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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2019 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my occasional series about English bird reserves. Quite a short one this time, since its emergence from an industrial wasteland means that it lacks the archaeology and military history that occur in coastal sites Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great story! I've started reviewing and will comment soon. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Lovely article. A pleasure to read, well illustrated, and thoroughly referenced from what seem authoritative sources. I might hyphenate the attributive "high quality" in the first para of History, and use a dash rather than a hyphen for "9.30 am-5.00 pm" but that's all I can find to be pernickety about. – Tim riley talk 19:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, tweaked as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't get enough of rewilding stories, and this one is beautifully told. I do see a few issues, however:

1. “There is a potential threat to the reserve from climate change and flooding, although it may also benefit from new habitat creation beyond the reserve and improved accessibility.” - This sentence could be read as implying that climate change would be the cause of these benefits.
2. "a large "Mere" for wintering wildfowl" - I don't know what a Mere is or why it is in quotations. This term could use some explanation.
3. "100 kw biomass converter" should be kW, not kw.
4. "fish biomass" - should link to biomass (ecology) not biomass
5. "35% said that nature" - Per MOS:NUMNOTES, avoid starting a sentence with a figure.
6. "Consider adding this to article to Category:Constructed wetlands.

Best wishes, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clayoquot thanks for your comments and support. I've tweaked the last sentence of the lead, replaced "Mere" with the simpler "lake", and made the other tweaks as suggested, thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thanks as always for your diligence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Will have a look soon, first there appears to be a bunch of duplinks, which cna be highlighted with this script:[2]

• I didn't realise there was a new script, done now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The new one makes a distinction between the intro, article body, and captions as well, so it is a big improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, much better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder why the etymology of "ings" is relevant here, as it's not the subject of the article, and the info is not even found in the actual Denaby Ings article? Not that it's not interesting (the Danish equivalent is "eng", so I found it amusing), it just doesn't seem to be the right place for it.

• Removed note as requested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "with villages developing on the drier sandstone ridges above the flood plain" Any idea when?

• added at least the late Saxon period Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The visitor centre looks like an old industrial building. Is it original, or something built later?

• added that the RSPB created it from existing farm buildings, with source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Royal Society for the Protection of Birds" Could be spelled out and linked at first mention in the article body too.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "waders by grazing by cattle" Through grazing? The by by sounds a bit clunky.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a really cool sign post[3] I think, I wonder if it adds more than the last photo of the door, but up to you.

• I'd wondered about using that myself, changed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "although there also a potential" Missing "is"?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, many thanks, all done I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - everything nicely fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your review, help and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotchecks not carried out
• All external links are working
• Formats: just one small issue. For ref 15 the source is a 119-page report, but the ref. has no pagination.
• Quality and reliability: the sources all appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Brian. In a way, the whole report is relevant, but I take your point and I've paginated for the start of the conclusions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few things:

• "and the wetlands at Old Moor were made possible by the removal of soil to cover an adjacent polluted site." I'm not sure if I like "were made possible". Many things are possible. Could it be "and the removal of soil to cover an adjacent polluted site generated (or similar verb) the wetlands at Old Moor"?

• "Enabled the creation of" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "A calling male" (lede and body). Could the lay reader be helped with a link for "calling"?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Over the next two centuries, especially following the arrival of the railway in 1840, the whole area became dominated by its heavy industries.[2][3]" I might cut "whole" as surplus.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "enclosed". A link might be helpful for American readers.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The visitor centre and its café are open daily from 9.30 am–5.00 pm, except for 25 and 26 December, with the reserve itself staying open until 8 pm from April to October." I'm going to be really picky and suggest you haven't addressed whether the reserve is open beyond the visitor centre in winter.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "waders" is not linked on first use.::

• Linked in body as well as lead now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can anything be said about the mileage of the trails?

• Added this with a new ref to the RSPB accessibility statement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, as always. I particularly liked the post-industrial use.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wehwalt, many thanks for review and comments, all done now I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been, but it's only an hour's drive away and I'm an RSPB member, so no doubt I'll end up there eventually!

• "The "moor" part of "Old Moor" may refer to the old meaning of a marshy area, possibly less fertile than the alluvium of the flood plain." This threw me; first, it's words-as-words, so should use italics; second, I thought you meant an old meaning of the phrase "a marshy area"; third, I don't really know what is meant to be "less fertile", given that the first part of the sentence is about words. Can I recommend something like "The moor of Old Moor may derive from the Middle English moor, meaning a marshy area. When given the name, the area was possibly less fertile than it is today." or "The name Old Moor may derive from an archaic meaning of moor, referring to a marshy area. When given the name, the area was possibly less fertile than it is today."

• Italicised now, and tweaked in line with your suggestion, to make clearer, although I've reworded to make it clearer what it meant Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The picture of the visitor centre doesn't really have anything to do with the landscape section, and it clashes with the infobox. Perhaps you could add it as a second image to the infobox?

