also considered adequate for another featured article, MissingNo., to establish to the reader the basic concepts of what a Pokemon is.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I have no concept of what may be missing from the article that may make it confusing. If you could, could you identify how this could be improved? "Developed by Game Freak and published by Nintendo, the Pokémon series began in Japan in 1996 with the release of Pokémon Red and Blue for the Game Boy.[6] In these games, the player assumes the role of a Pokémon Trainer whose goal is to capture and train creatures called Pokémon. Players use the creatures' special abilities to combat other Pokémon, and some can transform into stronger species, or evolve. The ultimate goal is to complete the Pokémon index (Pokédex), a comprehensive Pokémon encyclopedia, by capturing, evolving, and trading to obtain creatures from all Pokémon species." - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking me to know enough about pokemon to be able to point out what information is missing? That doesn't really work. But, just by way of illustration, "Developed by Game Freak and published by Nintendo, the Pokémon series began in Japan in 1996 with the release of Pokémon Red and Blue for the Game Boy" makes no sense to a non-aficionado. I count four things which need explaining in line, and you still won't have an explanatory sentence, because you haven't said what it was. From a passing reference in the lead, would I be correct in assuming that this 1996 publication was as a card trading game? (Whatever that is?) If not, could a reader be told what it was?
My previous encounters with pokemon have involved numerous acquaintances taking a sudden uncharacteristic interest in healthy exercise and exploring new places, then staring at their phones so intently that they walked into street furniture and trees. I know that Raichu feature in this and it seems improbable that it is not a widespread phenomenon/activity/game/thing. So is it mentioned in the article? I don't see it.
Thanks for prompting me to read the article in full, as this has caused me to move from having noticed one deficit to forming an opinion on the whole article. Which unfortunately is that while it has clearly been lovingly put together by editors with a real grasp of the subject, it fails to do what encyclopedia articles are for: explain the topic to the ignorant. Eg and purely as one example "Typically, players must use a Thunder Stone item on a Pikachu to evolve it into Raichu" communicates nothing to anyone who is not familiar with pokemon already. I'm sorry, but I think that fixing this systematic flaw throughout the article is going to take more work than one can reasonably expect at FAC. I recommend that you withdraw the nomination, have a good hard look at my comments and those of the other reviewers here, and also consider GoCER and/or PR before resubmitting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to just withdraw this nomination. I feel there is a serious disconnect between GA and FA quality, but also on how the FAC process is viewing articles like this overall. If this is the overall approach we're taking towards a subject, pushing trivial sources that say little over reliable fleshed out sources that examine a subject, then FA feels less like a quality goal and more to be frank a gatekept rank that very few fictional characters, let alone video game characters, will be able to obtain regardless of notability. Also, while I assume good faith, I feel the above argument is demanding an absurd level of explanation on topics: if a reader cannot grasp the mention of an item in a video game, when it's been established as a video game, you're requiring a level of overdetailing that veers into undue weight. No offense meant, but the sentence you dropped and the sentence provided are very different; someone with no concept of Pokemon is going to understand the basic idea of using an item in a video game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You are correct that it is a big step from GAN to FAC. Many an other editor has been bruised by the jump. In the old days A class reviews filled the gap, but almost no projects continue to offer this. And please assume good faith, all of the editors commenting are experienced at FAC, have their own tales of woe and are willing to go out of their ways to avoid other editors encountering similar; and have multiple records of nurturing new FACers and strange topics through the process. We celebrate when a nominator achieves there first FAC. Re video game characters at FAC, we could certainly do with more. Off the top of my head, the last one I recall personally promoting was Ur-Quan, and that was a couple of years ago. But take heart, by comparison Raichu is mainstream. Gog the Mild (talk)
@Gog the Mild Actually I'm going to bring it up more directly. Right in the second paragraph: "Pikachu evolves into Raichu through use of the game's 'Thunder Stone' item". This sentence establishes to the reader it's an in-game item. It doesn't make sense to re-establish that later. That's why this is frustrating to deal with, because the argument you made ignores the rest. There is an active approach to explain to the reader unfamiliar with the game's what these concepts are.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arriving at this discussion after being solicited by Gog the Mild. I'm here to try to mediate and it shouldn't be taken as me supporting one side or another. I will only share what I learned from bringing fictional topics to the average reader.
First is audience. A Good Article will be reviewed by your peers with similar expertise, but a Featured Article will be reviewed by someone from a completely different field of expertise. I recall my game content reviewed by people whose expertise is in Billiards, or Military History. Their ignorance of your chosen topic is not a flaw, it's actually for everyone's benefit. When I read a military history article, I may criticize them and say "hey, the average person might not know the first thing about the Ottoman Empire and you just jump right in without telling me the basics of who/what/when". Nobody is trying to be frustrating or pedantic. We are all trying to make our article informative for the maximum number of readers.
One of the most useful guidelines is "State the WP:OBVIOUS". You have to take off your "expert" hat and pretend you're almost completely ignorant of the world, and yet, somehow also a savant writer. It helps to start with the complete basics, "X is a 19XX video game where players collect fantastical beasts and position them against each other in battle." You might care about all the rich and interesting details, but the reader won't understand (or care) unless you can slowly get them there.
The first sentence of the body is underrated, and often wasted. Get to the point, and state it clearly. Common errors I see are trying to pack too much information into that first sentence, or assuming someone has thoroughly read and understood the lead. It's useful to understand the game, but even more important to understand the subject of the article. "X is a video game character." That's a good first sentence: it's short, it's clear, and gives readers the most basic context to start to understand the subject. Obviously it will be a bit longer, but not by much. Think about newspaper pyramid style: give people the headline, and then gradually add more detail, with the most specific details at the end of a section.
The average reader is going to ask "why should I care?" Which inevitably means you have to explain that topic's impact on the real world, because you can't assume that they care deeply about the fiction. It actually isn't a high bar, if a fictional element has any amount of reception in reliable secondary sources. It asks editors to really boil the critical reception down to what matters. Did it win awards? Become a mass market phenomenon? Inspire other game developers to make more games? Earn unfavorable comparisons to something else? There is room for other smaller bits of "this journalist liked it, that journalist hated it". But if you turn the reception into a collection of quotes and reactions, then the article will fail to convey anything to the average reader. It's almost always a bad idea to give every reviewer a lot WP:WEIGHT, with multiple sentences, including a pull-quote. The article will lose sight of the forest, and get stuck on each individual tree. There is a lot of power in being concise: "This element was given a negative reception by X,[1] Y,[2], and z.[3]" Even more specific, "Many reviewers compared X to Y unfavorably, including X,[1] Y,[2] and Z.[3]"
Especially for fictional content, treat the reception and development as co-equal elements in the article. An ideal encyclopedia article doesn't get lost in the fictional details. Its impact outside the fiction becomes as important as the fiction itself. Development is also underrated, because that also tie the topic back to important real-world events at the time it was being created. What were its authors trying to achieve with this creation? Did they actually achieve it?
There is no gatekeeping. These are the same expectations of a football player, an ancient empire, a subway system, a renaissance painting, or a social media influencer. These different topics don't need to be equally impactful on the real-world, but they do need to have impact, and you do need to state it clearly and concisely. It's okay to make an article about something that is a niche, or even about something that is mediocre or average! That just becomes its impact: it was received as average, and 20 years later, people remember it as average.
If any of what I said is obvious, I hope my effort can be taken as a reminder, and not as a lecture. I also don't claim to be the authoritative source on FA. There can be more than one way to write a featured article article. (But there are many more wrong ways.) Shooterwalker (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I queried Shooterwalker because their first FAC was on a video game fictional character and I thought they may have helpful input - one way or the other. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may share my perspective, I think there are good points made about making it clearer for non-experts, but I also feel that some of the things identified as being inscrutable to non-experts are easily scruted! For example, unless I misunderstood, the nature of "Game Freak" and "Nintendo" seemed to be identified as potentially inscrutable, but I would contend that there's not much you can elaborate upon without going into excessive detail. Being that Game Freak was identified as having developed Pokémon Red and Blue, and Nintendo was identified as having published it, the reader would naturally infer that one is a developer and the other is a publisher. Now, identifying that Red and Blue are video games would certainly help provide additional context, I'll give you that much, but I don't feel that Game Freak and Nintendo themselves would be confusing to a large majority of readers. I also feel that the issue of video game terminology and concepts is not typically applied like this; for example, in Sonic the Hedgehog 2's article, the genre of the game is identified as a platform game. Now, if I was someone who never played a video game, I would not be able to discern without reading further into the article what it means to be a platform game. Now, that is not to say that Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was approved using low standards, or that there is anything wrong in the article, but to me, the specific criticisms feel surprising. For what it's worth, I did poll a handful of non-game players that I know, and all were able to identify what Nintendo and Game Freak from context clues. Not evidence by any means, just my personal experience.
As far as gatekeeping goes, I can certainly see why Kung Fu Man feels that way. Using Sonic the Hedgehog 2 as an example once again (to clarify, great article), sources identified as perhaps lower-quality (but not inherently low quality) are used, and for more than just reviews. In this review, I saw what I would consider low-quality sources - namely, a trivia book and a book with a verifiable factual error - proposed on the basis that they were academic in nature and published. Now, I absolutely understand the value of academic papers and other published works, and I don't even begrudge the notion that more should be included, but I hope you can understand why someone would look at the comparison - between reliable video game websites that discuss the subject in extreme detail to sources that are either low quality or discuss Raichu to only a trivial degree - would be bewildering. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed a pattern with C-class articles where the reception feels like a collage of quotes from every third-party source we can find. That is a feature of our AFD system: people are fighting hard just to prove that something has WP:SIGCOV. The safest way to pass the AFD bar isn't to focus on the quality of the article. It's to pile on every source they can, in hopes that it passes a threshold of WP:SIGCOV.
After the AFD is over, a lot of editors fail to revisit the article structure and ask "is this actually serving the reader?" (It's not. It's serving the AFD by measuring its WP:SIGCOV in inches, instead of writing something informative.) This structure may even stick around as the article gets to GA status. People can polish the grammar and the citation templates, but the organization never improves.
A featured article should be confident in its own notability. The article won't give every source equal airtime (or any airtime) in order to justify the value of the topic. The article demonstrates its value by stating a few things, clearly. That means some of the supporting sources will be covered briefly, if at all.
Even though the "collage of news clippings" is the wrong approach, I can see the utility. There is a part of me that believes in the importance of preserving what every journalist has said about a topic across all of history. But that's a fundamentally different project than Wikipedia. And readers who want that level of detail can click through the sources in the reference section. For me personally, I found my articles became better when I let go of the need to thoroughly catalog every single source. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that reception needs improving across the board; going back to articles I edited in the past, I found myself deleting almost the entire reception section in some cases because it was either very trivial, or could be easily summed up in a sentence - like Epona, you could just say "Epona was regarded as an iconic horse in video games" and that's it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think as things have gone on, the "grab anything you can" approach to fictional character articles has diminished, and even as we're going through the C-class-improvement drive we're seeing weaker subjects merged. But some subjects just are are not going to get detailed scholarly or published works talking about them. And when the suggestion is made that a source talking examining a subject and its finer points is less important than one barely mentioning a subject in a trivial manner simply because the latter is a paper...well it's hard not to get annoyed. There needs to be consideration of what's being said, and to an extent by who, otherwise FA is essentially unobtainable for the vast majority of character articles on the project.
Explaining things for better understanding is one thing. That is something that can be addressed, and lower quality sources to confirm facts can be replaced to boot. But when someone is arguing against the reception as a whole, and that stuff like a trivia book is somehow superior, it's easy to see why one can get frustrated. Disemboweling the article in turn to work in just those sources not only ends up defeating the point of establishing why the subject was important, but causes it to fail notability. You can see the problem there, yes? There needs to be some consideration.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of telling you what you may already know, when you have an issue like the sources one, agree on what you can; then compromise where you possibly can, and talk convincingly and nicely to the reviewer as to why they should compromise. If you are left with say, one source under debate -if youcan't possibly tweak the article to do without it - the reviewer should explain why they are opposing over this; you then calmly explain why you disagree, and it is possible that the closing FAC coordinator will agree with you. I have promoted articles over outstanding opposes several times. I realise that this is easier to say than to do with an article to which you have committed toil, sweat, tears and possibly blood; I really do - I have not yet punted my monitor through the window over an inane comment from a thick-witted reviewer about one of my nominations, but I have thought about it. But I know that they mean well and more likely than not either they have a point or they don't but it is not something I am going to go to the barricades over. And surprisingly often a rational, ideally policy based, response persuades them. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. If you wish to ping all of the coordinators, use {{@FAC}}. Or, although I am recused, if you make a clear request here for the nomination to be withdrawn I can archive it for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: avoid two adjacent links per WP:SEAOFBLUE: extinct genus, decapod crustaceans, etc
Is there any way we can run this on WP:TFA on April 1st with a picture of Dr. Zoidberg?
Lead
"decapod" is mentioned in the lead and the infobox, but not in the main body.
" Jurassic period of Europe" and "Cretaceous period of Lebanon." of -> in in both places
"frontmost" seems like an odd word to me. Maybe "foremost"? Of course, if "frontmost" is the standard term used for this, by all means keep it.
"potential evidence of gregarious behavior" I'm not sure "potential" is the right word here. The evidence exists, it's just not clear that it indicates gregarious behavior. Is there a better way to phrase this?
Discovery and naming
"Fossils of Pseudastacus have been described prior to the naming of this genus" Best to get a grammar expert to weigh in here, but I think you want "had been described". The naming took place in the past, and the describing of the fossils took place before that.
"Georg zu Münster erected the genus Bolina" Is "erected" the right word here? I would have thought "proposed", but I'll defer if that's the generally accepted way to say it.
"A year later in 1840", I think you can just say, "A year later" and let the reader figure out what the next year after 1939 was.
"Münster described several fossils" Please verify this with a native German speaker, but I think it's supposed to be "zu Münster ...", similar to the way von would be used.
Did most of the fixes proposed, though I left these out:
"Foremost" seems to refer to rank or importance rather than the physical position so I kept it as "frontmost".
I haven't spoken with a German speaker about this yet but in most papers I could find, the man is credited as Münster (without the "zu"). Even his own Wikipedia page refers to him as just Münster when referring to him by surname.
Another thought, MOS:CVT says "in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so". That seems like it would apply here. Leaving out the unit conversions would make the text flow better and won't impact comprehension. RoySmith(talk)19:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the other pages I see about extinct taxa do use those conversions and while I'm not sure if they should now that I've seen that page, I think I'll just leave it for now.
Also about adding Astacidea to the taxobox, that would be a discussion better held at the Astacidea page to decide whether this rank is significant enough that it should always appear on taxoboxes. Olmagon (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ran through this again. Charbonnier & Audo 2020 and Garassino & Schweigert 2006 both mention Infraorder ASTACIDEA. Should that be included in the infobox taxonomy?
Comment - as I mentioned elsewhere, as a first time nomination, I think this should have been taken through PR and GAN before ending up at FAC. While I don't know enough about crustaceans to make the first qualified review, it looks very short for a genus with multiple species, and like it could need sections about paleoenvironment and so on. And the bullet point list sections could be made into prose. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welp I've done my best to expand this article, giving it the Paleoecology section and moved that Species section which was a bullet point list into part of Discovery and Naming. I'll admit it's shorter than the page of a dinosaur named from around that century but fossil crustaceans don't seem to get as much study as dinosaurs (to nobody's surprise). Olmagon (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by 20 upper
The lead is too brief, most FAs have a lead section of 250 to 400 words.
The genus itself has been placed into different families by numerous authors, but is currently believed to be a member of Stenochiridae. No need for the word "itself"
Members of this genus had a crayfish-like build, possessing long antennae and a frontmost pair of appendages enlarged into long and narrow pincers. Deep grooves are present on the carapace, which is around the same length as the abdomen. First you said "had", then "are", so is this in past or present tense?
Coordinator note
This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on I'll make some changes soon, I honestly half forgot I was a wiki editor when I went off for Christmas and just remembered I was doing this FAC. Olmagon (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this nomination is now six weeks old with no indication of any movement towards a consensus to promote, so I am archiving it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Sam Manekshaw, one of the only two people to be promoted to Field Marshal rank in India, and the army commander during the 1971 war who executed what was arguably India's biggest military win ever. I've worked on the suggestions from the last two FARs in 2017 & 2018, and look forward to finally taking this article to FA status. Matarisvan (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Avoid sandwiching text between images/templates
I've disabled the wrap text around image option, will that do? I'm not quite sure because I'm new to this vocab, but I guessed you meant there should be no text wrapped around. And what should I do for the templates?
Got it, apologies for the confusion. I've followed UC's comments below that the convention is to have right wrapped images and not alternate between left & right wrapping. Is this alright?
My bad, I did not understand that you were referring to copyright tags, I assumed you meant original sources. All of these works have the copyright tag, varying from CC 4.0 to CC Attribution Non Commercial. But I may have confused what you mean by tag again, so could you please confirm?
MOS:ICON refers to the inclusion of icons in the article - I'm not sure your current usage is consistent with that. With regards to copyright tags, what we need is to make sure there is tagging to account for all relevant copyrights. For example, File:Field_Marshal_of_the_Indian_Army.svg has a CC tag representing the copyright of the uploader, but the source design is original enough to potentially qualify for copyright protection, so we need a tag for that as well. Compare for example File:Insignia_USA_Army_2nd_Cavalry_Regiment_V2.svg: it has tags for both the design and the version uploaded. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the icons. Most military biography FAs don't seem to use icons even when they are available. The MOS does not mention usage policies for military articles where icons play a big role, but removing them seems to be the best course of action for now. I have retained the flags though, but I'm not sure if this is the right course to take. While scrolling through the list of military biography FAs, I could not find many people who had seen their country's status change. As such, I've followed the example of the articles on Sudirman and Gottlob Berger, where their country's flags have indeed been displayed.
Suggest adding alt text
Done.
Don't use fixed px size
Done.
File:Badge_of_12th_Frontier_Force_Regiment.jpg needs a tag for the original work
Done.
I see you have added a source link, but what is needed here is an additional copyright tag for the work - the existing one is for the photo only. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to be original work. I have uploaded the public domain image from the National Army Museum and replaced the old icon with it.