• I can't see that clash, but this infobox only supports 1 photo plus 1 map anyway. Moved to history, feel free to remove if that doesn't work on your screen Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "rendered the River Dearne lifeless" This is rhetorical- it won't have been literally lifeless, surely?

• Changed to "biologically dead", which is exactly what the source says. This river was massively polluted with a colour reflecting what was currently being dumped in it, so I'm reluctant to say something that contradicts the source. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In the history section, I'd like to perhaps hear a little more about why the RSPB did eventually take it on, and especially about what the Dearne Valley Land Partnerships is. Also, you introduce an abbreviation for the DVLP at the second mention. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Expanded both, and put all the DVLP stuff together Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Final paragraph of "management": would it be worth wikilinking those various other reserves? Don't be scared of redlinks - if they're notable, a link would be a good addition!

• Some are tiny, but I've linked the larger ones Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm surprised at the choice of a picture of a great tit, given that they're not even mentioned in the article?

• The image, taken on the reserve, was already there, replaced by a bittern now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "A number of rare flies have been recorded, including three species otherwise known in the UK only from a few sites in the East Anglian fenland" Species names with links, please? Again, nothing wrong with a redlink, and if it's a bluelink, it'll probably be one of the few to the species in question! In all honesty, these are exactly the kind of links I'd be clicking. (I was clicking links to the moth species, for example!)

• Done, although I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the articles! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Any interesting fungi recorded?

• Couldn't find anything, and this suggests there isn't much Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "RSPB Saltholme" Worth a link?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If the Moore et al. soure is proceedings of a conference, surely you should be citing the particular paper/chapter rather than the volume as a whole? I've changed this in the article, but please double-check what I've done.

• That looks good, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An enjoyable read! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn, it's a nice, fairly compact reserve, so could be worth the trip. Thanks for reviewing. Family are descending on us for Easter so it may be a couple of days before I get time to respond, I'll ping you when I do. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn, I think it's all done now, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support. The images still look a little cluttered on my screen. Template:Multiple images can be useful to neaten things up, as can shifting some to the left. I'll leave that up to you, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Josh Milburn I've tried and failed to integrate the multiple images template with the infobox, and I don't like left-aligned, so I've removed the visitor centre image. Does that help? If that doesn't work on your display, please feel free to reposition or remove as you see fit. I'm struggling a bit to fix this because I'm obviously not seeing what you are on your screen Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, sorry - I was meaning in the article proper, not in the infobox. I've added an example, but feel free to remove it if you don't like it. We decided to go down to Old Moor today; I just got back. We heard the bitterns, but didn't see them. A grass snake was another highlight. I'm sure we'll be back! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Josh Milburn Apologies for my lack of comprehension, that looks great. Always a lot easier to hear bitterns than see them, despite their size. I once had a close but stationary bittern in my scope and invited others to take a look; so well camouflaged some people still couldn't pick it out from the reeds! Grass snake is good though, and there should be some waders going through soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Just two points for you to consider, but I'll leave them entirely up to you, as it's each to their own on IB contents:

• It's each to their own for IBs, but I've always though co-ordinates a particular waste of time, given they are positioned directly above the IB itself (ie. They stand alone as a factoid already). I'd advise you take it out, but leave it entirely to you to ignore me.
• On the flip side, I would think that the area and elevation should be in there. Again, feel free to ignore – these two points are just suggestions
• As a huge aside, our cats are named after British former Prime Ministers: the Marquess of Rockingham is the youngest of our batch (Rocky for short), alongside Dizzy (Disraeli) and Gladstone.
  • I once shared a train journey from London to the Lake District with Michael Foot and his dog, Dizzy, who was as good as gold. Why the Labour leader named his dog after a Tory PM I did not presume to ask. Tim riley talk 20:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very enjoyable read and eminently supportable. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SchroCat, many thanks for review and support. I've added area and elevation now as suggested. It looks as if the coordinates automatically repeat, and they are needed for the pushpin map, so I think we're stuck with that (ps I love the cat names. My daughter's are Woody and Archie, after jazz musicians Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2019 [4].

---

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and L293D (talk 20:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of six Type 23 torpedo boats built during the 1920s. The ship participated in the Spanish Civil War and briefly in World War II, firing the first shot of the German invasion of Norway in 1940. The ship ran aground and was wrecked a few days later while trying to avoid Norwegian coastal artillery. It passed a MILHIST A-class review a few months ago, but was archived when I was remiss in responding to reviewer's comments. We've addressed all of the earlier comments and believe that it meets the FAC comments. The article passed its source and image reviews in the previous nomination and, since nothing's changed there, we believe that it doesn't need them to be reviewed again, but we'll abide by the decision of the delegates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support (as the reviewer noted in the nomination statement) - the only point I'd make with regard to my review on the first FAC is on the depth charges. You might just include a line stating something like "Albatros carried an unspecified number of depth charges for use against submarines." But it's not a deal-breaker for me. Nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Added a line about depth charges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to make it an FA-class this time.

• The book from Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert & Steinmetz, Hans-Otto has a German title could someone be so kindly to add a translated title.
• mean draft of 3.65 meters (12 ft 0 in). Same in the infobox, personally I don't think it is necessary to use the "in".
• by 533-millimeter (21.0 in) tubes The nought isn't necessary.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done. Thanks for checking this out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Also just let you both know that World War 1 and World War II are differently written. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you've got a hell of an eye, my friend!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha! Like Gog always says I have eagle eyes. So don't worry, I'll only use them if I find something despises. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR and at its first run at FAC, and all my comments were addressed. I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note 1: why is "His Majesty's Ship" in title case?
  • Every place I've seen these sorts of prefixes specifically discussed, they're in title case. Even without being attached to a ship's name.

• This seems inconsistent with the MoS to me, but here isn't the place for me to make an issue of it.

• Do we know why the range was only half[!] that intended?
  • Not specifically, no; sources don't actually say, but I suspect that the amount of steam consumed by the auxiliary machinery was excessive.
• "Their crew consisted of". 'crews'?
• "At least some of the ships were fitted with depth charges, but details are lacking." Why the vague generic statement when we know that Albatros carried them, as she used them against Triton?
  • None of my technical sources even address the issue of depth charges that were probably carried by this class of ships; only an operational history provided any clue that they did so at all. Since I have no idea if any ships other than Albatros carried any and absolutely no idea how even Albatros carried, I figured I had to be vague and generic.
• "Albatros was laid down at the Reichsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven (Navy Yard)". My German is poor, but shouldn't that be '(Wilhelmshaven Navy Yard)'? (Or, possibly, ' Reichsmarinewerft (Navy Yard) Wilhelmshaven.
  • Yes, I think that I was subconsciously expecting every reader to know where Wilhelmshaven is.
• "Albatros became the flagship of the 4th Torpedo Boat Half-Flotilla, consisting of her sister ship …". "consisting" -> 'which also consisted' or similar.
  • "which consisted", I think is best.

• Only if Albatros was not a member of the half-flotilla; was that the case?

• OK, I see your point now

• "At the start of World War II, Albatros was used in the defensive mining operations in the North Sea that began on 3 September 1939 that were intended to prevent the Royal Navy from entering the German Bight. Together with three destroyers and her sisters Greif and Falke, Albatros was tasked with anti-shipping patrols in the Kattegat and Skaggerak from 3 to 5 October that captured four ships." Optional: it would read more easily if "from 3 to 5 October" were moved to the start of the second sentence.
  • Had to rework the sentence a bit more than that, see how it reads now.
• "that captured four ships." Do we know anything about them? Merchant ships? Nationality? Total tonnage?
  • Annoyingly, no.
• "During Operation Weserübung, Albatros was assigned to …" I realise that Operation Weserübung has been introduced in the lead, but you should do so again here.
  • Really? This isn't a long-enough article, I'd think, to need another link

• I was possibly unclear. You state "Operation Weserübung, the German invasion of Norway in April 1940" in the lead, and in the article "During Operation Weserübung". Ie, you have information in the lead which is not in the main article.

• You are correct, but all I did was provide a definition which I don't think that readers will have forgotten by the time that they come to it again.

• "About 140 soldiers were transferred to the small motor minesweepers R17 and R21 and the former ship was in the lead" Optional: delete "ship".
• Note 4: who are O'Hara and Haare and how is a reader supposed to evaluate their conflicting accounts?
  • They can't any more than I can. O'Hara doesn't list Norwegian-language sources, but Haarr does and they both list German-language sources. And since neither footnoted that specific fact, I can't weigh one against the other.

• Fair enough on the latter part of my query, but taking a guess that O'Hara and Haare are historians, possibly naval historians, could that information be conveyed to the readers? If my guess is incorrect, could they be introduced as who/what ever they are.

• OK

• "Albatros was escorting the merchant ship SS Curityba while landing men on the island of Rauøy". Was Albatros landing troops, or Curityba?
  • The former, though I suspect neither task was done very well.
• "and was later assigned to Olav Tryggvason after the Norwegian surrender". If it is the crew who were assigned, then "was" -> 'were'.
  • Collective nouns in AmEng are singular.

How strange. Live and learn.

Nice, as usual.

For information, I respond more rapidly if you ping me when addressing my comments.

Looking good. Three queries clarified above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66 and L293D: - remember to address Gog's comments, let's not have this archived another time ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be truly embarassing to forget it twice in a row, n'est-ce pas?