File:The_Owl_-_The_logo_of_DSSC,_Wellington.png: source link is dead; which of the rationales in the Indian tag is believed to apply?
The source link is not accessible on your device and most devices because its HTTPS certificate has expired. Highly unusual for a government website, but I've added the Archive.org link. Will that be alright?
Great coincidence on this one - it has just entered public domain. It was [published in 1964] and thus is copyright free as Indian law has a copyright period of 60 years.
I'm not quite sure about how the URAA would apply here. The article on the URAA says it doesn't apply to works copyrighted by foreign governments or their institutions, it also doesn't apply to countries the USA has a copyright treaty with. Both conditions are true here. Would you agree? Removed this icon. Matarisvan (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lt._Gen._Manekshaw_as_Eastern_Commander.jpg: the given source does not appear to be the Indian government - why is the given tag believed to apply?
I'm afraid I'm a little way off a support here, at the moment. A few general (sorry) points stick out at the moment:
I am not a fan of the centre-aligned images; they take up a lot of vertical screen space and demand attention that I'm not sure they really deserve. I can't think of another FA biography (admittedly, not having done more than a cursory look for one) that breaks the usual convention of right-aligned images with text wrapping around. What Nikki was talking about earlier with sandwiching was having an image on the left and another on the right at the same point, creating a "sandwich" of text which doesn't fully reach either the left or right margin.
Changed all images to right-aligned. Is this alright?
Similarly, the pullout quotes are journalistic rather than encyclopaedic; there's a case, sometimes, for them, but we generally avoid it in FAs. There needs to be a very clear WP:DUEWEIGHT argument for giving them such disproportionate prominence vis-a-vis the material around them, and I can't really see one at the moment.
Would you have the quote with the call on Pakistani forces to surrender removed as well? The other quotes are not really necessary, I agree, I have removed them.
The argument needs to be made on the basis of encyclopaedic value: it's fairly short, but is it regularly referred to in sources as an important, successful or historically significant text? If so, that should be discussed somewhere in the article. Otherwise, has anyone used it to discuss M's character in a way that it would be helpful for readers to be able to refer to the original? UndercoverClassicistT·C19:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the quote is discussed in the next paragraph. The quote is from a radio broadcast which broke down the morale of the opposing army and made them take the decision to surrender even though their government hadn't permitted one.
Some sections are very short ("War of 1965" caught my eye) and don't seem very comprehensive: M. may have advised against attacking East Pakistan, but we don't find out that India chose to follow that advice, or that they largely did so due to Chinese pressure rather than deference to their general.
India did follow that advice, though there is no official admission of this. There were no attacks on East Pakistan. Chinese pressure would not have had any impact as the conflict was fought in the winter and China did not have the abilities to deploy its troops in winter at that time.
I can not find any other reliable sources, so I will unfortunately be removing this section.
The article could do with a look over for MOS etc: why, for example, is Manekshaw Centre in italics? I've made a couple of copyedits for straightforward typos or mistakes.
Removed italics.
There's quite a lot more MoS material that needs attention: punctuation, contractions, capitalisation (as an example, ranks are only capitalised when they're with someone's name: so Major Singh was a major in the Indian Army. UndercoverClassicistT·C19:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made changes to this effect. By contractions, I believe you mean abbreviations? Went through all such uses and added expansions or short forms, whichever was missing. Not sure where the punctuation is lagging though.
The only such contraction I could find was a 'don't', which was used in a quote. MOS:CONTRACTION says contractions are OK if used in quoted material. Would you agree? If not, I will change this. Matarisvan (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Legacy" section reads to me as a grab-bag of things named after M. -- did he have any impact on the Indian Army at all, as to its organisation, culture, doctrine...? Has there been any scholarly work as to whether he was, bluntly, any good? Compare for instance the way the FA on Sudirman handles the same section.
I have added details on Manekshaw's impact on Doctrines, procurement, counter insurgency, triservice ops. I thought these details were too technical and thus had not put them in here.
I like the concept, but the actual execution needs a bit of work. At the moment, I'm not seeing criterion 1a (prose), 1b (comprehensiveness) or 1c (sources) met here: on those latter two points, the sections still cover ground very lightly, with few specifics, and some of the sources are primary, being internal to the Indian military rather than academic: this is not great, given how good national militaries are at mythologising themselves. UndercoverClassicistT·C19:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the sources, the only one which is minutely military related is the book by Major General Sukhwant Singh. I don't think he mythicizes the army though, if you go through the pages cited he is more critical than appreciative. As to the other sources, all of them are published by researchers. I think you are worried about the citations of the Indian Defence Review and the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. The names suggest they are a part of the military, however they are independent organisations and the citations are taken from the peer reviewed journals published by them. However, I've still added more sources, especially from the Pakistani Defence establishment, which is the institution least likely to flatter the Indian Army. For the prose quality, I don't think it can be improved further without it being objected to for not being encyclopedic. For comprehensiveness, more details will be too technical and the length might get flagged.
Parts of the article -- particularly the section Politically motivated sedition trial -- seem to suffer from a lack of WP:NPOV. The text here overwhelmingly presents the charges as baseless, but cites no source which does so. Details like Lt. Gen. Daulet Singh, known for his integrity point the reader towards a conclusion which is so far implied rather than referred to a source.
Added some sources here. Are more sources needed? I have added accounts of the people directly involved in the inquiry and an external source published by a researcher.
Sources are added, but the POV remains; all we have are allegations and a predictable denial: there's no real discussion of the facts, their impact, the effect of the case... in other words, c1b (comprehensiveness) seems a way off. UndercoverClassicistT·C19:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main allegation is mentioned, that is, retaining the pictures of British officers and the Queen. I should have added the reason for the trial being closed, which I have done.
More line-by-line stuff, to which I might add later on:
Having already commanded troops at the divisional, corps and regional levels: seems fairly trivial; don't Very Senior Officers generally hold more junior posts first? It would be more odd for a FM not to have commanded a division.
This was filler, removed.
Chetwode is mentioned only once, and never introduced.
This mention was a leftover from a bunch of paragraphs on the IMA which were not relevant here. Removed.
Manekshaw proved to be witty during his stay at IMA and went on to achieve a number of firsts: the first graduate to join one of the Gorkha regiments; first to serve as the chief of the Army Staff of India; and first to attain the rank of field marshal: this material seems oddly placed, coming as it does quite substantially before he's done any of that; moreover, I'm not sure how impressive it is for him to be the first IMA graduate to commission into a Gorka regiment when there hadn't been any IMA graduates before he commissioned at all.
This choice of phrasing was incorrect on my part. The Gorkha regiments were the most elite units of the British Indian Army, and still have the same status in the British & Indian armies. King's Commissioned Indian officers had only been assigned to the Gorkha regiments in small numbers. Thus a new graduate, that too not from an academy in England, getting to join the Gorkha regiments was a big deal.
Removed this statement, I would have had to add a lengthy note to explain this and it's not that notable.
The phrase "avoided political correctness" in the post-retirement section reads as a euphemism, and is pretty unhelpful: do we mean that he made a point of being sexist, racist, etc?
Should have been "did not avoid political confrontation". Will change.
I meant to say that he did not hesitate to get into political confrontations if the Army's welfare was at stake. Rephrased as such.
More generally, there seems to be more to say in that section about his controversies: the part about his funeral implies that these were more serious than we've credited. We say that the Indian government denied that anything untoward had happened -- they would, wouldn't they?
Not really. The ruling party when Sam died was famous for ignoring the army. The funeral of KM Cariappa, the only other field marshal ever, was not attended by the civilian establishment, the only representative was a minister of state, not even a full cabinet minister. The ruling party then believed there could be a coup at any point of time and thus they understaffed and underequipped the army. Sam's salary arrears were not even paid for multiple decades till another party came to power. But I cannot put this in, it would be too controversial. What should be done instead?
As always with these things, we need to say what, and only what, has been said in reliable sources: if these things are true, they will certainly have been written about.
I have added a source which identifies the reason to be governmental apathy/distrust.
Hi UC, thanks for looking into this one. I am afk at the moment, I will make the changes you recommend and respond to your points in the evening. Looking forward to working on this one. Matarisvan (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. Most of my concerns remain, unfortunately, which leads me to oppose the nomination in its current state: I think the article really needs to go back to the peer-review drawing board and have some work done before coming to FAC. I would suggest finding a mentor or reviewer who can give the article a really good look for prose quality and MoS compliance, and perhaps someone who knows the subject matter well to advise on comprehensiveness. Suggest that the military history WikiProject would be a good place to start: you might wish to take the article through their A-Class Review process after it has been improved and probably peer reviewed. UndercoverClassicistT·C19:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did have the article go through peer review and many of the concerns you flagged are remnants of what the PR spotted. This article has already been through A class review, so I think any shortcomings can only be addressed through an FA review. I did try to get editors who had done FA, GA or A reviews for this article to join the peer review, but did not receive any response. Which is why I think getting this article to FA level can only happen as part of an FA review.
This process has indeed been of great help. The concerns raised here were ones I would never have thought of due to my bias. That said, I have implemented your recommendations, perhaps a little too extremely. Which is why I believe you should take another look. Matarisvan (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've kept an eye on the article throughout: I can see that you've made improvements, and think the article is going in the right direction. With proper support and continued progress, there's no reason why it can't make an FA. However, this process is about establishing whether it currently does meet the FA criteria, not to work on it until that point: I hope it's clear enough from the above, and indeed from the reviews below, why I don't think it's there yet. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias
At the moment, I feel I have to oppose this nomination, based on some broad stroke MOS points:
The In popular culture section is unnecessary in its current form; it is not written in an encyclopaedic form "Sam was portrayed", "He's mentioned" and comes across as trivia.
The MOS you linked to suggests an "In popular culture" section only be added if the citations are subject matter authorities. Which is why I've switched up the references as per the MOS guidelines and rewritten the section.
I think only the 2nd Lieutenant rank is not referenced in the table, though a citation is provided in the "Indian Military Academy" subsection of "Early life". However, the rest of the ranks do have full citations to either the authoritative biography or to the government release which notifies the change in rank. As for the table's accessibility, I'm not quite sure what part you are referring to. There are no colors used, the caption is appropriate and the table is not overly complex. Matarisvan (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the badges in the first column for each rank? I have added the alt text for them. Everything else seems to be fine: there are no column headers in the middle of the table, colors aren't used, headers seem alright, there are no nested tables, the table isn't complex. I had forgotten to put in a caption but I have added one now. Matarisvan (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Airship
Here because of a request on my talk. A quick skim of the first section's prose alone shows numerous issues that need to be fixed. See for example:
Excess repetition of words ("Amritsar" is mentioned six times in the opening eight body sentences)
Inconsistent referrals (the jumping from "Sam" to "Manekshaw" is presumably intended to help differentiate the males of the family, but in fact does the opposite)
Choppy and recursive sentences (the second paragraph has an average sentence length of 12 words, portions such as "Manekshaw then asked his father to send him to London to study medicine, but his father refused as Sam was not old enough. His father was already supporting Sam's elder brothers, both of whom were studying engineering in London." could easily be combined.
A lack of clarity ("Manekshaw's parents had left Mumbai in 1903 for Lahore. Hormizd had friends there and was going to start practising medicine." where is "there"? Lahore or Mumbai?)
Odd layout (his sibling's careers are discussed before we have reached his childhood, which includes a digression into their education)
A general unencyclopedic tone. I know that's not very helpful, but phrases such as "Manekshaw proved to be witty during his stay", "was mischievous and high-spirited as a boy", "a thriving clinic and pharmacy" etc. seem more suited to a work of popular history than an encyclopedia article.
Oppose Sorry, I have to join in with the opposes here. The article has just too many problems that need sorting - and doing it away from FAC would be best. Can I suggest you withdraw, work on it and then take it to PR and list it on Template:FAC peer review sidebar. - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buffy the Vampire Slayer may have found critical and popular acclaim, but the same cannot be said about this video game adaptation, which received generally negative reviews and has largely been forgotten. It is a fairly standard action platformer in which players navigate platforms while solving simple puzzles and fighting enemies. For the story, Buffy Summers must once again stop a big bad from ending the world, but this time the main villain is a demonic warlord. Although the game itself is fairly generic stuff, I still really enjoyed the process of researching, writing, and revising the article.
I originally worked on this article in 2019, when it received a very helpful GAN review from @Colin M:, and as evidenced from the talk page, I have had many, many false starts on doing further work on the article. Thank you to @FrB.TG:, @MaranoFan:, and @PanagiotisZois: for their help in the latest peer review. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had use a citation similar to one from Paper Mario: The Origami King. I believe they put the items in bold as they appear that way in the credits, but I can see how it would be unnecessarily distracting so I had removed them. Thank you for pointing it out as I use Wikipedia in dark mode so it is not something I notice. Aoba47 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" is a 2003 action platformer" will I suspect mean little to many readers. Possibly state that it is a video game before specifying the sub-genre? Similarly in the main article.
Sadly Wikipedia doesn't do precedent, and is not a reliable source. The MoS "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." IMO the current one doesn't do this. (And "action platformer" does not IMO meet MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")
For starters, I am not using Wikipedia as a source. What you are saying would mean that every single Wikipedia article about video games would have to define the genre in the first sentence. That would not only ruin the prose, but it has not been done in any of the video game FAs, see Oxenfree, Paper Mario: The Origami King, and Panzer Dragoon Saga for examples. In the first sentence, readers can understand that "action platformer" is a type of video game; if they want to know more and cannot access the link, they can go down to the "Gameplay" section to get further clarification on it. This is an unnecessarily strict application of MOS:NOFORCELINK. I doubt that any FA would meet this type of criteria. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't care for MOS:NOFORCELINK, consider MOS:LEADSENTENCE, which is also part of the MoS and so policy. It starts "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." and continues "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." Readers will not necessarily "understand that "action platformer" is a type of video game"; I didn't. And I don't see how prose is ruined by something like 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King is a 2003 video game developed by the Japanese company Natsume and published by THQ for the Game Boy Advance. It is a action platformer and was the third of six video games based on the television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer.'
For starters, I never said that I "don't care for" MOS:NOFORCELINK. I even said in this same review that I do understand and appreciate how it can be helpful. I am disagreeing on the application of the policy. That doesn't mean that I "don't care for" for it as a whole. I want to be 100% clear on that. It is normal for Wikipedia editors to disagree and have discussions, but please do not imply I said something I did not say.
Aside from that, I was under the impression you wanted the genre "action platformer" to be explicitly defined and explained in the prose of the first sentence. That is what I was referencing in how the prose would be negatively affected. I did not read your initial suggestion as meaning to move "action platormer" to a different sentence entirely. I believe the first sentence does identify the subject as a game, which is something that I added during this review to make it clearer in the prose.
Just as an additional update, I went ahead and added "video game" to the lead. It is done in the current featured article of the day, Homeworld, and should make it immediately clear to readers that this is a video game even if they are not familiar with the specific genre at play here. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Natsume Co., Ltd. and published by THQ". Why "Ltd" after Natsume, but no "Inc" after THQ?
That would be a better question for @Emiya Mulzomdao: as they added this part to the article. I had a conversation with them on my talk page about it. I had originally used Natsume as that is used in the game and coverage, but Emiya Mulzomdao recommended Natsume Co., Ltd. to avoid any potential confusion between Natsume Atari and Natsume Inc.. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same, but I thought it might be best to see what other editors thought of the change as I did not want to force my own opinion on the article. I could revert it back if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild I can confirm this was suggested by me. The problem is that when the game was released in 2003, there were two companies known as "Natsume": the Japanese company Natsume Co., Ltd. (currently Natsume Atari) and the American company Natsume Inc. Both of these companies are notable and it's a common mistake to attribute one's works to the other, even within Wikipedia. I spoke to Aoba47 over talk page and suggested an alternative to re-format the links as [[Natsume Co., Ltd.|Natsume]], which is what the article currently uses. As an extra measure, I'd also suggest rephrasing a few sentences to "the Japanese developer Natsume", which would let readers know which one the article is referring to. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clever. Yes, inserting 'the Japanese developer/company' would do the trick.
Revised. It does create a redundancy in the first line though with "developed"/"developer" being used in the same sentence so that is less than ideal. Aoba47 (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The player controls Buffy through 16 side-scrolling levels". Could this be unpacked a little for a more general audience?
I am honestly not sure how to unpack it further without making the prose awkward. I am guess the side-scrolling part in particular needs to be unpacked the most. Do you have any ideas or suggestions on how to do so? Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading, I think the sentence is trying to do a little too much. Maybe 'The player controls the Buffy character as it progresses through 16 levels, using side-scrolling screens'?
The suggestion is not correct and in my opinion, it would only introduce further confusion. There is only one screen being used in the game. The suggestion would imply that player is controlling Buffy across multiple screens or multiple Game Boy Advance machines. It may be best to remove "side-scrolling" altogether at this point. Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed "side-scrolling" from the lead, and I have added a brief descriptive phrase with appropriate citations to support, but to be honest, I think it is unnecessary. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Limited to four bosses in the game". MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Similarly in the main article.
I am honestly not sure how to make this part clearer as I would think that the concept of a video game boss would be pretty well-understood, but I would be more than happy to hear any suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I read it I honestly had no clue what a boss meant. Before clicking on the link my best guess was a specialist meaning derived from Shield boss or Boss (architecture). 'There are just four computer-controlled opponents (bosses) in the game, Natsume ...'?
The suggestion would not work because bosses are not the only computer-controlled opponents in the game. I have removed this bit from the lead and added a short part to the first mention in the article, although I admittedly do not think it is the greatest. I do understand and appreciate MOS:NOFORCELINK, but it is not always possible to spell out everything in the prose. Wikipedia is a primarily online platform so I do not see the issue with using links. Different readers will come to different subjects with varying levels of expertise. For instance, I just find it rather odd that you would jump to far more niche meanings (i.e. Shield boss or Boss (architecture)) for a word that is not even presented in that context and not even to the broader supervisor meaning. I would never anticipate that kind of reading. I just find that this kind of stricter adherence to MOS:NOFORCELINK can get into a space that is more frustrating and less beneficial to the site and its readers. Aoba47 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Natsume chose these enemies based on". Chose which enemies?
I have revised this part, and only kept one instance of "Buffy" when it is discussing the character's move-set. I still do not see how it would be jarring though as the prose had already set up that the player controls Buffy in the game. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"changes some level entrances". Could this be elaborated a little?