Thanks for the thorough review, Gog, see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It reads well. Fine work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Does a one-word wave-through really constitute a "review"? I'd be interested to hear whether any attempt was made to test verifiability, and with what result. Even a sentence along the lines "I was unable to test for verifiability in view of the inaccessibility of the source books and the absence of google previews" would let us know where we stand. Were the boring format checks carried out? If so, say so. The single unadorned "pass" tells us nothing. Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The A-class review in which these things were checked is linked at the top.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • This is FAC, with its own criteria, and we don't, or shouldn't, simply import reviews from other forums. In any event, the sources review in the A class review doesn't look like a clear endorsement. I think the point raised about the multiple pagings of the Haarr references is a valid one that should be addressed. In all other respects the sources appear to meet the FAC criteria as to quality and reliability and there are no other format issues. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? The cite page ranges are about 5-7 individual pages for each paragraph. How is that too much?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Just saw the comment from Brianboulton so I thought I'd chime in. We'd like to see a few bullet points so the leg-work is evident. It's not about trust—it's about documentation. I'd like our reviews to be well-documented for the sake of any interested party. See the comment I just made in the Cardiff FAC at the bottom of the page, for example. --Laser brain (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: The sources are all of high quality and reliable, exactly what you would expect on a German navy vessel of this vintage. No formatting errors I could see. Spot checks AGF'd as Sturm has a long history at FAC. I note that the sources have not changed since they passed a source review during this article's abortive FAC two months ago, nor since it passed an ACR source review, which did include spot checks, six months ago. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Completed in 1928": Does it say below the lead that she was completed in 1928? - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It surely doesn't. Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2019 [5].

---

Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is about SOLRAD 1, the world's first surveillance satellite and the first satellite to make observations of the sun in X-ray and ultraviolet light. I created the article, improved it to B class, then to G.A. Since then, I have further improved the article, exhausting all sources I could find. I thus humbly submit it for the F.A. review process. --Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I will be helping Neopeius with this nomination and will start to address comments as I find time. Kees08 (Talk) 21:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No examination of prose, no survey for comprehensiveness of sourcing at this time.

There are a bundle of problems with source formatting, completeness of bibliographic information, and at least a few (rebuttable) RS concerns:

• Date formats! I see MDY, DMY, and ISO.

  Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Review and Redaction guide really needs more verbose bibliographic information. As it stands, this is basically just an external link. And I think you cite it differently, twice.

  Combined and done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I know Google Books says that Space Exploration and Humanityis authored by "America Astronautical Society". Google Books can be a trap. It's actually edited by Stephen B. Johnson. Individual topics (which should be cited with |chapter) have unique authorship. The "SolRad Program" section you are citing, for example, is by Matt Billie.

  That's particularly ironic since I'm on the American Astronautical Society's history committee and should probably email Matt about his article :) We had our semi-annual meeting last Friday. How is this citation?

  ^[1] --Neopeius (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I sense a colon missing in the title of Day, Logsdon, and Latell (1998).

  Interestingly, there is none on the cover or the frontispiece, but there is in the ISBN info. So... in goes the colon! --Neopeius (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Periodicals (such as Aviation Week and Space Technology) don't require publication locations or publishers barring exceptional circumstances (you don't need them here). On the other hand, page numbers... YMMV regarding the archive link. Technically, the web link is a convenience link, because the real source is print media. Some people like the double-archiving, some hate it. Regardless, that's not actionable.

  Then I shall note it but take no action!  :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't fully cite "Navy's Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities". Which should probably be italicized, because it's essentially a book published online. Actually, I'd cite it as such. And it has a doi, for fun: 10.17226/11299

  How is this reference? ^[2] (the placement of the chapter field seems odd) --Neopeius (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me look at the "Poppy Satellite" source more thoroughly before I pass judgment on it.

  It's an NRO document. If we can't trust the government, who 'can' we trust? :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Vanguard 3" is incompletely referenced.

  Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "SOLRAD 1" is incompletely referenced.

  Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You appear to reference Significant Achievements twice.

  Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I may need to be convinced that Mark Wade's website is a reliable source.

  That's fair. I'm finding him increasingly incorrect. Swapped him out for McDowell's launch log. --Neopeius (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Chicago Daily Tribune source is a broken link. It probably needs more bibliographic information, especially a page number.

  Fixed Kees08 (Talk)

• Kahler and Kreplin 1991 has a problem WITH CAPS LOCK BEING LEFT ON.

  Fixed Kees08 (Talk)

• I need to be convinced Andrew LePage's website is a reliable source.

  Drew is quite reliable, and he lists his sources. I could probably dig through and recreate his research, but I trust him. He's certainly as trustworthy as Matt Billie, for instance. --Neopeius (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Check author name format. Friedman doesn't match.

  'Dr.' Herbert Friedman? I'm not certain what you're referencing. --Neopeius (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The satellite tracking source is incompletely referenced. I'll need to dig a little to assure myself that's RS, but hardly my biggest concern at the moment.