Not really. This is the sentence from the lead that is being used to support this part: (The hard mode switches around a few cave entrances and changes most of the puzzle solutions, but it can be completed in an afternoon.) All it is saying that on a certain mode, players enter the level in different areas. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"on a certain mode, players enter the level in different areas" is a really good explanation. I now know what you mean. Any chance of using it in the article?
"A proper noun is a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity (Africa; Jupiter; Sarah; Tesla, Inc.) as distinguished from a common noun, which is a noun that refers to a class of entities". So you could, perhaps, have a Gentleman, but it is thegentlemen.
I am aware of what a proper noun is. These characters are referenced as "the Gentlemen" on the show. In the game, the player goes up against multiple of them so "a Gentleman" would not even make sense in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two images in Gameplay seem unduly small.
I have made them slightly bigger and used the screenshot sizes from video game FAs to see how they do it. It may take a second for it to show in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just to add a quick point, the screenshots are never going to be large as they are an example of non-free media so it would have to be limited by that. Aoba47 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Enemies can be thrown ... through benches". As in Bench (furniture)?
Ok. It was clear, I was just surprised - it benches seem a bit arbitrary - and wanted to check.
"In the levels, Buffy can find and use 16 types of weapons". Are the first three words necessary?
Not really. I was likely being overly cautious. It is not like a reader would think that players could do this while looking at the settings. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"including a stake ... Vampires are primarily killed with stakes". Singular or plural stakes?
They are used in two separate contexts. I used the singular in the first instance for consistency. One of the weapons, (a mystical gauntlet), is unique so I wanted to avoid having a list being predominantly plural and then switching to the singular at the end. The second instance is plural because multiple enemies are being referenced. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Buffy "can find and use" more than one stake, dagger, crossbow etc then they need to be plural in the list. I can see why you would like to be consistent, but it is at the expense of accuracy.
Again, this just seems unnecessary, but I have revised it. I doubt a reader would have walked away from that sentence thinking that was only one of each item in the game. Aoba47 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"they can be upgraded, such as combining a torch and a dagger to make a flaming dagger." I am not sure this is the best exemplifier of an upgrade.
"It was the third of six Buffy the Vampire Slayer video games". It would seem relevant say something about the other five games, or at least the two preceding this one.
I disagree. All these games have the same source material. THQ published both this game and the first Buffy game, which is already noted in the article. Aside from that, there is nothing else to note in this article. Each game stands on its own. This particular game does not share anything story-wise or gameplay-wise, aside from the two things already discussed in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a Slayer destined to fight vampires". Why the upper-case S? "after her Watcher Rupert Giles". And W.
"Buffy encounters the Gentlemen and their minions and later kills them." The Gentlemen, the minions or both?
If it’s both, then I’d suggest "..encounters and kills the Gentlemen.." If one or the other, then "kills the former/latter". FrB.TG (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have used FrB.TG's suggestion. Buffy does kill both the Gentlemen and the minions. I had used the original wording to avoid the impression that she first sees them and kills them in the same level. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"excavating for the Scepter of Thelios and using it for a ritual along with the talisman." I am unsure how the demons can be both excavating for the Scepter and using it.
Thank you for the review, and apologies for any potential edit conflicts. I will get to your comments later today if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"was published after Buffy the Vampire Slayer ended". Can we make it clear that we are talking about the television series. And "ended". Maybe 'after the series finale of BtVS had aired'?
That is understandable. It doesn't help that two Buffy games have just used the title without a subtitle or anything to distinguish it from the show. I linked the series finale episode though since it has an article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Because of rules placed on developing GBA games". By whom, and why?
The source does not go into further specifics. I tried to find further information on this topic, but unfortunately, I could not find anything. A lot of search ended up with people talking about rules for emulating GBA games. I am guessing these rules were put in place by Nintendo who developed and manufactured the Game Boy Advice. That's the vibe I get from the interview because it sounds like a blanket rule for all GBA game developers. Unfortunately, without a source that more explicitly says that, I cannot further elaborate on this part. As for the why, it may be a case where Nintendo (or whomever put these rules in place) thought that more boss enemies would push the console beyond its limitations, but that is also more speculation on my part. Apologies for not finding more as I would like to know more information myself, but it is also not the easiest thing to look up either. It could be a case where it was just a set of policies that was kept insular between Nintendo and whatever company was allowed to develop for the GBA, and that is why a clearer explanation for this rules are not provided. Aoba47 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a real shame, but I guess it can't be helped. Thanks for the diligent research.
"GameSpot published a preview of Wrath of the Darkhul King on June 4, 2003. The game was released on June 24, 2003". No need to repeat the year in the same paragraph.
"Some of them viewed it as adequate". Graphics is plural, which gives 'Some of them viewed them as adequate', which gives "them" twice in three words. Over to you. :-)
It now reads fine, but you have changed the meaning. You sure it still accurately reflects the sources? Ie, that none of them consider the graphics less than adequate?
I have modified the sentence further, but I did not change the meaning with my original edit. All I did was combine two sentences. Aoba47 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a NES game". Abbreviations in full at first mention.
@Gog the Mild: Thank you for your help. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if I have either missed something or if something in the article could be improved further. Apologies if I came across as rude in my comments. I appreciate your comments as an outsider as it does help to make the article better for everyone. I hope you are having a good 2024 so far. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM
Great to see a Buffy FA candidate, even if this doesn't look like the game has received much attention in the Buffyology world! I made a few small fixes which I encourage you to check. My only other question: Is the Herald Sun a decent source? Our article calls it a tabloid, but I don't know. The article looks comprehensive (my efforts to find decent sources not drawn upon have failed...) and it's generally well-written. I'm normally not thrilled about multiple screenshots, but it looks OK in this case. (On my screen, the two screenshots bump into the infobox a little, but it's not the worst thing in the world.) So, once I'm clear about the Herald Sun, I'm happy to support. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the edits. Maybe one of these days, I will nominate a more impactful Buffy-related article for a FAC, but I wanted to start with something small. I can understand your concern about the Herald Sun source and its usage in a potential FA. I thought it would be appropriate for an entertainment-based topic, but after I did a brief search through the WP:RSN, I found mixed (and to be honest mostly negative) responses to it so I decided to remove it altogether. It is always best to err on the side of caution, and I do understand why a tabloid is not a high-quality source. I would be okay about removing one of the screenshots if necessary. My rationale for including a screenshot of the cutscene was that it was mentioned in some reviews, but it is so far removed from that section that I think the intended effect may be lost. I understand the importance of keeping non-free media usage to a minimum. I hope you are having a good weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is a worthy candidate for FA, and I'm happy to be the first supporter, assuming no issues I've overlooked are identified. While I encourage other reviewers to reflect upon the use of two screenshots, I do think that there is a case for it here. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saddened to hear you have retired. The article has come a long way, and I would be happy to take things over and address future concerns if you would like.--NØ19:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to take things over from me, you are more than welcome to do so. You are a great editor, and you will probably do a better job anyway. If you need access to the NGC Magazine source, feel free to let me know. Best of luck with the FAC. I just know this is the right time for me to stop to be honest. Aoba47 (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. First of all, sorry to hear of Aoba's retirement and hope that it doesn't turn out to be permanent -- of course we all have to do what feels right for us. Secondly, we have occasionally had people take over FACs when the nominator has been indisposed but it's generally when the nom is on the home stretch, and that's not really the case here. So I'll archive this and if Marano or others want to work on it outside the FAC process and nominate it in future, so be it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Education is a broad phenomenon that applies to all age groups and covers formal as well as non-formal and informal education. Thanks to the spread of public education in the last few centuries, formal education has become a major part of almost everyone's childhood experience. Education is one key factor both on a personal and societal level in the contemporary world. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prose comments by Anarchyte
Lead
Very impressive. This review will just be on the prose itself, with little comment on its coverage. Might take a few days to finish.
I'm unconvinced that this current ordering of the lead is the best way to introduce the topic. I think starting the article with the explanation of lived education (i.e., formal, non-formal, etc — what we've all experienced) is stronger than immediately noting differences in perspective. That aspect can then be used to introduce the conceptual side of education, with respect to socialising, etc. I've drafted a mockup change here.
That's an interesting idea. The original order is based on a logical exposition: it first describes the general concept, then how it can be subdivided into types, and then other considerations. I think both approaches work but you are probably right that putting the discussion of its types at beginning makes the article more digestable to the average reader so I implemented it. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Beginning in the 18th and 19th centuries, public education became more important." — did it become more important or was it a societal shift in the perception of education's importance?
Both but primarily the first. The public education we have today is historically speaking a rather recent phenomenon. For most of human history since the ancient period, a proper formal education was not available to the average people and was primarily accessible to elites. The history section has more on this. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitions
"the bodily level" — unclear.
In doing some research on this point, I discovered that these explanations are used inconsistently in the sources: According to Vico 1999, educere refers to the mind and educare refers to the body but according to the Century Dictionary, educere refers to the body and educare refers to the mind. This point is not essential so I removed the reference to body and mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This problem can be avoided by offering less precise definitions based on family resemblance." — add "instead" before "based" or the sentence could be interpreted as "definitions based on family resemblance" being the thing lessened to avoid the problem.
"This means that all the forms of education are similar to each other. But they need not share a set of essential features that all of them have in common" — merge sentences.
"But they are criticized because there are counterexamples." — could be reworded. Perhaps: "Less common types of education occasionally fall outside these parameters, which leads to the criticism of such precise approaches".
"They state that it is part of the nature of education that it is beneficial to the student or leads to some kind of improvement" — consider simplifying: "They state it is part of the nature of education to be beneficial to the student or lead to some kind of improvement".
"One reason for this view is that some forms of indoctrination may be necessary in the early stages of education while the child's mind is not yet sufficiently developed" — strong statement that might need an example or two.
The opening paragraph of this section is unclear. I understand it's supposed to lead into the subsections, but at the moment it's a few non-sequiturs.
I tried to reformulate it to have a better text flow. In theory, this paragraph could be removed. Its main purpose is to provide a very concise overview to give the reader some orientation for the following subsections. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Formal, non-formal, and informal
"extending all the way from primary school to university" — remove "all the way".
"Informal education is present in many settings. It happens throughout one's life, mostly in a spontaneous way." — I understand what this is trying to say, but I don't think it's as clear as it could be.
"This is how children learn their mother tongue from their parents or how people learn to prepare a dish by cooking together." — consider something like "Examples include the parental teaching of one's first language and the collaborative preparation of food". Not convinced by my food-related rephrasing, so any improvements are welcome.
"Formal education plays a central role in modern civilization. But in primitive cultures, most of the education happened on the informal level" — change to "Formal education plays a central role in modern civilization, though in primitive cultures, most of the education happened on the informal level".
"This was one of the reasons why in the course of history, formal education became more and more important" — if supported by sources, change to something like "This was one of the reasons why in the course of history, formal education became the most important type".
"In this process, the experience of education became more abstract and removed from daily life." — surely it became less abstract, with schools and universities becoming defined locations of learning?
I made a slight reformulation to emphasize that this is about the contents that are being learned. For example, a child learning to hunt first-hand by joining the other hunters in their tribe is more concrete than a child sitting in school and learning about the Pythagorean theorem.
"grasping general patterns" — change to "grasping general concepts".
What is the difference between secondary and upper secondary? It currently notes secondary is from the ages of 12-18, but that doesn't leave any room for further high school education as it typically ends at the age of 18. Is upper secondary from the ages of 15-18, for instance (i.e., year 10-12, while secondary is yr 7-9)? Probably worth merging and explaining these differences in more depth.
Yes, upper secondary education starts roughly at 15 though there are country-specific differences. I added this fact to the paragraph on upper secondary education. The previous paragraph gives a short explanation of the difference between lower and upper secondary education. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"in the form of a doctor's degree" — could link to Doctor of Philosophy. Likely worth to use the phrase "PhD" somewhere, as that is what people are familiar with.
In the paragraph that starts with "Forms of education can also be categorized by the subject and the medium used", it may be useful to note that some universities offer degrees or courses in an online format, and that this is not an example of open education.
"A more detailed classification focuses on the social institution responsible for education. It includes categories for institutions like family, school, civil society, state, and church" — shorten to "A more detailed classification focuses on the social institution responsible for education, like family, school, civil society, state, and church".
"may cause many jobs to be lost in the coming decades" — give a timeframe instead of "coming decades".
We could use the sentence This applies also to changing circumstances in the economic sector, where technological advances and increased automation may cause 47% of jobs in developed nations to be lost in the next two decades. However, there are different studies with different numbers. It can be assumed that these numbers will change soon again thanks to ChatGPT and co. So instead of picking one specific number, it may be better to remain vague. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fond of using vague timeframes when the year the article refers to is unclear. Potentially, something like "over the two decades following the 2020s" or "by mid-century" would remove this ambiguity, but I'm not convinced by those proposed wordings either. Anarchyte (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I found a way to avoid this problem: the main point in this context is that the workforce needs change and education helps people adjust. So maybe we can get by without mentioning a time-frame at all. If that doesn't work, we can also use your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would adjust these sentences: "This way, education serves not just the purpose of reproducing society as it is but can also be an instrument of development by realizing social transformation to improve society. That applies also to changing circumstances in the economic sector, for example, because of changes in the workforce needs due to technological advances and increased automation". Consider something like (bold indicates changes) "This way, education serves not just the purpose of maintaining the societal status quo, but can also be an instrument of social development. That applies also to changing circumstances in the economic sector. For example, technological advances, particularly increased automation, are encouraging changes in the workforce. Education must adapt in order for society to progress." Anarchyte (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This can be achieved by encouraging some competition among students while ensuring a balance of positive and negative feedback in the form of praise and criticism" — needs to be noted that this is an example.
"A central topic in education studies concerns questions like why people should" — can this be "A central topic in education studies concerns the question of how people should"?
This section appears to duplicate a lot of what is present in the "Role in society" section. It is unclear how these ideologies connect to education studies.
Thanks for pointing this out. I tried to reduce the overlap and better explain the role of educational ideologies. This is probably an oversimplification of the issue, but as I see it, the section "Role in society" describes what education actually does while the section "Aims and ideologies" describes theoretical constructs by education theorists about what education is supposed to do or how it can be conceptualized. For example, the question of whether education should foster creativity is different from the question of whether currently established educational practices actually foster creativity. Different scholars disagree so there are different viewpoints. These viewpoints can be used to evaluate existing practices. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Learning theories and teaching
Consider renaming the section to "Learning theories and teaching methods".
"The introduction of formal education also brought with it a new educational methodology focused discipline and drills." — not sure what this is saying.
Much like SusunW below, I am content that the issues I raised have been resolved but I would like to see the article progress further before expressing an opinion. I still believe the prose is weak in places and potentially not at an FA level yet. Anarchyte (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anarchyte, I will be looking to close this soon and was wondering if your closing comments immediately above still stood, and/or you had any other thoughts on the article and its promotability? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the ping. My comments above have been answered; as far as they're concerned, I'm happy. However, in terms of the overall prose and promotability, I am opposed. It's a very good article, but I'm not convinced it meets FACR#1a. The prose is still quite jumpy and would need a comprehensive copyedit outside the FA process for me to be satisfied. Anarchyte (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying your position. I've tried to implement all your concrete comments on the prose as best as I could and I'm glad to learn that you are happy with the results. I'm a little surprised to hear that the article is still far from reaching the prose requirements. Several reviewers have commented positively on the prose, for example, that "This article is very well written", "It's extremely well-written", and "what’s here is well written". I'm not sure what to make of this discrepancy in judgment. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SusunW
Lede
Link to formal education is a link to the article itself. Perhaps a better link would be Educational institution (although that article is horrid), or simply School.
I see that the previous reviewer commented on the order of the lede, and I shan't be an exception. It seems to me that the logical order is define the topic, give the history/background, explain relevant factors. The history section appears tacked on at the end, but to me, it flows better if it follows the opening sentence. I would make "There are many types of education" begin a new paragraph, followed by a paragraph that starts from "The main field investigating" and I would combine "Many factors influence" into this last paragraph.
That would also be a valid approach to structuring the lead. As I see it, for this type of article, there are usually 2 good place for the history: the beginning or the end. Which place to choose depends then on how much weight reliable sources give to the history in comparison to other topics. My impression is that things like the concept and types of education receive more weight but I don't feel particularly strong about this. I'll loop in @Anarchyte: to get their opinion before I make any changes. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, putting the history component in the first paragraph would be confusing for readers. I think people are more likely to expect the article on education to start with an explanation of education, not the history behind it. Similarly, opening history of education and being greeted by a distinction between formal and informal education would be confusing. I could see it being inserted before the "The precise definition of education" paragraph, but they would both need a minor rewrite to make this make sense. Anarchyte (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it somewhat repetitive for the string of "of education" terms. Perhaps truncate the links to "philosophy, psychology, sociology, and economics of education". Followed by "It also encompasses comparative education and the history of education".
Why no mention of Pedagogy? Surely it is a huge component in educational studies? Perhaps after "history of education" and pedagogy, the theory and practices of teaching. SusunW (talk)
Good point. It's discussed later in the subsection "Subfields" but it also merits a mention here. I included it with comparative education and history of education. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitions
"One approach is to view", would it be simpler as "One approach views"?
"Another outlook understands education not as a process but as the product resulting from this process" is confusing to me. Are you meaning Another outlook is that education is not the process, but rather the result of teaching and learning?
Yes, that is correct. I tried to reformulate this and the following sentence to clarify this point. The basic idea is that education belongs to a different ontological category: it is not the process of teaching and learning but the (momentary) state characteristic of educated people. Please let me know if the formulation is still unclear. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "educational phenomena"? My thought was you meant the role and purpose of education in development, but I am unclear of your actual intent. I'm also unsure about using "correctly identify" what does correctly add? (My point is that as there are different theories about the role and purpose of education, there cannot be a single "correct" answer.)
As I see it, when understood in a wide sense, anything related to education is an educational phenomenon. This can include teaching practicies, educational policies, factors of educational success, different aspects of teachers, students, and schools etc. Since giving a comprehensive list would be long and challenging, I opted for this term instead. You are right about the "correctly", I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Related to the last point, "It also matters when trying to measure or improve them" is vague. What are it and them? If it is indeed the role and purpose of education, I think it might flow better by saying "Having a clear idea of what the term education means is important to identify, measure, or improve the role and purpose of education in development".