  What other information would you like sourced? It's not an article but a tracker. Please let me know since I use this site for all of the satellites I write about, thanks. --Neopeius (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this is fairly easily correctable. So I'm just in "comment" territory at the moment, although I may revisit that if I get more time to dig deeper. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your help! I hope we're zeroing in on completion. :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Osifrage: All corrections made. Ready and standing by for the next round! :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC) @Squeamish Ossifrage: Neopeius whiffed a little on his ping, pinging so you see his comment. Kees08 (Talk) 15:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the referencing issues noted by Squeamish Ossifrage above, I'd also note that the references for several of the online sources do not identify who published them, or the broader website/publication the page is part of. This can be quickly fixed though. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

  Fixed Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Added alt text; let me know if you think it needs improving. Kees08 (Talk) 07:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: @Nikkimaria: Ready to resume when you are! :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Hey, just seeing if you have time to sign off on the image review. Let me know if you would like additional changes. Kees08 (Talk) 23:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open a month and not attracted any support for promotion thus far. I've added it to the FAC Urgents list, but if we don't pick up some momentum within the next few days this will have to be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few copyedits. Please review them for accuracy. Is there a reliable estimate on how long the satellite will remain in orbit? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The first one I might quibble with since it makes it unclear what the NRL established itself as, only when it did so. The other two are fine. As for a reliable estimate, given its altitude, I'd guess 100-200 years, but that's just comparing it to Vanguard 1, whose perigee is a little higher. --Neopeius (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you can't include OR of course. Any RSs suggesting the same? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a one. --Neopeius (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. I can support the prose. I have not reviewed the images or sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's wonderful, thank you! Sadly, SP100 is not available online for your perusal. --Neopeius (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "It shared satellite space with and provided cover for the first in the GRAB (Galactic Radiation and Background) series, a secret electronic surveillance program." This is clumsy - I had to read it several times to understand it.
• "Solrad/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit with Transit 2A via Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket". This is also unclearly worded. Do you need to mention the navigation system in the lead? I would say "Solrad and GRAB 1 were launched into orbit on a Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket". (See also query below on whether there were one or two satellites.)

Yeah, this paragraph has evolved a lot largely because when I originally wrote it, I did so from the perspective of SOLRAD being the main satellite and GRAB being the parasite. It's an outdated way to think about it since the two packages co-flew, and the GRAB mission was the more important one, even if the SOLRAD mission returned some excellent data. I've fixed it, and if you like it, that'll be my model for the other satellites in the series.

• "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit (along with Transit 2A) via Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket on June 22, 1960, marking the first time two instrumented satellites (SOLRAD/GRAB 1 and Transit 2A) had been orbited at once." I think I understand now - Transit 2A was a separate project? Maybe "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit together with another satellite called Transit 2A on a Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket on June 22, 1960, marking the first time two instrumented satellites were launched on the same rocket." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modified -- let me know if you like my solution. :)

• The first paragraph of 'Background' is unreferenced.

Good catch. I'd only recently split those paragraphs.

• It would be helpful to give the dates of Vanguard.

Done, with reference.

• " which in turn, inhibits stellar astronomy" I do not think you need the comma.

but I *like*, my superfluous, commas! :)

• "solar flares and other outbursts directly affected the Earth's thermosphere" What "other outbursts"? This is vague.

I guess solar flares is good enough for any irregular outburst.

• "chart the Sun's radiation, determine its effects on the Earth, and correlate it with activities observed in other wavelengths of light" Correlating the sun's radiation with other wavelengths does not make sense.

Thanks. Measurements replacing activities.

• "was required to properly chart the Sun's radiation, determine its effects on the Earth, and correlate it with activities observed in other wavelengths of light" Correlating the sun's radiation with other wavelengths still does not make sense. Presumably you mean correlating X-rays and ultraviolet with other wavelengths, but you need to say so.Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Fixed. Also, made consistent the capitalization of "sun"

• "to cheaply and efficiently produce a satellite for the GRAB surveillance mission." This is unreferenced and I am not sure it makes sense. Do you mean that production of SOLRAD reduced costs for GRAB?

Fixed both issues.

• "The satellite's GRAB surveillance equipment detected Soviet air defense radars using the S band (1,550-3,900 MHz)." You imply here that GRAB equipment was on the SOLRAD satellite, but in the lead and below you refer to "two instrumented satellites". Then you say "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was the world's first operational surveillance satellite." You are inconsistent whether there were one or two satellites.

Fixed above.

• " thus scanned the whole sky with no source in particular." Again clumsy. Maybe " thus scanned the whole sky without focussing on a particular source."

Thank you. Fixed.

• "as much for the orbiting of SOLRAD as the simultaneous orbiting of Transit 2A" I am not clear what this means. The article on Transit 2A describes it as a navigation system, not a satellite. You imply that Transit 2A was the satellite which carried GRAB, but if so this should be made clear. Then you describe Transit 2A as the parent of SOLRAD 1 - "SOLRAD 1 separated automatically from its parent, Transit 2A". I am confused.

Removed parent issues.