I have had conversations with other editors about the inclusion of bulleted lists and tables in FA and as I recall, the consensus is to convert them to running prose; besides which, the bullets are fairly close paraphrasing to Marshall's bullets on p 34. Perhaps: "three essential features of education, which include imparting knowledge and understanding, of value to the student, in a "morally appropriate" manner".
I agree with you about the bullet points. With precise definitions, it is often a challenge to navigate the narrow path between close paraphrase and original research. I implemented a slight reformulations of your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This problem can be avoided by offering less precise definitions" - I am not sure that a differing viewpoint is "a problem". Perhaps just "Offering less precise definitions based on family resemblance includes all forms of education with similarities, but which are not required to share a set of essential features in common."
The problem was meant to refer to counterexamples but I just saw that this expression was removed in a recent edit. I reformulated it to keep this point in the current version. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"According to one view", whose? Why does their opinion matter? Perhaps "Writers Keira Sewell and Stephen Newman acknowledge that the term "education" is context-dependent, as its meaning varies depending on the situation in which it is used".
What are "regular speakers"? People who speak regularly? Can a concept discuss? I think from looking at the sources you mean "Descriptive concepts refer to how the term is commonly used by the general public"?
I think I would replace aims with goals, as it is a more commonly understood term.
It probably does not matter much but "aims of education" is often used as a technical term frequently used in the sources so there is an advantage to keeping this expression. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link Epistemology to epistemic; since epistemology is the study of knowledge and its scope, perhaps "epistemic goals of knowledge..."
"independent of whether they", the clause follows the last noun student, but I don't think you mean to imply that the students are rational, but rather that the beliefs are. Replace they with the beliefs are or the ideology is.
Unlink "rational" as it is linked earlier. I think it would be more concise to say "They state that mere indoctrination is only interested in instilling beliefs in the student, independent of whether they are rational;[23] whereas, education requires critical analysis (or reflection?) and questioning of beliefs.
Again, definitions can't see. Perhaps "Teacher-centered definitions focus on the perspective and role of the teacher in the transmission of knowledge and skills in a morally appropriate way".
They and it are not clear. Perhaps "Student-centered definitions analyze education from the student's involvement in the learning process of transforming and enriching their subsequent experiences.
"They often form a hierarchical structure" Probably me but you are referring to tertiary education as an it. When I hit they, it caused pause and I had to reread it to ascertain that you meant "these levels".
Perhaps this "State education, also sometimes referred to as public education, is typically funded and controlled by the government and available to the general public" is less choppy than those 3 separate sentences. But, I would note that public schools in the UK and Commonwealth countries are not the same as state education, but rather private schooling, so I flipped your original order. I think you should probably have a note that addresses that a public school has different meanings in different jurisdictions. (I was quite surprised when living in the Caribbean to discover that public schools were fee-based parochial schools, whereas government schools were free schools operated by the government.)
The paragraph that begins "Education can prepare" has a lot of "this". Suggest you reword it to eliminate repetition which may distract readers (like me) who lose the content because their focus shifts to finding that word.
"Exact requirements for teachers and how they are trained" does this mean "qualifications required of teachers"? I am confused by "how they are trained" - what does how they acquired their qualifications have to do with anything? (Again, speaking from experience in the Caribbean, some primary and secondary teachers there have a university education and some do not. They complete an examination process to determine if they meet the qualification requirements. How they got the skills needed is irrelevant).
The idea was that there are standards for teacher hiring and for teacher training. But I'm not sure that the 2nd point is very important so I reformulated it to focus on the 1st point. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A curriculum is" seems very complicated. Perhaps "a plan of instruction or a program of learning that guides students to achieve their educational goals".
"promotes the exchange of colleges and universities", I think you do not mean that the institutions hop about the globe, but rather that it encourages member colleges and universities to exchange knowledge?
Yes, either of those would work. Visiting scholar programs are in my experience widely known, as are Research fellowships. There are many that could be named, i.e. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Erasmus Mundus Programme, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, etc. SusunW (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I have to go for today, but will return) Please do not let my detailed comments detract from your work on this article. I think it is very, very important and appreciate your willingness to tackle the subject, which certainly isn't easy to do. You do not have to agree with anything that I wrote, reviews are a collaboration to improve an article, IMO. Anything is up for discussion and I encourage you to disagree heartily if you feel inclined. SusunW (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stop with a line by line analysis of the prose, I'm happy to continue if you want that, but feel some basic observations may be helpful.
Sociological
I think it needs to be clearer that the issue with poverty is that families cannot meet basic nutritional needs, causing poor development, which in turn leads to health instability and absenteeism,[9],[10],[11] not to mention that drop out rates are linked to school performance and the need to provide income to the family.
I mentioned both nutrition and dropouts. I just fear that we trying to pack too much into this paragraph. But it is often an issue with this kind of article on very wide topics that it is very difficult where to draw the line. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a discussion in this section or in history that discusses discrimination, segregation, etc. on the basis of poverty, ethnic or racist policies, gender, etc., which I would expect to be covered in a general article on education. Things like segregated Black schools in the US and South Africa; separation policies that saw Aboriginal Australians, Native Americans and [Canadian Indian residential school system|First Nations]] Canadians removed from their families for assimilationist boarding school education; discrimination against the non-dominant populations in general - China, Japan, Latin America (Ethnic school segregation in Latin America averages 92% in the nine countries with Indigenous students, p. 22) and Education of women and girls. (In general I try to avoid male/female as they refer to any animal species and particularly female can be perceived as a derogatory word). Formal education of women wasn't "severely hampered" it was mostly barred because women were denied public roles in society, and certainly at the tertiary level. (Granted there were exceptions, but few opportunities existed before the late 19th, early 20th centuries anywhere) Obviously in an overview you don't want to get too detailed, but [12],[13],[14], [15],[16],[17]
That's a good idea. I used the Jim Crow laws and the Taliban as examples. But if you feel that some of the examples you mentioned are better then we can also use them instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling with this a bit, as I don't want to use stereotypical examples, but perhaps some of that is unavoidable in such a broad article. What we don't want is for the reader to assume that these types of discrimination were few and far between. They were widespread and that needs to be acknowledged somehow. SusunW (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I slightly reformulated the passage to not imply that this was rare. The beginning of the paragraph makes the point about it being widespread. We could try to provide a longer list of cases but the danger here is that it is very easy to miss something. And I'm not sure that this short overview section is the right place for this. Regarding the examples, it's usually a good idea to select representative and well-known cases where it is easy to identify the main point. For example, since we are talking about official policies, it should be clear in the example that the discrimination was not just established practice but officially sanctioned. The current examples fulfill these requirements. Would you prefer to replace one of those two with one of your examples? Phlsph7 (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understand your point and it's hard in this section because we are talking about negative policies, but my take is a little different. By using stereotypical examples that everyone knows, it reinforces the stereotype that it was only in a few known places. Were it me, and it isn't, I would try to use global examples every time an example is used throughout the article and avoid using US/EU examples whenever possible to broaden the scope of the article. If you must use a stereotypical example or one from the US/EU, then try to balance it with another lesser known one, or one from the global south, although sourcing might become an issue then. I note that Mujinga said something similar about the lack of material on the global south. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about using little-known examples but I agree that having diverse examples is a good idea, including regional diversity. I already made some attempts to include more regional diversity. I'll have another look to see if I can find more opportunities to address this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I followed your suggestion and removed the US example. I replaced it with the case of China you mentioned. I also managed to include several examples related to the Global South. In principle, more could be added, but I'm hesitant since the examples are meant to illustrate and focusing too much on them could distract from the main points. If you have more concrete suggestions, I could see if there is a way to include them. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I am impressed that you have tried to tackle this very complex and very broad topic. I'm not sure that it is quite at FA level yet, but hopefully with community input, it will get there. It is a very, very important subject and I applaud your efforts. I am happy to help in any way that I can. SusunW (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for this comprehensive review and the many concrete suggestions. I feel that the article has already received quite a few improvements. Let's hope we can get it all the way to FA. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I am not ready to yet make a decision on the article. Would still like to see the prose tightened up, examples broadened, and the outcome on some of the other comments. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SusunW, I will be looking to close this soon and was wondering if your closing comments immediately above still stood, and/or you had any other thoughts on the article and its promotability? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild having just read through the article again, I am happy that it is not as oriented toward the Global North as when we began, that its scope in general has been broadened, and the article has improved by the collaboration here. There still are some weaknesses in the prose and structure. I truly applaud all of the effort that has gone into it, but with such a broad general topic, it seems nearly impossible to include all the salient information with high quality sources to make it truly comprehensive on a global scale. I am sorry to say I am not yet convinced that the article is as strong as it needs to be for FA. SusunW (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the idea of holding FA candidates to high standards. I hope that this does not mean that it is a basic requirement to have a level of comprehensiveness that "seems nearly impossible" to achieve. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Education theorist R. S. Peters, for instance," - is RS Peters a big enough cheese to get this first mention? he might be!
At least in terms of the influence of his definition, I think he is. Many academic discussions on the topic refer to his definition, including the ones critical of his approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is far from my area of expertise so I thought I'd check, but again this flags up my general theme, since is Peters referred to worldwide or only in english langauge literature I wonder Mujinga (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Different thick definitions disagree" -are definitions capable of disagreeing? I see SusunW making a similar point above
That probably depends on how literal we want to interpret the term. I replaced it with an alternative formulation to avoid the problem
Switching to more general comments:
"Today, primary education is compulsory in almost all countries and over 90% of all primary-school-age children worldwide attend primary school.[44]" - would it be interesting to say where it is not? further, obviously you can't cover all countries in an article like this, but in terms of broadness I feel that at the moment, I'd come away with a fairly good idea of how education works in Europe and North America but no so much in for example Russia or Somalia. And I have a niggling feeling that in repressive states there might well be primary school but it will simply be an indoctrination centre
It would be interesting but I fear that it might lead to a digression since the topic of this section is how the different levels of education are defined. The discussion of the different levels of education follows the international standard set by the UNESCO. It's possible that this fits better for Europe and North America than other countries but I'm not sure that we can do much about that. There are currently various changes to education in Russia, such as rewriting school books. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have said Russia or Somalia but rather Education in Asia and Education in Africa. That was more what I meant; I think as an abstract introduction to what education is, this article is pretty good but it needs a more wroldwide perspective and thanks for your responses elsewhere on that. Assessing an artticle on such a broad topic got me thinking again about umbrella articles. I've been working on "Sqyutting in X" articles where X is a country, so for example Squatting in Kazakhstan, and the umbrella article is Squatting. I wouldn't pretend the Squatting article is or should be particularly similar in format to Education since I don't believe articles all need to follow the same rules exactly, but there are parallels. Likewise, @Grnrchst: and others have been working on Anarchism in X articles, @Horserice: on nationality laws in different countries and @LunaEatsTuna: on Time in X. I'll ping them in case they are interested, as we've all separately had short discussions about this before. The way I think about Squatting at the moment is to build up from Squatting in X pages to continental pages eg Squatting in Africa and Squatting in Asia and then from there make Squatting more of a summary of those pages, having moved out what's there currently to subpages. If I'm thinking along those lines then I suppose I'm wanting Education to draw on existing pages such as for example Education in Asia and Education in Europe (which redirects to Educational policies and initiatives of the European Union), even if they are a bit thin at the moment. My impression remains that there is more about for example Europe than Asia in this article and the process of summarising of other pages might help to balance out this discrepancy. I wouldn't be surprised at all if you or others see this entire kaboodle very differently! (And if this discussion is going too meta I'm fine with moving to the Education talkpage by the way). Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get your point now. The articles you mentioned are mostly about contemporary education. One way to implement your idea would be to add subsections to the history section, like "Contemporary education in Asia", "Contemporary education in the European Union", and the like. However, this seems to give a lot of weight to the contemporary perspective while education in general is a much larger topic. We should also be careful to not expand this article too much.
For the general outline and weight of the topics, I tried to follow reliable overview sources on education in general. I don't think they give much weight to this topic. Our Outline of education does not either. My suggestion would be to cover this topic more in the form of examples, like the recent additions in terms of alternative education from different regions or historical higher-learning institutions of different regions. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Formal education plays a central role in modern civilization, though in primitive cultures, most of the education happened on the informal level" - There must be a lot of material on education through time, as in modern times. You do of course talk about who had access, and sexism and racism later on but I'd still like to read more on all of this
This is covered in more detail in the history section. We could move some of the material here but my impression is that it is better to keep them separate. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Levels" section seems Minority world-specific overall, same in "others", for example: "There are many alternative schooling traditions, like Montessori schools, Waldorf schools, Round Square schools, Escuela Nueva schools, free schools, and democratic schools.[56] Alternative education also includes indigenous education." Worldwide there surely are more examples of alternative schooling?
For the Levels-section, see my comment above: this is the international and widely used standard set by the UNESCO. I'm not sure if there is a good way to address this but I'm open to suggestions. I'll get back to you later for the Others-section. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Universities get more attention due to their worldwide influence today but you are right that having some more diversity here is preferable so I added a few more examples. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very well written, only sometimes I think some sentences could be rolled together more, to avoid having "They .. they" or "It ..it..". Again, I can appreciate there will lots of different opinions on this; I'll give some examples:
I've been trying to balance the requirements of having short and accessible sentences vs having a good flow in the text. These requirements don't always fit together well. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
eg Education can be characterized from the teacher's or the student's perspective. Teacher-centered definitions focus on the perspective and role of the teacher. They tend to see education as the transmission of knowledge and skills in a morally appropriate way.[27] Student-centered definitions analyze education from the student's involvement in the learning process. They may define it as a process that transforms and enriches their subsequent experience.[28
eg In this process, the experience of education and the discussed topics became more abstract and removed from daily life. More emphasis was put on grasping general patterns and concepts instead of observing and imitating particular forms of behavior.[40]
eg Alternative education also includes indigenous education. It focuses on the transmission of knowledge and skills from an indigenous heritage. Its methods give more emphasis to narration and storytelling.[57]
eg A further distinction is based on the type of funding. Public education is also referred to as state education. It is education funded and controlled by the government. It is available to the general public. It normally does not require tuition fees and is thus a form of free education. It contrasts with private education, which is funded and managed by private institutions.
eg Another was the Education for All initiative. It aimed to offer basic education to all children, adolescents, and adults by the year 2015. It was later replaced by the initiative Sustainable Development Goals as goal 4.[88]
I think for me I'd prefer the history section to come first to ground things, but I take your point made above about it coming either at the beginning or the end.
It seems the opinions are divided on this point. The same point came up in the recent FAC of communication. In the end, we settled there on having the history at the end but we don't have to follow that example here. I'll wait with changes to see if some kind of consensus crystalizes. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stop here for now; the comments went from prose to at some point. Basically I think this article is great, my main issue is that it could do with a more global perspective. I hope that critique can be taken in the constructive way I intend it to be made, I know it's rather vague. It's very easy to be critical and much harder to create such a quality article on a fundamental component of society Mujinga (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your insightful comments. Let's hope we can figure a way to address the global perspective point that works for both of us. I left a reply on this issue above. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really to be honest - I'm seeing structual issues here which I think would require more discussion then a rewrite. It's good that you are open to broadening the perspective to a global one, but adding examples seems rather tokenistic. I had hoped to trigger more of a debate on that above; I do appreciate it's a discussion that goes far beyond this article and that mine is just one view on what such a broad article should look like. I think I'll stop commenting here, not feeling strongly enough either way to support or oppose. Cheers and good luck with the article! Mujinga (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are different ways to organize the topics belonging to an article. Whether a region-based approach to the general layout is appropriate probably depends a lot on the topic of the article. It's well possible that this is the case for the example you mentioned: the article Squatting. But checking a few other articles with FA status on very general topics, like Earth, Communication, Logic, Bird, and Evolution, this region-based approach to the general layout does not seem to be common. However, it's a good idea to consider diverse perspectives in a review and I have the impression that the article benefited from your suggestions. Thanks for all your input! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from asilvering
Image choices
I'm concerned by the choices of images at the top of the article, as in the current form they serve to reinforce bias. No individual image is objectionable in itself, but what we have here is: an NGO-funded early childhood classroom in Africa with straw floors ("Africa is poor and primitive"); a room of white undergraduate students with their labcoated professor in a room full of tech equipment (the opposite, with bonus Science Man); two Asian kids being tutored by another ("Asians are smart/studious")... and the early childhood educator is a woman and the postsecondary educator is a man. I'm less concerned by "old man in India reads a newspaper" but given the other three I wonder if I'm just ignorant of some other stereotype on that one. We have to do better than this. A photo of a tech classroom in Kenya. Some Japanese kids in gym class. White kids at Catholic school. An adult literacy classroom. Anything. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea behind the current selection was to have good variety in terms of geographical regions, age groups, and types of education. Whatever changes we make, I think it would be a good idea to preserve that variety. It's also good to avoid stereotypes but the images should be representative at the same time. What do you think of the following:
Hi! Your (Mostly) Friendly Neighbourhood Text Technology Historian here! I apologize in advance for when I inevitably come off as irritated in the comments below. It's not you, it's this field! I don't know why academics who are not specialists in this field feel so compelled to write academic work on it, but they are. I beg you - don't cite non-historians on history! And if you can possibly avoid it, don't cite anyone writing about pre-1600 or so unless they are actually specialists on the time period they're writing about.