• "whip-style". This should be explained or linked.

fixed

• "ionized thermospheric layes" layers?

yes!

• "The SOLRAD/GRAB series flew four more times" Presumably the GRAB article is wrong to say that only two of its five satellites made it into orbit?

fixed.

• You say now that it flew twice more successfully, making three in total, but the GRAB article says two in total. Which is correct? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an interesting article, but the text is often unclear and it is some way off FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All excellent suggestions. Thanks so much! --Neopeius (talk) @Dudley Miles:

A ping only works if you include the ping and your signature in the same edit. @Dudley Miles: Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, I'll never get this right. @Gog the Mild: --Neopeius (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This process has actually had quintuple benefit since all the improvements end up on the others in the series. With luck, they can all be FAs! :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. My queries have been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much! Your comments were all spot on. I will carry your suggestions to future articles (and FA reviews I am involved with). --Neopeius (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

Copyedits were great, thank you!

• the satellite was in many ways a direct successor to Project Vanguard: as far as I can tell from the body, it would be OK to shorten this to "the satellite was a successor to Project Vanguard"; the qualifications don't seem to add any information.

Well, here's the thing. Vanguard was a civilian program. SOLRAD was not. GRAB absolutely was not. So, though it used the same satellite bus and many of the same people were involved, it was not a direct successor. That said, I really wanted to draw that line for context.

Fair enough, but what you currently have doesn't say that -- and in any case the lead should be a summary of what's in the body, and this isn't mentioned in the body. Do you have any sources, perhaps that discuss the overall SOLRAD program rather than this specific satellite, that talk about the relationship between SOLRAD and Vanguard?

I understand your concerns, but I do say in the article that SOLRAD used the Vanguard bus, that it was created by NRL, and many of the same engineers were involved. Moreover, several Vanguard experiments made it into the SOLRAD package. I think it's fair to say that SOLRAD was "in many ways a direct successor" -- the ways being what I've listed above.

Struck; I'd prefer something more direct, but I see your point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the GRAB ... package, whose mission was to...: this might be a British/American English difference, but I typically would only see "whose" for a person. Not a big deal if you're OK with it as it is, but how about "...package, which was intended to map..." or "designed to"?

I'm not quite sure I agree, but I've changed it anyway! :)

• Is there a suitable link for Soviet air defense radar network in the lead? Perhaps Russian air surveillance radars?

That link goes to VHF radars, whereas SOLRAD was looking in the S Band (between UHF and SHF).

OK. How about a redlink, then? Or Maury, do you know if there's a suitable target article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it was working in the s-band, I suspect it was looking for the Fan Song, not the P-12. Most Soviet EW radars of that era were VHF, and I don't think the antennas on the sat would be big enough to get a good signal above UHF. I'll ask someone that knows though, but I wouldn't hold it up on this, I'll add it when I know for sure. HOWEVER, there's no description of how the sats recorded and or played back the signals, and I think that is pretty imporant. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recommend a source for that?

• It was also desired that the intended targets of this electronic surveillance not know that they were being spied upon. Therefore, as American space launches were not classified until late 1961, a co-flying cover mission sharing satellite space with GRAB was necessary to enable this concealment. The source doesn't really say it was necessary, it says it provided cover (and saved money), so I think this needs a tweak. How about: "American space launches were not classified until late 1961, so a co-flying cover mission sharing satellite space would help conceal GRAB's electronic surveillance mission from its intended targets."

Done, thank you. :)

• Is it possible to identify the features visible on the equator of the infobox picture and reference them in the text? E.g. if the small feature on the left is one of the photometers, say so when describing the instrumentation in the "Spacecraft" section. I see the drewexmachina.com page has an image identifying some of the details; is that image available for us to use?

Good idea. Uploaded to Wikicommons and included.

• The drewexmachina.com page has quite a few details you don't mention. If you think it's a reliable source, I'd go ahead and add the extra details -- the mention of GREB, for example, the fact that GRAB was declassified in 1998, the fact that the lower orbit was intended to avoid the radiation problem, or the reason why the orbit varied from the plan (problems with the rocket's second stage).
• You mention a deviation from the planned orbit, but as far as I can say you never say what the planned orbit was.

I've been loathe to open the can of worms which is the zillion ways the satellite has been referred to in the literature. Similarly, I haven't wanted to clutter the text with too much info. That said, you're probably right. I'd like to not bring up GREB/SR1/SOLRAD 1/Solrad 1/GRAB/Tattletale/Dyno if I don't have to, though. :) I'm also not going to mention the lower orbit because Explorer 7 HAD a lower orbit, and this didn't keep it from getting saturated. Drew's stuff is generally reliable, but I try to verify what I see there in more than one place.