Thanks for providing a critical perspective here. I think the most important part of this section is to get the high-level perspective correct by showing in very broad strokes how the development happened from prehistory to where we are now. I'll try to follow sourcing suggestions. One difficulty I see is that we need to rely on high-quality overview sources for deciding which patterns to mention and how to connect them to condense the history of several millenia into a few paragraphs. I'm not sure that this can work by relying on specialist sources within a narrow context for all claims before 1600. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few sources for the first few claims, such as "Stearns, Peter N.; Langer, William Leonard (2001). The Encyclopedia of World History". I would go ahead and add similar sources for the other claims. But before that, I was hoping to get some feedback on whether you think that this addresses the point you mentioned. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, an encyclopedia of world history is not at all the kind of source we are looking for here. You need high-quality sources - this means sources by people who are experts on the topic they're writing about in some depth. Overbroad non-specialist encyclopedia articles aren't that. You may wish to have a read of doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199340033.001.0001 and follow the individual bibliographies given there as appropriate. -- asilvering (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for suggestions. I implemented various changes to the first two paragraphs. I mainly followed Johnson & Stearns' Education in World History. I hope there are no objections to the quality of this source. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, there were no specialized teachers and most adults taught the youth, usually informally during everyday activities. We don't know this - we can't know this - this is just someone making something up! Nothing to fix here - just kill this sentence. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind me at least making an attempt to fix it so I added a qualification to the claim. I'll remove the sentence if you feel strongly about it but my impression is that this sentence helps establish the contrast to later developments. Form the sources:
Bartlett 2007 p.15: In small-scale and self-sufficient societies children would learn about survival from adults. In these communities adults are multi-skilled and can satisfy most of their wants by using their own abilities. There may be only few specialist roles such as healer or midwife in such groups. As form of employment diversified and became specialised, increasingly specific training needed to take place.
Bowen, Gelpi & Anweiler 2023 Introduction, Prehistoric and Primitive Cultures: In the most primitive cultures, there is often little formal learning—little of what one would ordinarily call school or classes or teachers. Instead, the entire environment and all activities are frequently viewed as school and classes, and many or all adults act as teachers. As societies grow more complex, however, the quantity of knowledge to be passed on from one generation to the next becomes more than any one person can know, and, hence, there must evolve more selective and efficient means of cultural transmission. The outcome is formal education—the school and the specialist called the teacher. ... The purpose of primitive education is thus to guide children to becoming good members of their tribe or band. ... Primitive children, before reaching puberty, learn by doing and observing basic technical practices. Their teachers are not strangers but rather their immediate community.
Education began in prehistory, as adults trained the young in the knowledge and skills deemed necessary in their society. This is a sentence that looks like it contains information, but when you think about it, there's nothing really here - when else would education begin? I think if you go find an anthropologist writing on the topic you might find something more interesting to say, but you might also just blend this into the next paragraph. Absolutely be wary of any source using the word "primitive", as one cited here does. "Pre-literate culture" or "oral culture" is your keyword here. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking here about readers who strongly associate education with going to school. They may be surprised to hear that there was education before the rise of civilizations. Given your comments on the prehistory part, would you suggest that we remove the discussion of prehistoric education entirely and start with the ancient period? Phlsph7 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest ancient civilizations developed in the period from 3000 to 1500 BCE in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and North China. Both heiroglyphs and cuneiform predate 3000 BCE afaik so this is an odd cutoff. Again I see that 2/3 of the sources here are definitely not historians, which concerns me. I think you'll get a more accurate and more interesting sentence if you go find some specialists on these topics. You might find something interesting on the Indus valley and Mesoamerica too. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the first forms of writing came before the ancient period. I reformulated the passage to not imply that this happened simultaneously. 3000 BCE is usually taken as the time when the ancient period started and this is how our sources treat the subject. But I'm also open to different suggestions. If you are aware of a high-quality source that uses a very different timeframe of these developments in education then I would be happy to have a look at it. I also mentioned the Indus valley. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Through writing, it was possible to store and preserve information and make it accessible to more people. I see this kind of statement all the time, and it sets off a huge "citation needed" flag for me. Accessible writing? Where?! Early writing is often things like tax records ("accessible" is a strange way to describe this kind of writing), and writing/reading ability is often a class marker. Which of these sources is this one from? I'd like to have a look at its sources. It's also strange to suggest that writing is a precondition for schools. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, early forms of writing are not that accessible. Maybe the term "available" would be better in this context. The paragraph talks about the ancient period, so this includes more advanced forms of writing as well, like the works of Plato. I implemented some reformulations so that our text reflects more closely the language used in the sources:
From Hoskin 2021: the invention of the technology of writing ... enabled a new kind of (i) storage of information, (ii) communication, ....
From Kuskis & Logan 2014:The invention of writing ... led to the creation of the first schools.
Another key aspect of ancient education was the establishment of formal education. Have another look at this paragraph and the one before - it's repeating itself. The rest of this paragraph is very strange. I won't addresss individual sentences, since these aren't good sources on the topic, and I think once you get some you'll want to rewrite this whole bit. Though I will note that restricted to the intellectual elites (which is true) conflicts with the accessible to more people above. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the medieval period, religious authorities had a lot of influence over formal education. This applied specifically to the role of the Catholic Church in Europe. But it is also seen in the Muslim world. You absolutely must get sources specifically about the development of European universities, the madrasas, and medieval Jewish education before attempting a sentence like this. There is a lot of anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, and post-medieval anti-Catholic bias unintentionally wrapped up in statements like "religious authorities had a lot of influence over formal education". Luckily for you, there is also a lot of really in-depth work on this field. You don't need to read all that to write a couple of sentences here, but skimming a recent article or the introduction to a recent book will do you. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff on guilds is fine; if you're so inclined, you might want to have a quick skim of the Nicholas book again, since this is also a period of rising middle class and secular education, which would be worth pointing out more overtly given the religious stuff earlier in the para. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People who aren't 15thc historians love to say wild stuff about the Print Revolution, and you've cited some of those people here. The trajectory overall is correct (obviously, movable type and newspapers are not unrelated), but things were similar more than they were different for quite a while. Notice how this jumps from from the 15th century to the 18th century? There's a lot missing here. This is Education, not History of Education, so I don't think this needs to be exhaustive, but it certainly can't make a claim about print and then jump forward three centuries. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that this is the Standard Western Narrative - what else is happening in the world? Most importantly, where is China, which famously has had an intensive civil service education for literally thousands of years? This is an enormous omission. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From here on out we're no longer in my period so it's harder for me to tell if something is missing, but it does strike me as odd that public education is framed as an alternative to education provided by religious institutions. Public education today is provided by religious institutions the world over (if you're from western Europe or Canada, you surely know someone who was "taught by nuns"?) and certainly was early on. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a contrast between public education and education provided by religious institutions in general would be misguided. The main point of the sentence in question is more specific about the contrast between earlier periods and the developments in the 18th and 19th centuries. If the sentence appears problematic, we could remove it or reformulate it. But my impression is that pointing out this contrast is helpful to the reader. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A side effect of the establishment of public education was the introduction of standardized curricula for public schools as well as standardized tests to assess the students' progress. Like I said, no longer my period, but surely this isn't broadly true? Seems a bit chicken-and-egg, especially when you consider historical Chinese bureaucracy? It may well be true for the United States, but in that case I would omit this as too specific and instead say something broadly about standardized curricula in the globalization section. For example, it seems odd to not mention something like the TOEFL exams, the beginning of worldwide comparisons of students' math abilities, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reformulated the sentence to not imply that there was no standardization before publication. I also added TOEFL and PISA as examples. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that was a lot of grousing. I don't want to end this without saying how much I appreciate all your hard work on this article. A huge subject, one that's so hard to summarize, and on such a visible topic - thank you for this. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the time and effort to review this article. I tried to implement your suggestions but I'm not sure that I fully succeeded in all cases. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, sorry about this, I have to give up - I've got a concussion and am struggling to read dense text, which unfortunately is most of this article. (Unfortunately for me; don't read that as some kind of comment about the article!) I got down to "Role in society" before I threw in the towel, and can say that overall I am impressed with how the topic is clearly and simply explained. I haven't been able to check up on the responses to my comments above. I find some of them concerning and I'm worried about the quality of the sources used in the History section, and I recall sharing some of the concerns of SusanW and mujinga, but I'm afraid that's the most I can say right now. Happy to (try to) answer specific questions here if you or Phlsph7 have any you can ask without sending me back to the article itself, though (for some reason, Talk pages are much easier to read). -- asilvering (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on this article! It's extremely well-written and concise. One small comment from me - I wonder if some of the words throughout the article (knowledge, skills, character traits, institutions, etc) could be unlinked? Per MOS:OVERLINK, Everyday words understood by most readers in context, as well as major examples of...languages (eg Latin), should not be linked. Best, Frostly (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Frostly and thank you for the comments. I removed several links to common terms. I left some in cases where the term in question is part of a definition. I'm not sure if that's the best practice. If that is not the case then I'm open to removing them as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving a marker here, though it is currently finals week at school so I probably won't get to this before Wednesday at the earliest (if it's taking me a while, a reminder ping would be much appreciated). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS: Thanks for planning to review this nomination. I was wondering if you have found the time to have a first look through the article. This is a big topic so please take your time. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly, I think the prose needs a bit of work to meet FA standard. It reads very choppy throughout and sounds kind of dumbed-down at times. I think there are too many uses of "This way," "Examples are", "Another example is", etc., which break the flow of the writing. I also feel that revisions would be helpful to make sure that ideas are not repeated multiple times using different wording.
The idea behind using short and simple sentences was to make the text accessible to the average reader. But you are right that readers familiar with topic may feel that some parts are choppy. I'll try to follow your suggestions to find a middle way that increases the flow of the text for those knowledgeable on the topic without make it overly difficult. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
This might just be me, but the first paragraph reads a little choppy and I think that flow could be improved by combining some sentences.
"Non-formal education happens in places that are occasionally visited" → I'm pretty sure I know what you're trying to say here but it's a little awkwardly worded; additionally, this sequence of sentences is very choppy to me
"Autodidacticism or self-education is self-directed learning" → After this sentence, this paragraph gets very repetitive as the sentences are a little choppy and all begin with "it"
"Examples include e-learning (use of computers)..." → what is the distinction between online education and other types like e- and m-learning? My instinct is that m- and e-learning both must also use the internet, or at least in most cases do
I think you are on the right track. If you use your computer to access an educational website, it's both e-learning and online education. If you use an educational computer program that works offline, it's e-learning but not online education. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"also referred to as public education" → footnote added before punctuation
The first paragraph seems to be a little repetitive; as I read it, the flow of ideas is "education makes society possible...education is necessary for people to function in society...children join society as a result of being educated...education is necessary for people to function in society...education teaches you what society deems appropriate...after you learn what is appropriate you can function in society...children join society as a result of being educated...education teaches you what society deems appropriate" - it seems to be like the same handful of ideas are each repeated several times using different wording
The intention of this paragraph was to talk about different aspects of socialization. One aspect is that people acquire certain skills to fulfill their daily needs. Another is that people learn norms, values, and social expectations. I tried to streamline this paragraph a little more but please let me know if further adjustments are needed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of paragraph 2 goes back to "education allows you to be a member of society" which I feel was covered in paragraph 1
This paragraph expands on the second point of the first sentence of the first paragraph: Education plays various roles in society, including in social, economic, and personal fields. I reformulated the first sentence of the second paragraph to make this clearer. You are right that these different aspects of education overlap and there is no tidy way to present them in isolation of each other. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"fostering a questioning mind" → could this wording be simplified? Are we talking about curiosity or skepticism or a combination of the two?
I think it's more about curiosity and thinking for oneself rather than a full-blown skepticism. I reformulated the passage to clarify the point. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"While education is of high relevance in childhood, it does not end at adulthood and continues throughout life" → This is already discussed at length in the previous section
"The year 1970 was declared International Education Year" → by who? Also, remove italics from "International Education Year" and consider switching from passive to active voice
"They interact both with each other and with other stakeholders, such as parents, local communities, and religious groups. Further stakeholders are Non-governmental organizations, professionals in healthcare, law enforcement, media platforms, and political leaders." → Sentence is split for no reason
"Many people are directly involved in the education sector. They include students, teachers, and school principals as well as school nurses and curriculum developers." → combine into one sentence
"International organizations also play a key role in education. For instance, UNESCO is an intergovernmental" → "UNESCO" is linked previously in the article so it can be delinked here
"Several factors influence educational achievement. They include psychological factors, which concern the student as an individual, and sociological factors, which pertain to the student's social environment." → no need to split these sentences
"Intelligence is often primarily associated with the so-called IQ, a standardized numerical metric for assessing intelligence." → redundant sentence, all this says is "intelligence is associated with the metric that measures intelligence", which goes without saying
IQ is only one metric and does not encompass all the factors relevant to education. I feel that the original passage did not make this point clear enough so I reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"However, it has been argued that there different types of intelligences pertaining" → missing word
"They include socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and cultural background, as well as gender." → why break the list format and then have to add gender on to the end? To me this sounds better as "socioeconomic status, ethnicity, cultural background, and gender"
"Education studies encompasses various subfields like philosophy..." → reads as though there is a missing "the" after "like" here; also I would recommend reordering the sentence to avoid having so many instances of "... of education" in a list. Perhaps something like "...various subfields like pedagogy, comparative education, and the philosophy, psychology, sociology, economics, and history of education"
"social factors influence education and how it leads to socialization" → I'm assuming "it" here refers to "education", but it sounds a little ambiguous as written
"Influential theories are behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Behaviorism understands" → move behaviorism link to first mention in prior sentence
"There are many teaching methods available. Which one is most efficient in a case depends on various factors, like the subject matter as well as the learner's age and competence level" → first sentence sounds a little choppy, recommend combining these 2
"Starting in the 4th millennium BCE and the following millennia" → sort of sounds like you're saying "starting in these multiple millennia" which doesn't really make sense; assuming you're shooting for something closer to "starting in the 4th millennium BCE and continuing through the following millennia..."
I was trying to allude to the idea that the changes started in different places at different times. But given that we just talk about a general major shift, I think your suggestion is better so I implemented it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In the Arab world, the newly founded religion of Islam spread rapidly" → "newly-spread"
"In 1970, 28% of all primary-school-age children worldwide did not attend school; in 2015, this number dropped to 9%." → Assuming that the drop from 28% to 9% did not happen all of a sudden in 2015, recommend changing "in 2015" to "by 2015"
That's all the comments I have, and I believe that, while sometimes a little choppy, the prose does meet FAC standards and is readable and understandable for basically all readers. Well done, happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very impressive article but there's something wrong with this citation: {{cite book |last1=Tillman |first1=Daniel A. |last2=An |first2=Song A. |last3=Robertson |first3=William H. |editor1-last=Mora |editor1-first=Javier Calvo de |editor1-link=Kennedy |title=Schools and Informal Learning in a Knowledge-Based World |date=19 September 2019 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-429-66619-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=esyxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA63 |archive-url=Kerry J. |language=en |chapter=The Relationship Between Formal and Informal Learning}}
Why is the editor link piped to "Kennedy"? (And there's an error message pointing out that archive-date is required). Colonies Chris (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Colonies Chris and thanks for pointing this out, I'm not sure how that came to pass. Those two fields were supposed to be editor2-last and editor2-first rather than editor1-link and archive-url. I fixed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are the wikilinks to experiences, conscious, obedience really helpful? These are just fairly ordinary dictionary words used in their normal sense, not technical terms.
But yes, I'm happy to support the nomination.[[User:*Hi [[User:|]], I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)|Colonies Chris]] (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos for your work on this highly important topic. The article is well supported, but I see important issues with coverage and prose.
Coverage
Several areas seem underrepresented or missing: cost of education (with worldwide comparison map), sports and athletic education, sex education, expanded discussion of the various modes of digital learning, especially any recent studies of ai and education.
I've added a short paragraph on the cost of primary, secondary, and tertiary education in a global comparison. I couldn't find a worldwide comparison map on wikicommons but if you know of one, that would be a valuable addition. The article already mentions physical education and I added sex education. I also added a sentence on the potentials and risks of artificial intelligence in education to the subsection on technology. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph of the lead starts “Many factors influence whether education is successful.” The article discusses a variety of these factors, but could do more to explore what “success” means, both in specific contexts such as within a specialty as well as in a broader context such in society at large. I think it’s hard because there is disagreement in the field, but I think example studies will help to anchor the reader to one definition of success, at least for some study. It will make learning about the various factors easier to grasp because we’ll know, roughly, what measures we should care about. For example, “A meta-analysis by Engin Karadağ et al. concludes that, compared to other influences, factors related to the school and the teacher have the biggest impact on educational success.” This could be expanded to explain the meta study and what their measures were.
I still have a ton of questions after reading the article. Some of these may be out of scope (apologies for those)… How does education impact (and vice versa) major world shifts like the Industrial Revolution, population growth (especially in developing nations), and climate change. How does it impact war and vice versa? National security? What is the role of peers / classmates in educational success? “Education also has positive effects on health and well-being.” This sounds huge, and could be expanded. What role does education play in genocide? What percentage of students cheat? What constitutes cheating in the various systems? How is it handled? Who are some prominent educators worldwide? Who are some prominent activists for women’s and girls’ education? How does education influence birth rate? What educational opportunities are available in prisons? What schools are considered to be the best in the world? What types of content have been censored or legislated out of a curriculum? What role do organizations such as PTA play in shaping curriculum and/or daily school life? What is education like in North Korea? What do experts say about the future of education?
I managed to mention a few of them, including birth rates and cheating. I also expanded on the relation between education and health. Some of the other points are touched by the article but I feel that a more detailed discussion would lead too far and include many details in this article that are better left to articles covering more specific topics. If there are some points you feel strongly about then let me know and I'll see if they can be integrated. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
The first paragraph offers a sensible way to slice up the topic of education, but it could be more engaging to start with something like the importance of eduction, how widespread it is among humans and throughout the animal kingdom (is it right to say that animals “educate” their young?) In other words, the reader will appreciate knowing what scope they’re getting into before diving into its various divisions or categories within that scope.
While it's true that, at least for some animals, parents teach their children, the term "education" is usually only used for humans. The importance of education in terms of the effects it has on society is currently discussed in the 2nd lead paragraph. There are different approaches to arranging the different topics and there is probably no ideal or universally accepted approach. The current approach goes from general to specific by starting with the definition and then continuing to the types, the effects, the relevant factors, the field of inquiry, and the history. Part of this outline was already discussed in Anarchyte's review, which emphasized the importance of having the discussion of types in the first paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prose puts a lot of focus on classification which can be distracting. To this reader, it’s less important that I learn the hierarchical structure of the field of education and how the topic can be organized than it is to learn what education is at its core or essence, how the values, practices, and metrics compare across countries and demographics, etc. Both are important for the article, the former especially for academics, but I think the balance leans too far toward classifications and definitions. In this case I think it runs the risk of feeling like too much like a table of contents of the various other education-related articles. I’m hoping for more facts, examples, numbers, graphs, quotes, and world maps of educational metrics, to complement an expanded prose.