• The event was front page news, though as much for the orbiting of SOLRAD as the simultaneous orbiting of Transit 2A – the launch marked the first time two instrumented satellites had been carried to orbit on the same booster. The clipping accessible via the citation doesn't support this; is the clipping incomplete? I don't have "Publishers Extra" access to newspapers.com so I can't see the whole article. Assuming it does support this, I'd suggest rephrasing as "The event was front page news, though as much because the launch marked the first time two instrumented satellites had been carried to orbit on the same booster as for the individual satellites."

rephrased.

• These thermospheric disturbances were not just caused by solar flares, but also by active solar prominence regions as well as bright surges and subflares at the edge (or limb) of the sun. Was this understood at the time? Or is this a modern assessment? It would have required correlation with ground-based observational data, and I don't know to what extent e.g. the prominences could be monitored from the ground in 1960. If it's not something that could have been deduced at the time I think we should add something like "It was later determined that".

SP100 came out in 1965. It was a contemporary assessment.

• "Lyman Alpha" or "Lyman-alpha"? You have both.

With hyphen. :) Fixed.

• I can't see the source to confirm that it supports this, but assuming it does, I'd suggest saying in the "Ultraviolet" section that the Lyman Alpha detectors were dropped because it had been determined that solar ultraviolet output was not linked to flares.

Wouldn't that be nice? I had this discussion with Kees. AvWeek says it was deleted from SOLRAD 3 because of the negative findings. BUT it was left on SOLRAD 2. Why? Well, I can guess -- probably because SOLRAD 2 had already been built (and maybe even launched) before the finding was made. The sentence was deliberately phrased that way to avoid people asking why it wasn't deleted from SOLRAD 2. I agree, it's not perfect.

I tweaked the wording slightly to make it flow a little better without actually asserting the connection; see if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's just fine, thank you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SOLRAD 1 was also assayed for its ability to detect Soviet above-ground atomic tests: I'm not sure what you mean by "assayed" here. Do you mean that the data was examined later, or that SOLRAD 1's ability to detect these tests was discussed during development?

The latter.

Then I'd suggest rewording to make that clearer. How about: "It had been hoped during design and development that SOLRAD would be able to identify above-ground atomic tests, which produced strong emissions of X-rays in the bands that SOLRAD could detect. If a nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union were to go into effect, SOLRAD or its successors might then be able to detect unauthorized tests by the Soviets." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo! That's quite nice, thank you.

• Nevertheless, even this first limited surveillance endeavor yielded valuable insight into the disposition of Soviet air defense radars; in fact, Soviet air defense activity was found to be more extensive than expected. If the only information gained was that it was "more extensive than expected" then it's a bit wordy and we could probably cut down most of the first half. If it found more than that, are any details available?

Nothing that would be meaningful to the lay reader, but you're right that it was too wordy. Fixed!

• The "Status" section is too short; I'd combine it with "Legacy", either as "Status and legacy" or just "Status".

Done!

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: --Neopeius (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(further changes answered --Neopeius (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I've struck everything except the point Maury responded to. I'm ready to support, but since Maury indicates above that he feels significant information might be added, I'm going to hold off to see if he can suggest sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I had not heard of this very interesting project and I'm glad it's come up here. However, there is definitely a missing section about how the ELINT worked.

One of the sources has some details, and reading between the lines I see how it worked. Basically it did not record anything, instead it simply took the output of its receiver's IF stage and mixed it with a VHF source and back out it went to be picked up on the ground stations. So it could only be used when it had line-of-site both ways. Judging by the size of the ground station antennas, it looks like the downlink was around 1-200&mnsp;MHz, so that's why the Soviets didn't see the signal on their own receivers. Very clever!

Having been through FAs in the past, I feel bad about holding up any FA, especially because I don't have a good source that fully describes the system. I'm perfectly happy passing as-is as long as we don't have to re-FA when I do find the info and add it. I have no idea when that might be, I'm still in the midst of working my way though the UK sets. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maury! Thanks very much for looking at this issue. When I started SOLRAD, it was kind of as an aside, but then I kept finding more and more information to add. I agree that this kind of information is valuable, but I also worry about inundating the reader with too much information. For the average encyclopedic reader, that GRAB listened for air defense radars (I don't even mention that these are the radars that coordinated AA missiles) is probably sufficient, just as I don't go into detail how an ion tube works.

Which is not to say this information should not be added -- I'm all for making the articles as complete as possible (and defense stuff gets neglected since it was classified and rather arcane). It's just important that the information be presented in a concise and accessible manner so as not to detract from the context of the whole piece.