We have a whole article on the Definitions of education, which could be used to expand the discussion of the essence of education. The difficulty here is that there are significant disagreements, which makes this topic more difficult to discuss since, for the most part, we can't say "education is X" but have to say something like "According to Y, education is X". My impression is that the current definition section covers the main points and that the details are better left for this child article. We run into a similar difficulty with the values guiding education. The article currently presents the main points but there are many more points that could be discussed, see the more detailed discussion at Philosophy of education#Aims of education. If there are some specific points about the essence and aims of education or about particular facts and metrics then we can see how to fit them in. I usually try to add examples to make or illustrate a point and not for their own sake. With this type of overview article, it's very easy to lose sight of the main points and get lost in the details. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short I think what’s here is well written and supported, but the article is in need of expansion to cover some important gaps. It’s possible that I’ve understood the overall scope of the article incorrectly, in which case feel free to discard those parts of my comments. Thanks again for your impressive work on this huge and important topic. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕13:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GuineaPigC77 and thanks for the many and detailed suggestions. Education is a very wide topic that has countless types, intersects with many social processes, covers various disciplines, and stretches over several millenia. One of the main challenges of writing this type of overview article is to decide what to mention and in what level of detail to discuss it. The article currently stands at 9122 words readable prose size. I think this length is acceptable given the scope of the article but it is already at the upper limit of WP:SIZERULE so I don't think it should be expanded much further. I share your frustration that many interesting subtopics do not get a more detailed discussion but I'm not sure how much we can do about it except for ensuring that the article at least covers all the main points. I'll see how I can implement your suggestions without bloating the article too much and I'll ping you once I think I have addressed all the main points. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GuineaPigC77: I implemented many of your ideas. I tried to follow a minimalist approach to keep the article size in check and only focus on the main points. Please let me know if you feel that I overlooked some important ideas so we may figure out how they may be integrated as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards oppose for the reasons above, with an asterisk that I’m a first time reviewer here. Per the FA Criteria, I think it runs into issues on 1a (the prose is definitely written to a professional standard but needs to be more engaging), and 1b (important questions are glossed over). Regarding the updates, my sense is that adding mention of missing aspects isn’t really enough to cover them to the reader’s satisfaction. Given the length constraints, one concrete suggestion would be to remove some depth from some sections to make room for juicer topics that the reader will surely want to learn about, increasing coverage and engagement. One section could be the Definitions section, where material could be shortened / relegated to the Definitions of education article, but I see potentially others as well. I think these issues are fixable but pervasive. For these reasons I think some rewriting is needed. Nevertheless I’d be interested to see if we get any further comments on coverage that we haven’t heard yet. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕10:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. I tried to implement your suggestions as best as I could, but some concerns kept me from implementing all of them.
Concerning the definition/essence of education: you state that the article should have more material on what education is at its core or essence. You also state that the definitions section, which addresses exactly this point, has too much material and its material could be shortened. Maybe there is a misunderstanding on my side since I'm not sure how I can implement those two suggestions at the same time.
Regarding comprehensiveness: a key policy here is WP:PROPORTION: which states that An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, you stated that the article should include material on What educational opportunities are available in prisons and What is education like in North Korea. I consulted a few comprehensive high-quality overview sources on education in general ([19], [20], [21], [22]) and, as far as I can tell, none of them discuss these topics in any detail (or mention them at all). This gives me the impression that, while these topics are clearly related to education, they are not important enough to merit a detailed discussion in a concise overview article. If you know of high-quality overview sources on education in general that give major importance to these topics then I would interested in reading them and adjusting the article accordingly. But from the sources that I'm aware of, following these suggestions would violate WP:PROPORTION.
Concerning the part of engaging prose: this is an encyclopedic article so the main point is to convey information. It's great if the reader can be entertained at the same time but this should not come at the expense of encyclopedic value. The article currently starts with a definition, and you suggested that it should start instead by discussing the importance of eduction and how widespread it is among humans and throughout the animal kingdom. Maybe you are right that the article would be more engaging this way. However, MOS:LEADSENTENCE clearly states that articles should start with a definition. Following this guideline is probably more important than making the article more engaging. Something similar may be true for your suggested additions: the article might be more entertaining if it contained juicer topics like a detailed discussion of education in North Korea but this should not be our primary reason for including them. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensiveness and WP:PROPORTION. Fair points. If the article is giving weight that mirrors that of the comprehensive sources then I can’t / won't complain further about this.
Entertainment is not the goal of course. Also true that while engagement is indeed a goal, it shouldn't get in the way of the encyclopedic nature or tone of the article or create an imbalance in emphasis. But I see places where the prose could be simplified and made much more engaging without these sacrifices. I see a small changes that could add up to a meaningful improvement. For example,
“The precise definition of education is disputed" could become "Definitions of education vary.”
“A further influence on contemporary education was the emergence of new educational technologies” -> “Emerging educational technologies are shaping contemporary education.”
"Early childhood education, also known as preschool education or nursery education, is the stage of education that begins with birth and lasts until the start of primary school.” -> "Early childhood education, also known as preschool education or nursery education, begins with birth and lasts until the start of primary school.”
“Secondary education is the stage of education following primary education and usually covers the ages of 12 to 18 years.” -> “Secondary education follows primary education and usually covers the ages of 12 to 18 years."
Modifications such as these, wherever they don’t change the meaning of the material, could make the prose much easier to digest and more engaging, and probably slightly shorter too. As a generalization, a good deal of sentences use the verb "is" or its variations, which makes the prose feel flat. So in a lot of cases, an easy fix is just use the more interesting verb that is already in the sentence. If suggestions along these lines are helpful / acceptable, I can make a longer list.
Thanks, these suggestions are helpful, I implemented most of them with a slight variation in some cases. The main remaining concern of some reviewers is that the prose in a few parts needs to be improved. Chances are that you have a better eye for spotting these types of changes than me so more suggestions would be most welcome. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitions section. It may just come down to the fact when I get to thick and thin definitions, it feels like I’m getting too much into the weeds and learning about *how* to define things. I lose engagement here. But again, if the length of this section represents the weight given to definitions of education in the relevant sources, then it’s just me.
I made a first attempt to shorten it without removing too many ideas. I agree that this is probably the most challenging part for the readers but these disputes are really a big topic in the academic literature, and we only barely touched the surface in these few paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes look good.
“This implies that its meaning varies depending on the situation in which it is used.” Consider removing this sentence?
“Another classification includes different levels of education based on factors like the student's age and the complexity of the content.” “different” -> “distinct”
“Like formal education, it is organized, systematic, and carried out with a clear purpose, like tutoring, fitness classes, and the scouting movement.” This implies tutoring etc. are the purpose. Maybe: “Like formal education, it is organized, systematic, and carried out with a clear purpose. Examples include tutoring, fitness classes, and the scouting movement.”
I implemented your idea but I used a different formulation since some of the other reviewers criticized sentences starting with "Examples include" as leading to choppy prose. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Non-formal and informal education are closely linked to intrinsic motivation because the learning itself is enjoyed.” -> “In non-formal and informal education, enjoyment of the learning process provides intrinsic motivation.” Or something like that.
“Formal education plays a central role in modern civilization, though in primitive cultures, most of the education happened on the informal level.” “though” -> “whereas” This paragraph is structured oddly?
You are right, I restructured the paragraph so it talks first about informal education in primitive cultures and then about the increased focus on formal education. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Today, primary education is compulsory in almost all countries, and over 90% of all primary-school-age children worldwide attend primary school.” Could this sentence or a variation make its way into the lead?
“Many other types of education are discussed in the academic literature, like the distinction between traditional and alternative education.” This implies that a distinction is a type of education. Maybe: “The academic literature distinguishes between traditional and alternative education.”
“Alternative education is an umbrella term for forms of schooling that differ from the mainstream traditional approach. They may use a different learning environment, teach different subjects, or promote a different teacher-student relationship.” -> “Alternative education differs from the mainstream traditional approach. Differences may include learning environment, subjects, or the teacher-student relationship.”
Done. I kept the first part about it being an umbrella terms to make it clear to the reader that there is no one standard alternative education. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Unconscious education occurs on its own without being consciously planned or guided.” Remove “consciously”?
“Its goal is to maximize the effectiveness of educational practices and policies. This is achieved by ensuring that they are informed by the best available empirical evidence.” -> “Its goal is to maximize the effectiveness of educational practices and policies by ensuring that they are informed by the best available empirical evidence.”
“Various aspects of formal education are regulated by the policies of governmental institutions. They determine…” -> “Various aspects of formal education are regulated by the policies of governmental institutions. These policies determine…”
“Educational technology can also make information easier to understand by presenting it using graphics and videos rather than through mere text.” Add sound/audio?
Remaining concerns with the prose are more subtle, and changes may not be required to fulfill the FA Criteria 1a. The prose could swap more instances of “to be” for other verbs, and there seems to be a heavy emphasis on structure. This is probably just word choice, but it permeates. Eg, topic sentences in the Others section:
“Alternative education is an umbrella term…”
“Other distinctions…”
“Some classifications…”
“Forms of education can also be categorized…”
“A further distinction…”
Sentences like these could be re-worked so the prose flows more naturally. But these issues are minor and shouldn’t prevent this from passing 1a. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕01:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for breaking these points down. Personally, I like topic sentence to introduce the general idea before getting into the details. I may have a tendency to overuse them and thereby break the flow. I made a few more adjustment to reduce their frequency. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your challenges to the article and the many insightful and actionable suggestions. Would you tend to support the nomination? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some pagenumbers are followed by dots and others aren't.
This was because I combined harvnb-templates (which don't end with a dot) with sfn-templates (which do). I changed it to use only harvnb templates. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the sources section, it seems like most inconsistencies are due to different sources having different information.
I tried to address this point by ensuring that the publisher names are used consistently and by removing the page numbers since they are already given in the short citations. I already removed those page numbers two months ago but then a bot came by and automatically restored most of them. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like Aron, Laudan Y. is reasonably commonly cited.
Sage is sometimes given as Sage Publications and sometimes as Sage.
I notice the preponderance of Western publications - are there so few Asian/African/Latin American ones?
The situation with this topic is not as bad as with philosophy but it is similar: most high-quality academic sources written in the English language have publishers whose main seat is in a Western country. For example, in my research I often came across English books by Indian publishers for which I couldn't find much information other than the publisher's own website to assess whether they fulfill the FA requirements for high-quality sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look through the sources and added several books from non-Western publishers. We are still far from parity but I think this would be an unrealistic goal. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes www.mckinsey.com. a reliable source? Also these citations should probably be rewritten so that they don't have the domain sitting out there.
That part was added in response to review suggestions. The idea was to include examples from the Global South and given the number of children affected by the decisions of the Indian ministry of education, this seems a good choice. In terms of sheer numbers, it could be that India is ahead of China but I'm not sure. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I removed it. It was needed earlier but the sentence in our article has changed since then is supported by the other sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "How the Pandemic Is Reshaping Education" from 2021 might need to be updated with more recent sources.
I'm really glad to see this broad-concept, level-2 vital article getting the attention it deserves and being put up at FAC here! At the moment, all I have time for is a skim, so I'm just going to note things I observe, rather than doing a full review that would lead to a formal support !vote. I focused mainly on the lead section, given that it's the most-read portion of the article.
Overall, I like the collage, which abides by pertinent best practices such as showcasing various facets of the topic and including geographic diversity (also true of the other images throughout the article). The upper right image seems the weakest of the bunch — it doesn't have any faces visible, making it overall just not that visually compelling. It could be swapped out if we can find something better, but it's not terrible. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image was suggested by asilvering in their review. To fit in with the other images in terms of themes, age groups, and regional diversity, we would need an image of formal secondary or tertiary education in Africa. What about one of the following? Personally, I would go with the first or the second. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that non-formal education is linked but formal education is not, being a redirect to the levels section here but tagged with possibilities. Converting that to an article is beyond the scope here, but given that it affects how this article is laid out, I'm interested to know whether you think it ought to be an article or the possibilities tag is erroneous. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People often use the term "education" to mean "formal education" and formal education is at the center of the academic discourse on education. I had more or less the same problem with Logic and Formal logic. I'm not fully decided on how to best tackle this issue. On the one hand, formal education deserves to have its own article. On the other hand, it would be to difficult to avoid too much overlap with this article. If there is a way to avoid that overlap then it would be a good idea to have a separate article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History sections generally go early in an article, so it's odd to see it at the end here (both of the lead and of the article). What's your reasoning for that organization? At first glance I'd lean toward trying to move it up in both places. Additionally, in the lead, it seems shoehorned into the paragraph about education studies rather than being given its own paragraph. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was discussed in some of the other reviews and opinions among editors are divided. Personally, I think there are 2 good places for a history section: the beginning and the end. Where it goes depends on how much emphasis the academic literature gives to history in comparison to other topics. Currently, the prime spot (after the definition) is reserved for the types of education. I tend to agree that this is more important but I don't feel very strongly about it.
In the lead, we could split the last paragraph in two to have a separate paragraph for the history. This way, we would have 5 lead paragraphs with 3 rather short ones. I usually aim for 3-4 lead paragraphs for big articles. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable re placement. For the paragraph splits, the 3-4 paragraphs suggestion for leads is a proxy for length, but splitting wouldn't actually make the lead any longer. And I think it makes more semantic sense. {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The locations in image captions feel like they need some work. Why is the municipality in Colorado linked but Ziway, Ethiopia, is not? Why is Haiti linked but Ethiopia not? (I guess they perhaps fall on separate sides of the borderline major countries criterion in MOS:OVERLINK, so maybe that's alright.) Why is the specific municipality given for the Ziway picture but not the Japan one (and with the Russia one only implying through the university name)? I'm not so much asking for specific changes here as just that you think through this aspect and try to approach it consistently. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I tried to make the image captions more consistent by mentioning the country name without municipalities. I also delinked Haiti so we don't need to worry how major it is compared to Ethiopia. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the "Role in society" section, perhaps we could illustrate it with an image of a highly specialized job, with a caption indicating that such jobs contribute a lot to the economy but require a lot of education? {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added an image of a medical researcher. I'm not sure that the caption is ideal so feel free to tinker with it if you have better ideas. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the "Aims and ideologies" section, perhaps we could illustrate it with an illustration of propagandistic education? {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, ideology is not meant in a negative sense, it means more or less the same as "theory". Among other ideologies, the section also mentions authoritarian ideologies, but I'm not sure if there is a good way to illustrate them or if we should focus on them. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that images do not need to be comprehensive for their section, just a representative example, an image of authoritarian education seems like it would be fine. But that's all moot if we can't find one. {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The see also section for an article like this has the potential to be a massive bloat magnet, so I'd suggest adding a hidden comment there discouraging additions of anything but the most broad-concept articles, and requiring that potential additions receive affirmative consensus at talk before being added. Also, looking at the current entries, I question whether Bildung, being country-specific, should appear, and I wonder if we could incorporate Mixed-sex education into somewhere in the article body instead. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. Again, it looks like you've put some excellent work into this! This certainly isn't an easy topic to bring to FA status, particularly with regard to comprehensivity, so I applaud the effort and hope it gets past the finish line! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article. Commas seem to be a bit inconsistent, however. Some independent clauses don't have a comma where there should be one, such as: "The precise definition of education is disputed(,) and there are disagreements about what the aims of education are [...]". Nothing else to critique really. Wretchskull (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I haven't done a thorough enough review to be able to support. I just commented on something that I caught as I read bits here and there. Nothing strikes me as egregious though, so I'm not opposing. Wretchskull (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note: At nearly two months, it does not look like there is consensus for promotion, with concerns regarding prose and comprehensiveness. Given how lengthy and PR-like this nomination has become, I think it's best to archive this now. I recommend that you work with the quasi-opposers and renominate once you receive positive feedback from them. The usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about William Utermohlen, a figurative artist who was diagnosed with probable Alzheimer's disease, and decided to document his mental decline through self-portraits.
This article has been the subject of many failed attempts to get this article featured, and after a look through the sources cited in this article, and generally adding content where I could find it, I am decently sure that this will meet the FA criteria. I say decently because, if the previous four FACs have learned me anything, every single time I thought I was gonna get the star, I failed, so I should never be confident about if it will actually succeed.
Notes:
Image review conducted by Premeditated Chaos in the previous FAC omits three images that weren't in the article at the time: They are placed in the Early life, Legacy and Exhibitions sections.
Concerns about lack of comprehensiveness, based on use of the Laino source (called Neurology Today in previous FACs, in FACs 2 and 4) have been addressed. I have also added some extra content from other sources, which is around 700 words of added content. I have also added a new book source, Zausner 2022.
Thanks for bringing this up, and I admire your tenacity in persevering with it. It's a sad story and an interesting subject, particularly as an artist who never got to enjoy the considerable recognition he received. I'm not really qualified to comment either on medicine or on art, but will do my best to pick up MoS, prose, clarity and general polish.
Diagnosed in 1995, he had developed progressive memory loss four years prior in 1991: any reason not to go with chronological order here: e.g. "he developed progressive memory loss in 1991 and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1995"? Generally speaking, it's clearer to report things in the order that they happened.
I did this, but Ceoil pretty much reverted it in the copyedit.
Upon receiving his diagnosis he began a series of self-portraits influenced in part by the figurative painter Francis Bacon and cinematographers from the movement of German Expressionism.: I'd look at this one again: it's a bit long and it's not totally clear whether in part modifies just Bacon or both (in other words: was part Bacon and part German cinema, or was there a third part of something else?)
Changed to "influenced by both the artist..." There wasn't really a third part.
the last of his self-portraits were made circa 2001: I'm not a fan of circa in flowing text ("around 2001" is clearer to the minority of readers who don't speak fluent Latin), but should be italicised and linked if we're going to insist.
Linked and italicised
Something's gone wrong at the end of the lead: the semicolon either needs to become a full stop or the last sentence needs a more serious look.
Fixed
At the time, that section of Philadelphia was split along language lines; his family would have been in the German-speaking part of the city, but inward migration across the United States resulted in them living in the Italian bloc.: I don't quite understand this -- are we saying that when they moved there, everyone else spoke German, but then a bunch of Italian speakers moved in, leaving the German-speakers now a minority?
The source states that it was the Germans that moved out of South Philadelphia, and I'm assuming that after that it was primarily Italians. I think inward migration is the wrong term for this, since the article it redirects to (Repatriation) is about when a person goes back to their country; and the source clearly states that these Germans spread out across the US. I have edited the text.
Due to racial tensions, Utermohlen's parents did not allow him to venture outside of his immediate surrounding: not sure racial is quite the right word if we mean German-American vs. Italian-American.
Ceoil also took care of this in the copyedit.
Manu Sharma of the art magazine STIRworld speculates that his parents' protectiveness may have a factor in the development of his artistic creativity: may have been? Does Sharma elaborate at all on how it might have been such, or what it might have done for his art?
Specified.
Speaking to The Philadelphia Inquirer in 2001, Utermohlen said about his childhood: "If you weren't good at sports, you were no good at all".: is U. expressing his recollection of his parents' point of view here, or someone else's? It's not immediately clear how this quotation fits into the story.
Removed
Seems a bit of a shame; it sounds like a quote with a story behind it that could add a lot to our sense of where he came from, as an artist and a person. Was there really no context to it that could be found? UndercoverClassicistT·C23:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would restate U's name at least on first use in a section, and by preference on first use in each paragraph (that is, don't begin a section or paragraph with "he" or similar).
Done. Will soon fix this in later sections.
Utermohlen completed his military service in 1953: was he unlucky enough to be one of the last through the draft? Do we know anything about his time in uniform (I assume he didn't get sent to Korea?)
where he was heavily influenced by the works of Giotto and Nicolas Poussin: per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I'd briefly introduce who/when these people were, as we did for Walter Stuempfig.
Specified.
everybody else... he: the MoS style is a space on either side: everybody else ... he
Fixed
The Ruskin School of Art is not just in Oxford, it's part of the university (which would have made U. an Oxford student). We would therefore say "at Oxford" rather than "at Ruskin" (but "at the Ruskin if we explicitly mean the building). Should this feature in his education in the infobox, and do we know what sort of degree he studied (I'm guessing something like an MFA?)
Ceoil again took care of this in the copyedit he did on the article, I noticed that when I was going to fix it. Also none of the sources I could find specified the degree.
There's no the in Amherst College.
Fixed.
What's the Marlborough Gallery and why should we be interested in it?
I am pretty sure there was mention in one of the sources of it being his first major exhibition. I thought it was in the Studio 360 audio article, but it wasn't. I'll include that the second I find the source for it.
From 1972, Utermohlen taught art at the Amherst College in Massachusetts, where Redmond received her master's degree.: as written, it sound as though these things happened at the same time: is that true?
Yeah it isn't, Redmond got her master's degree in 1975 according to the source, reworded that part of the section.
lived in London where he gained nationality in 1992: needs to be gained British nationality or dual nationality as appropriate.
Fixed to British Nationality
I'm going to stop there for now -- at the moment I'm seeing a lot of spit-and-polish stuff that needs a look, and it wouldn't be fair to generate a colossal heap of it here. Would suggest a good look over the rest of the article for similar things once this lot is handled: please do ping me when you're ready for me to move forward. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He taught art at the Amherst College in Massachusetts from 1972, where he spent his last year as an artist-in-residence. In 1975, Redmond received her master degree at Massachusetts: this is now a bit confused. From what I gather, U was a lecturer at Amherst (again, no the: just Amherst College like Oxford University) from 1972 until 1974, then (also?) an artist in residence for the 1974–1975 academic year, which was also the year where Redmond took her Master's (note spelling: it's a degree that belongs to a master) there. Could the chronology be a little clearer in the text? In particular, we've talked about "his last year" without being clear as to when that was. UndercoverClassicistT·C23:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil
Echoing UndercoverClassicist, am also very pleased to see the nominator's continued work on such a worthy subject, and noting the improvements based on feedback during and following the last FAC.
As a first comment, the TOC could do with some re-organising; maybe merge life and work so it is fully chronological; currently we have "Early life" - "style" - "late works/death" - "late works". The only sub sect here would move to a second-level would be influences. In other words, suggest...."Early life/Six cycles/Alzheimers/Self-portraits/Influences/Legacy.
I'll do that after this get archived/promoted.
Would cut down info on the early cycles; they are frankly very poor and individually not art historically significant; cover them off as a group, removing irrelevant statements like "Some of the Mummers paintings were stored at a house in Germantown that Utermohlen's parents moved to", "According to the French psychoanalyst Patrice Polini, the Dante and Mummers also alludes to the theme of war."
First one is 100% unnecessary, and also the other part
Key points can be kept like, "cites the Dante cycle as making him into a mature and committed figurative artist", "the inclusion of isolated soldiers represented his feelings of being an outsider", "the cycle was created as a "vehicle for expressing my anxiety", "as an attempt to describe his life before memory loss"
Kept
I think the article is too long, eg a lot of the quotes in the Legacy section could be paraphrased or removed, eg
"caus[ed] a tremendous stir in the artistic and scientific world." replace "tremendous stir" with "media coverage within"
Done
"indicative of a process above and beyond normal aging, particularly given his relatively young age at onset" - could be reworded
Removed the latter part as I felt it wasn't necessary
"a testament to the resilience of human creativity" - what does this mean
"his willingness to work with The Lancet made his self-portraits "free from the diagnostic uncertainty which has made assessment of de Kooning's work so controversial" - - what does this mean Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note: issues still persist after three weeks, and the nominator seems to have abandoned/forgotten about this nomination. I recommend that you work with the reviewers outside the FAC venue and renominate once you receive positive feedback from them. In any case, the usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a Phoenician sanctuary in Southern Lebanon. The small sanctuary held a trove of artifacts that contributed to the understanding of rural Phoenician ritual practices. It dates back to the Iron Age II, and it underwent multiple phases of construction and use. The article details the archaeological findings, including the architecture, artifacts, and inscriptions discovered during excavations. The religious activities observed at the site include rituals related to healing, salvation, childbearing, and childhood. The influence of Hellenistic culture during a later phase of the sanctuary's history is also discussed. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As always, these are recommendations, not demands. Feel free to refuse with adequate justification.
Per MOS:OVERSECTION, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings." I think the location section could be merged with the following background section.
The town of Kharayeb might be helpful to put "modern" for the general reader.
at a short distance north of the Leontes River is the "at" necessary?
I know the box titled "Relevant Ancient Near East periodization" is probably correct, but unless I've missed something it seems uncited.
Link "Prehistoric"?
when Phoenicia was under Persian Achaemenid rule, Phoenician economy flourished either add a "the" before "Phoenician economy", or replace "Phoenician" with "its"
when the cults of deities of healing and salvation were emerging "the" is unnecessary imo.
As the "Hellenistic period and decline" section is a single, if lengthy, paragraph, you could merge it with the previous heading under the title "Background and ancient history" or similar.
I think you, like me, use too many commas. See sentence fragments such as there emerged in the heavily Hellenized coastal Phoenician cities, a surge or persistent adherence to their native language, and traditional religious practices. This may just be me over-correcting though.
When did Chehab's excavation stop?
The second paragraph of the "Description" section is a fairly chunky wall of text. Perhaps split it at "The temple exterior was..."?
I'm mulling over whether the "Architecture" section needs any subsections.
The adyton (most sacred space) might be useful to add a literal translation along with the explanation.
One notable feature of these temples was the "bent-entry," where the main entrance was not centrally located The source seems to indicate that temple at Kharayeb was not of the "bent-entry" variety: "the ‘new’ temple plans that replaced the ‘bent-entry’ in Phoenicia were of well-known local designs, such as ... the ‘courtyard house’ [at] Kharayeb". It does go on, confusingly, to say that key characteristics including the "bent-entry" endured, so I may be misreading.
In any case, a layout diagram would be very helpful in the article, if possible.
The surviving Hellenistic period temple's main chamber measure surely it should be "measures"?
Thanks for the above. I left out a few, particularly the pre-classical temple architecture part. I will try to make a plan to explain the points highlighted in this passage, particularly the location of the adyton to the west of the structure, the side entry to the adyton (which is not visible on the render from the outside). el.ziade (talkallam) 14:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Director of Lebanon's Antiquities: Is that the formal title (that is, is Lebanon's Antiquities the official name of the body, or is it something like e.g. the Lebanese Archaeological Service?
It was surveyed during three archaeological missions: in archaeology, survey is used for study that stops short of excavation (usually, projects which aim to find sites rather
than to investigate them in detail): we shouldn't use that term when we mean to include excavations.
Thanks!
Later, during the Hellenistic period: how much later was this?
Modified, thanks.
This Hellenistic period temple: simply Hellenistic temple (c.f. modern temple, Roman temple or similar).
Done.
from the Iron Age II and Persian period: needs to be periods for grammar, and so would suggest making the link only cover "Persian". When were these?
Done, thanks. There's an explanatory table for periods under the infobox.
new molding techniques introduced Greek themes and deities like Aphrodite and Hermes. The religious practices observed at the sanctuary remained faithful to local Phoenician traditions: this seems like a contradiction; if the gods didn't stay the same, what did?
I'd prefer to see a shorter lead, concentrating on just the most important aspects rather than trying to be comprehensive. For example, I'd rewrite the first paragraph as:
The Phoenician sanctuary of Kharayeb (Arabic: معبد الخرايب الفينيقي) is a historic temple in the hinterland of Tyre in Southern Lebanon. It was excavated in three stages. Maurice Chehab's 1946 mission revealed a Hellenistic temple with clay figurines dating from the sixth to the first century BC. Excavations in 1969 by Brahim Kaoukabani. and in 2009 by the Italian government, found evidence of cultic practices and produced a detailed reconstruction of the sanctuary's architecture.
which is about 2/3 the original word count and doesn't leave out anything important. Note that MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends 2-3 paragraphs for an article of this length.
"... to the Ottoman era (1516–1918)" Since you've already got the little table of archaeological periods, add Ottoman to that and leave the dates out. And you could leave out the dates in "Persian period (539–330 BC)" in the next paragraph for the same reason. And add "Middle Paleolithic" to that table.
"economy flourished ... necessitating resource optimization": I would think resource optimization is something you resort to when the economy is not doing well. Perhaps this could be clarified?
The placement of the duck picture makes it seem like it's related to the events of the Persian period discussed in this paragraph, but the description on the commons page says it's from the Hellenistic. Clarify this in the caption and/or move it to the right location.
namely the Seleucid Empire in West Asia and Ptolemaic Egypt" It's not clear how this relates to the article subject. Was the temple located in the Seleucid Empire?
Yes, Alexander generals partitioned previously Persian holdings among themselves. Tyre was under the Seleucids, but also was heavily influenced by the nearby Ptolemies. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"prevailing use of the Phoenician language among the majority" If it's the prevailing language, it's redundant to say it's used by the majority.
"Some of these findings were documented by orientalists" you mention a few sentences later that Renan was an orientalist, so this sentence is redundant.
collecting ancient "beads"; why is "beads" in scare quotes? It's not entirely clear when the collecting of these beads happened. I think what you're saying is that modern-day people found the beads buried in the area and collected them to make stuff. That should be clarified.
"the Italian government funded" I'm curious why the Italian government would be interested in funding this. Was there something about the site that ties to Italian history? You mentioned this funding in the first paragraph of the lead, so I assume there's something particularly significant about it.
The Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs through its development and cooperation agencies regularly funds activities in developing countries. Someone must have applied for a grant.
"Notably ... showcasing": it sounds like you're trying to sell this. Just say what they did and leave it up to the reader to decide now notable it is.
"corresponding approximately to modern-day Israel, Palestine, and Jordan ": Link Israel and Jordan. Also, earlier, you say "Palestine (modern day Israel)", so is there a need to explicitly call it out here in addition to Israel?
"the humble proportions of such temples" Does the source say "humble"? This sounds like editorializing.
Edrey 2018, p.185
Then add attribution. Perhaps something along the lines of: The architecture of such temples and their proportions (which Edrey characterized as "humble") ...
Description
"the sanctuary was modified in multiple phases", perhaps "... was built in multiple phases" or "... was modified multiple times"?
" but remains have not survived,": If there's no remains, how does anybody know it existed? Maybe "... have not survived intact"?
True, especially in reference to the very specific type of cultic image found buried outside of the temple. There is also a wealth of artifacts from the late iron age and Persian period supporting the existence of an earlier building. I fixed the sentence based on your recommendation. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Additionally, the feet of another statue of a different iconographic type, were found by Kaoukabani": delete the second comma. Maybe also delete "Additionally".
"large paved courtyard leading to the southwest-facing temple façade" This is confusing. If the walls were aligned east-west and north-south, how do you have one of them facing southwest? Likewise "west-northwest side" in the next sentence. Would it be possible to add a diagram illustrating the layout?
I will do my best to include a diagram. The source diagrams clearly show that the temple is tilted by quite a few degrees compared to the east-west axis. The source text however seems to be overly simplified. I removed the discrepant passages from Oggiano. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"in the Iron Age II and Persian period phase layers" What does "period phase layer" mean? Specifically, what's the difference between "period" and "period phase"?
"uncovered the remains of lamb". Should that be "... a lamb"?
Sadly, this nomination has seen absolutely no progress since David's note from six days ago, and it has been open for seven weeks now. I'm afraid I'm archiving this now. FrB.TG (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an organization that advocate for human exploration of Mars.
I have tried to improve this article to the best of my ability since the last FAC a year ago. Given the lack of reliable sources, I do not think I can add any more content into the article. Please forgive for any mistakes/blunders I have made in the article or in this FAC. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Harrias
Per MOS:INFOBOX, the infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject". As such, nothing should only appear in the infobox (and therefore, unless there is anything controversial, nothing in the infobox should need citing there). From what I can see, the 'Tax ID no.', 501(c) legal status, and headquarters only appear in the infobox. These should either be replicated in the main body or removed. (For the Tax ID #, I'd recommend removal).
"The society's aims are garnering support for human Mars missions from the public.." could be more tightly phrased as "The society's aims are garnering public support for human Mars missions.."
Why aren't Robert Zubrin and Elon Musk wikilinked on first mention in the prose?
"and has chapters in Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe, etc." What does "etc" mean here? Everywhere? A few other places? Also, as the United States has not been mentioned to this point of the article, it leads the reader to conclude it isn't a US-based organisation, despite what the infobox suggested.
"As such, they favored alternatives that are often impractical.." Why are they impractical? Who says they are impractical?
"The testimony seems to be unmoving to the committee.." What?
It seems weird to have Background and founding after Operations and structure.
"..and applied to the University of Washington for researching nuclear fusion." I don't think that is grammatically correct.
"..and started working at Martin Marietta a year later after graduation." In a Featured article, I shouldn't need to click on a link to understand its relevance to the article, but here I have no idea what "Martin Marietta" is.
"at $20 billion; one-twentieth the cost of the Mars mission plan in NASA's Space Exploration Initiative ($250–$500 billion)." Given we have the figures, it is clear that it isn't necessarily "one-twentieth": "significantly" would suffice, though it could be written more fluently.
"The book's reception is positive, with over four thousand letters and emails sent to Zubrin by readers." Firstly, I can't find this mentioned in the source; secondly, the tense seems off; and thirdly, it feels pretty NPOVy.
Honestly, overall this article doesn't have the look or feel of a Featured article. In my opinion the prose consistently falls short of the "professional standard" required by WP:FACR. The article has an "as of 2017" which makes it appear six (nearly seven) years out of date. There seems to be little to no critical opinion of the Mars Society, no commentary on whether Musk is still involved and whether his space projects tie-in with the society. Unfortunately as this stage I would recommend withdrawing the article, and following the advice given during the previous nomination, to successfully nominate the article at GA, and then maybe explore either a peer review or a copy-edit from the WP:GOCE. Harrias(he/him) •talk16:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you a lot for reviewing the article. I'm very sorry if the coverage of this article is a bit lacking. I've spent money and bought many books about the Mars Society and I've made use of the Wikipedia Library to access even more journal articles (that mostly talk about MDRS/FMARS). If you need to verify information in the article, I'm more than glad to email it to you. That being said, there are very few reliable and independent sources that describe Mars Society's operations, and frankly, I don't know what else to add any more other than details about MDRS/FMARS (which is discouraged by the last GAN as it distracts the reader). The Mars Society is a very obscure topic and is mostly known because of Robert Zubrin and Musk's brief stint there before founding SpaceX.
As for sending this article to GAN/PR/GOCE, I have to say that I have had terrible experiences with them. It takes forever to get a GA review/PR and if you are not a regular there, the reviewer often only does cursory reviews and even just straight up being unresponsive (see Talk:SpaceX Starship). I also asked past reviewers of the last FAC a few weeks ago, only to receive no response and no acknowledgment. The past two years on Wikipedia have been a very demoralizing experience for me. So once again, thank you a lot for giving a proper review of this article. I really do appreciate it. But I will not withdraw this FAC because I have lost patience with the GAN/PR/GOCE processes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: sorry CactiStaccingCrane but this has now been open for more than three weeks and has feedback from only one user and that too a rather negative one. With that in mind, I'm timing this out. The usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply.
Regarding your feeling of discouragement, I understand that FAC can be a frustrating experience especially when fewer people show up to review your article. Perhaps try to review other people's nominations and find editors who have interest in similar topics to collaborate with. FrB.TG (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about history of India national football team at the Asian Games. It is a well researched article, having detailed facts and stats backed with reliable citations. Comprehensive with needed structure and images and is consistent with citations. During DYK nom, I was asked for copyedit. Thus the article was copyedited with the help of GOCE, following which I thought of nominating it for Featured status, my first FA nom and proud to nominate since being a volunteer here for so many years now. Hope the reviewers here will help it to get it promoted. Welcome to all feedbacks. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest withdrawal and to go through the GA process first. While the prose quality has drastically improved since I first saw it at the DYK nomination, it is clearly still below FA standard. There are still basic grammatical/spelling errors ("The Asian Games Federation (AGF) organizing the games from the first edition in New Delhi until 1978", "when a result is not produced", "defeating Bangladesh 3–0 victory", to say nothing of poor sentence organisation etc. A large proportion of the article is also sourced to sportskeeda.com, which per WP:SPORTSKEEDA is "generally unreliable". Again, I think seeing how the article does at WP:GAN would be beneficial. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I think that AirshipJungleman29 is correct. I am archiving this in the hope that it is improved and brought back. As well as a run at GAN, can I recommend a copy edit via GoCER, a period at PR and perhaps consideration of involving a FAC mentor. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the first Catholic bishop of Chinese ethnicity, who was active during the 17th century. This is my first FAC. As no one have agreed to mentor me, I decide to be bold and give it ago. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria, thanks for the image review. The entire "tagging" thing is new to me, as I just scrape whatever is there on Wikimedia Commons. I will try my best.
I will add the alt text soon.Alts added.
File:Luo_Wenzao_(Gregory_Lopez).jpg – I tried looking into BNF and I found it. Here is the link. The description is also given on the page. A part of the description says
Collectionneur : Gaignières, Roger de (1642-1715). Collectionneur
Référence bibliographique : Gaignières, 1420
Collection numérique : Collection Gaignières (histoire de France)
Description : Collection numérique : France-Chine
Rights : Public domain
I think we just need to fix the commons "tagging"... and it will be all right? The rationale would be that it was collected somewhere between 1642 and 1715, implying that it was definitely published before 1928.
File:临汤若望〈耶穌方釘刑架像〉.png – I am not sure what you mean. Where do I find "the information on the image description page"? Its wikimedia commons page provides the following information:
Source《臨湯若望進呈圖像說》(The source is from a text called Copies and Analysis of the Images Presented by Johann Adam Schall von Bell)
Author 楊光先 (Yang Guangxian)
The text, which I translated as Copies and Analysis of the Images Presented by Johann Adam Schall von Bell, is in the public domain. Here is a copy of it at the Chinese Wikisource project. {{url=https://download.thereformedcatholic.org/%E7%BE%85%E9%A6%AC%E5%85%AC%E6%95%99%20Romanism%20Catholic/%E4%B8%8D%E5%BE%97%E5%B7%B2_%E9%99%84%E4%BA%8C%E7%A7%8D_[%E6%B8%85]%E6%9D%A8%E5%85%89%E5%85%88%E7%AD%89%E6%92%B0_%E9%99%88%E5%8D%A0%E5%B1%B1%E6%A0%A1%E6%B3%A8_%E5%AE%89%E5%BE%BD%E5%8F%A4%E7%B1%8D%E4%B8%9B%E4%B9%A6_%E9%BB%84%E5%B1%B1%E4%B9%A6%E7%A4%BE_2000.11.pdf|Here}} is another 2000 reprint with a foreword that talks about how the book containing the text and figure was composed between 1664 and 1665, published around the time. There was another confirmed published copy at 1869 (see foreword p. 9).
File:Mgr_François_Pallu.jpg – If you look very closely to the image itself, it dates "1685" at the bottom right corner. If we can't use this, may I suggest File:Mgr François Pallu, évêque de Chine.jpg?
File:吳歷.jpg needs a US tag – I have looked into where it is from. It is from Collection of Figures of Qing Scholars [zh], 1928. The painter's name is Huang Xiaoquan (黄小泉), and his death date is not known. Huang Xiaoquan was hired to paint the figures, so arguably a work for hire. I am happy to err on the safe side and remove this image.
File:Mandatum_seu_Edictum,_Charles_Maigrot.jpg - We could find an alternative image here [28] from the Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek. The DDB one says it was published c. 1710, so definitely in public domain.
Essentially we need the image description page (which is the Wikimedia Commons page) to include tags indicating why the work is either freely licensed or in the public domain in both the US and in its country of origin, and also have sufficient information for us to be able to verify that the tagging is accurate. So for example File:Mgr_François_Pallu.jpg has a life+70 years tag which covers its status in France, and also has a published before 1928 tag meant to cover its status in the US. However, because there is no publication date provided, we can't verify it was published before 1928. ("Publication" has a particular meaning in US copyright law, and simply being an old image doesn't necessarily mean it satisfies that - an image could be old and never officially published). So for that image, if you can find any confirmed publication before 1928, then the image is fine.
File:Luo_Wenzao_(Gregory_Lopez).jpg: since the collector died in 1715, even if we assume it is unpublished, it would pass by the strictest "120 years since their creation" rule for unpublished images. Am I correct?
This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Archibald Stansfeld Belaney (September 18, 1888 – April 13, 1938), commonly known as Grey Owl, who was a popular writer, public speaker and conservationist. Born an Englishman, in the latter years of his life he passed as half-Indian, claiming he was the son of a Scottish man and an Apache woman. Dsiedler (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may or may not have time for a full review of this in the future, but at a very quick glance I'm tempted to oppose based on the extremely high volume of short stubby paragraphs throughout - and having his relationships listed as a set of bullet points is something of a no-no. If the article is still here in a few weeks I'll review in full then, but I suspect it may be opposed by others if the reading experience isn't improved dramatically. - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from UC
I notice that Dsiedler is fairly new to Wikipedia and that this seems to be their first major project; firstly, welcome to FAC and thank you for your hard work on this article.
From an FA promotion standpoint, I have quite a few reservations about this one; unfortunately. It's also a big article, which makes pulling out specifics difficult without creating an overwhelmingly huge list. Crudely speaking, the main issues fall under the following:
The article has quite an essayistic tone overall: charitably, we could call some of the phrases more poetic than encyclopaedic. A few representative examples that stuck out to me:
It was Aunt Ada who would come to dominate Archie's early life.A gloss on Smith's account: "Ada had complete charge of Archie and stressed obedience... Determined to make sure that her nephew would not turn out like his worthless father, Ada exercised total control over him at home."
Toronto held no appeal for Belaney, and in the fall of 1906 he headed northA gloss on Smith's account: "The story of the city’s progress, however, had little interest for Archie, who had come to Canada to live in the wilderness, near Indians."
There is no clear record of Belaney's life in the winter of 1911-1912. He next surfaces, alone, in the summer of 1912 in BiscotasingParaphrase of Smith: "Unfortunately — apart from this one letter — no other documentation exists on Archie in the winter of 1911-12."
The story of the first meeting between Grey Owl and W.J. Oliver is both amusing and revealingRemoved note.
For the first time in his life, Grey Owl, supposedly raised in Arizona, stepped onto his native soilParaphrase of Smith: "For the first time in his life, the “part-Apache Indian,” who had supposedly been raised in Arizona, stepped on American soil."
The Men of the Last Frontier was Grey Owl's desperate wakeup call to the people of Canada to resist the destruction of their wildernessRemoved sentence.
Very puzzled here: The next point bids me use fewer direct quotations, but the last point objects to some of the paraphrases and glosses of sources as "poetic".
The article makes heavy use of direct quotation from non-free sources, potentially placing it in conflict with WP:NONFREE, which requires that the use of such sources be minimal. This also has a negative effect on the prose quality and readability, by causing the article's voice to jump around and the narrative to lose focus by getting dragged into whole paragraphs of primary sources. The majority of the "First tour" section, for instance, is simply lifted from a non-free source with no real analysis or attempt to do anything with it. In general, an encyclopaedia should synthesise these sources and move fairly lightly over them, directing interested readers to follow them up elsewhere.
The article is extremely long, but makes use only of a single level of heading; the logic to the organisation is also unclear (why "Posthumous recognition", then "Alcohol use", then "Grey Owl's names", then "Relationships with women"?) I would recommend looking at some other biographical FAs to get some ideas as to how a clearer order could be imposed on the material. Up to and including "Posthumous recognition" the logic is clear, with the article simply following the course of Grey Owl's life and aftermath. The existence of "Alcohol use" and "Relationships with women" predate the start of my contributions. "Grey Owl's names" is my sole contribution. While the material in "Alcohol use" could be folded into the other sections with no great loss, "Names" and "Women" are useful: The guy had a lot of names and a lot of women and children. Keeping track of them all isn't easy and providing the information in a succinct form is helpful for the reader. An idea would be to move these into subsections in a top-level Appendix section.
There are quite a few spit-and-polish matters that would be better looked at at peer review;
hyphens where we need endashes for page/year ranges, Hypens have been changed to em dashes for all ranges.
inconsistent capitalisation and punctuation in sources, punctuation before quotation marks where it should be after, round quotes instead of straight ones... None of these are themselves majorly serious, but the quantity of them says to me that the article hasn't really received the sort of preparation and mentorship it really ought to have before coming to FAC.
I notice that the nominator was advised to seek more mentorship and to take the article through other processes, such as GA and PR, and to seek advice from more experienced editors. I would echo that advice; at the moment, I think this is simply the wrong place for the article in its current stage of development. UndercoverClassicistT·C18:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- This nom is underprepared for FAC, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Aside from the points raised above I note on a cursory glance several uncited statements, another serious issue that needs rectification. All the preparatory steps UC mentions in their last comment are worth taking; some of our most experienced editors still go through GAN and PR before FAC -- as a newbie you can also try the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Every single one of TompaDompa's issues was addressed before the last nomination closed so there is nothing to show from the last nomination apart from copyediting, which is the link above and of which there were no specific examples to change, just a statement it needed copyediting, and neutrality regarding it being considered a great action film. The latter I tried to address with Tompa at the time but their opinion remained unchanged, and ultimately on that one issue they were being unreasonable as it was thoroughly sourced by reliable sources and so it was one point that no matter what I changed we could never agree because the only way to meet Tompa's request was to remove the content entirely, bearing in mind, again, it was extensively sourced by reliable sources and was not a controversial statement given that it is a sentiment conveyed by the publications in the sources. You can also refer to the comments by FrB.TG in the last article that offer a similar sentiment re: the statement being thoroughly sourced. Oh and I removed the context section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Piotrus, TheJoebro64, TompaDompa, Pamzeis, zmbro, The Corvette ZR1 to see if they are happy to reiterate their support/weak support/oppose responses from the previous nomination just to get this moving. Tompa as the main opposition in the last review, if you are happy to look at it, this link shows copyedits made to the article as requested and the removal of the context section (I can't remember if you asked for that or someone else), and regarding the neutrality I'd ask that you potentially consider FrB.TG's comments here as well as my own respones last time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem it's not late, the previous nomination was deemed to have insufficient support so this is a new nomination. The neutral pings above are to everyone who voted on the last nomination to see if they are still happy to give their support or oppose to this nomination since they've already reviewed it and it seems a waste to get a whole bunch of new separate people to re-review it. It won't need as many new reviews in that case and we can avoid the nomination failing either through lack of activity or longevity. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to be progressing, so I am regretfully going to archive it. Such is the lack of response that the usual two-week hiatus will not apply. However, I would suggest that immediately re-nominating the same article is probably not the way to go. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Changi Airport station which serves Changi Airport. It is one of the most iconic stations on the Singapore MRT network. This is an old GA from 2020 and I've since worked to bring it to FA status, and after being copyedited, I decided to put this up for FAC. ZKang123 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source review (not passed)
I found problems in all the references I've spot checked (selected at random other than the last one, which I checked as its phrasing seemed a bit off). I have concerns about the sourcing more broadly as a result.
Reference 6: The article says the study concluded that "the level of passenger traffic may be insufficient", but the source says it found that traffic "will not be sufficient", which seems more definitive
Reference 9: The article says that "the connection was unfeasible because workers preferred to commute to the airport by taxi", but I can't see where this is stated in the reference. It notes towards the end that travellers rather than workers preferred taxis as they needed to transport luggage. The reference also adds the proviso that the 1986 study found that the line wouldn't be viable in the next decade, not at all as the article implies.
Rewritten that it was the travellers' preference. I must have misread the two sources when writing this... Also wrote that the line would be unfeasible "in the immediate period".--ZKang123 (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 10: checks out, but this reflects only the Singapore Government's views. Why are the views of the MP who was advocating for the line referred to in this story not noted in the article? It would seem that they were correct given that construction of the line began only a few years after the government was claiming it wasn't viable. It seems a good idea for the article to cover this issue.
Reference 15: "After another feasibility study by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) in March 1996, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced finalised plans for the 6.4-kilometre (4.0 mi) branch on 15 November 1996" - it would be much better to not use a primary source here, and I'm not sure this fully supports the statement: on page 4 he announced that the branch line would be built, not that the plans were finalised. The statement that the feasibility study was completed in March also isn't supported by the speech, which says it began in March and was completed shortly before the time of the speech in November.
Rewrote that he announced that the branch would be built. About the date... it's probably due to subsequent rewrites. I will drop the March 1996 part. Also, refs 16 and 17 follow up on the statements.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 36: "rail operator SMRT reported a crack in the crossing at Changi Airport MRT Station" is lightly paraphrased from the source.
The sources are all reliable, albeit with the usual proviso around the neutrality of the media in Singapore especially when covering the government or politics more broadly (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#Reliability of The Straits Times for instance). The article would benefit from broader sourcing than the local media and government announcements if possible - for instance, have urban planners in other countries commented on the omission of a MRT station at the airport given that these have been common at major airports for a long time? Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've noted back in the FAC of Woodleigh MRT, it would be difficult to find any outside commentary, but perhaps there should be for a rather prominent airport. I will get back on this if I found any.--ZKang123 (talk)
Google scholar yields no commentary of the lack of MRT access to the airport. Though only found another article on the technical commentary of the station construction and design,--ZKang123 (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these changes. As the issues appeared on all the sources I reviewed, I remain concerned about the broader sourcing. This is especially the case as some of the Singapore MRT articles I reviewed for GANs have had similar issues. I'll leave it to other editors to consider this. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there are a couple of my questions/points pending from the previous nomination, I'll put them here too:
No mention in the text of the tours to China, etc in the 80s?
No mention of his off-table sponsorships/endorsements?
Legacy - "I suppose what I'm looking for in the article, ideally, is some comment or speculation (from suitable people) on why he was so successful, his influence on other players (e.g. style of play, general inspiration), him becoming the UK's highest paid sportsperson, and possibly something about his contribution to the growth of snooker worldwide." (Note "ideally", not "or else")
New points:
"His career total of 28 ranking titles places him fourth behind O'Sullivan (40), Hendry (36), and John Higgins (31)." from the lead is more specific than the cited text in the body.
There doesn't seem to be much use of book sources, which raises questions as to whether the article "is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (criterion 1c). There is plenty of commentary on Davis in books like Everton'sBlack Farce and Cue Ball Wizards, and Williams and Gadsby's Masters of the Baize. The latter gets a mention here, but in my opinion, as mentioned in my comments on the previous nomination, "The "detailed comparison and ranking of snooker professionals" is only 12 pages out of 235 in my edition so I think that's more a description of part of the contents rather than of the book as a whole." The chapter on Davis is slightly longer than that comparison section, at 14 pages.
There's also earlier coverage in lots of the 1980s snooker books (e.g. Burns'Pocket Money), more recent coverage in publications like Cooper's Deep Pockets: Snooker and the Meaning of Life and Sandbrook'sWho Dares Wins: Britain, 1979-1982. What's the reason for not citing more books?
Could you outline any further work done to address Amakuru's concerns about the balance of the article at the earlier nomination? (Most recent comment was 21 June 2021, I think.) Glancing through the many edits since then, I didn't see anything that obviously addressed this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Amakuru
As BennyOnTheLoose mentions above, I opposed this one last time on the grounds of balance and also a lack of detail in the career section, as compared with other examples such as the GA-level Mark Selby (the career section for Davis has 2981 words of readable prose compared to a current 5938 words for Selby). Doing an article diff of my comment from 21 June 2021 and today - [33] - it doesn't look like have been any very major changes to the Career section since then, so what I said last time still holds. I therefore continue to oppose I'm afraid, although I don't doubt it's decent enough for GA and has the potential to be an FA if some work is done to expand and balance it. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Rodney Baggins
From what I've read above, might I suggest that this re-nom is a little premature? I think such a prominent player article deserves input from various editors to get it to FA standard – if it does need quite a lot of work, I'm happy to help with that process. At the very least, I'd like time to go through and give it a good old copy edit for you. I'm currently looking at Alex Higgins but am also very interested in working on Steve Davis. Can maybe do in parallel? Depends on priorities at the snooker project level. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Level Crossing Removal Program, an infrastructure upgrade program of the government of Victoria, Australia. Since its creation in 2014, the authority has so far removed 74 crossings, with a total of 110 to be completed by 2030. I believe this article should be featured as it has been written to a high standard, illustrated with quality media, and the article has a variety of different pieces of information throughout the article. Most notably, the history, architecture and urban design, and reception sections give a detailed insight into the program from a neutral perspective, shining a light into the positives and negatives associated with the program. Furthermore, I am actively interested in the project and have therefore made extensive edits to the article to bring it up to GA standard and hopefully FA. As I am actively interested in the project, I also make regular updates to the article to reflect its ever-changing nature, notably updating the list of crossing removals as they move through their stages, and writing additional information about the removals when they are announced during an election cycle. I hope that this article can be promoted to FA status and eventually be featured as a TFA on the homepage of Wikipedia. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by Nick-D
While the article is in good shape, it feels a bit under cooked for FA status at present:
The background section is much too short, and doesn't really flesh out why the level crossings were such a big problem. There's lots of material on this - for instance, on the high proportion of time that many barriers were down and the problems this caused for traffic flows.
The 'political' part of the response section doesn't properly discuss whatever Liberal Party's position has been on this program. We only get the views of a backbench MP and what's described as a comment by one of the relevant shadow ministers. Surely the party had official positions on this issue as part of its election platforms, etc?
The material on concerns about the elevated rail sections of this project note that most people surveyed supported the project and the government was re-elected with an increased majority. This doesn't seem very relevant to this issue, as the concerns were being raised by people close to the elevated railways rather than the state population more broadly - there's a risk that this text simply dismisses their views.
@Nick-D thanks for the feedback. If more people agree with these issues, I can either fix them (if people are willing to give feedback) or just leave it as a GA. HoHo3143 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HoHo3143, I would agree with Nick-D that the article needs more polishing before FAC submission, and suggest you withdraw in favour of first pursuing a peer review. Other examples of issues include inconsistency in citation formatting and an imbalance of sources - the article relies heavily on government sites, but there appear to be scholarly sources that have discussed aspects of the project and should be considered for incorporation. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- tks for having a go at FAC, HoHo, and to Nick and Nikki for their comments; I concur with the latter's recommendation for PR as a next step. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.png)
.jpg)
_3.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Game_Developers_Conference_2010_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reading_Wikipedia_in_the_Classroom_for_Secondary_School_Students_81.jpg){kind=link}