Anyway, if you think it's FA-worthy now, and you want to improve it later, I'm obliged to you on both counts. I'm certainly game for reviewing whatever you add.  :) --Neopeius (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's operation is easy to explain. Unless anyone objects, I'll add a section based on the NRO document. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I propose adding:

During World War II the RAF Coastal Command began deploying a series of radar systems to detect German U-boats on the surface. As the technique improved, the Germans found themselves under constant attack and deployed a series of radar detectors to give the boats time to dive.^[1]

In the post-war era, the use of radar in the anti-submarine role became widespread, and the need for better radar detectors became pressing. One such system was worked on by Reid D. Mayo of the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). This solution used a spiral antenna connected to a crystal detector tuned to microwave frequencies. The system was small enough that it could be placed inside the submarine's periscope, which allowed the submarine to check for nearby aircraft while remaining safely submerged.^[2]

In 1957 the Soviet Union began deploying the S-75 Dvina surface-to-air missile. Details of its "Fan Song" radars were measured by electronic reconnaissance aircraft flying off the borders of the Soviet Union, revealing their rough location and individual operating frequencies. This allowed the US Air Force to plan its entrance routes across the border by keeping their distance from the sites, but information on the sites further inland was lacking. Some experiments were carried out using radio telescopes looking for reflections off the Moon, but the information collected was not particularly detailed.^[3]

At the time, the NRL was heavily involved in Project Vanguard, the US Navy's effort to launch a satellite. When a snowstorm trapped Mayo at a Pennsylvania Howard Johnson's with his family, he began to consider using the periscope receiver system on a Vanguard fuselage to map Soviet missile sites. While his wife and children slept, he began carrying out calculations on the restaurant's placemat, and determined that the detector should be able to measure the signals as altitudes just over 600 miles (970 km).^[2]

The concept was very simple. A receiver in the satellite was turned to the approximate frequency of the radars, and its output was used to trigger a separate VHF transmitter in the spacecraft. As it travelled over the Soviet Union, the satellite would be hit by the pulses from the missile radars and immediately re-broadcast them on the 108 MHz telemetry frequency out a turnstile antenna. Ground stations around the world would record the signals and send them to the NRL for analysis. Although the receiver was omnidirectional, by looking for the same signals on multiple passes and comparing that to the known location of the satellite, the rough location of the radars could be determined, along with their exact pulse repetition frequency.^[4]

When he returned to Washington, Mayo presented the idea to Howard Lorenzen, head of the NRL's countermeasures branch. Lorenzen promoted the idea within the Department of Defense, and six months later the concept was given an official go-ahead under the name "Tattletale".^[2]

That's absolutely beautiful. Here's is my suggestion:

I propose that this NOT be added to SOLRAD 1 as it is quite long, comparatively, and goes into more detail than needed for the article. Where this would be absolutely FANTASTIC is the GRAB article, where I've wanted to put this information, which you have presented perhaps more cogently than I ever could. I think that would tie things together nicely, and in fact, set up the whole GRAB/SOLRAD 1-4B sequence for Good Topic status. --Neopeius (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I think a condensed version of Paragraph 5 (second to last) of what you wrote would go wonderfully right after where I currently have (under Spacecraft) "The satellite's GRAB surveillance equipment detected Soviet air defense radars using the S band (1,550–3,900 MHz).[13]" But the full definition would best go on the GRAB page.

How about:

A receiver in the satellite was turned to the approximate frequency of the radars, and its output was used to trigger a separate VHF transmitter in the spacecraft. As it traveled over the Soviet Union, the satellite would be hit by the pulses from the missile radars and immediately re-broadcast them to ground stations below, which would record the signals and send them to the NRL for analysis. Although GRAB's receiver was omnidirectional, by looking for the same signals on multiple passes and comparing that to the known location of the satellite, the rough location of the radars could be determined, along with their exact pulse repetition frequency.^[4]

(and we'd need the complete citation)--Neopeius (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: I have added the above and also the frequency transmission for GRAB (139MHz). I think the article is ready to go. Can you please sign off, and also provide the complete Bamford reference? Thanks very much for your help! :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the changes made address the completeness problem I see. The article glosses over the history of this system, and I'm not sure why. I suggested adding a total of four paragraphs, which hardly seems long for an article of this relatively short size. Additionally, unless I'm reading it wrong, according to the NRO sources the elint was broadcast on 108 and the 139 was used for commands and status. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maury. As this article is about the spacecraft, which was a dual mission, I made a deliberate decision not to overly emphasize one aspect over the other. Again, I think this information is great and best included on the general GRAB article.

Also, while I am not disinclined to briefly add some more of the information you want to include, I cannot do so without the Bamford source, which I've now asked for three times (not to sound snippy! :) That's just what's holding me up...) Thank you again! :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You are correct re: 139MHz. Fixed! :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Again, I am amenable to including material from the Bamford, but I'll need the full citation and, if possible, a URL for direct access, to do so. Thank you! :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I will note that, on my SOLRAD 3 review, I am being told that I'm spending too MUCH time on the GRAB mission there... So perhaps it's best to leave things as they are? (but I'd still like the citation, please). --Neopeius (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bamford is here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Maury indicated elsewhere on this page that they believe the page is much better and are supporting, in case you would like to cast your support/oppose. Kees08 (Talk) 16:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it! Things should be pretty close to done. --Neopeius (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the development and management of Project Vanguard (1956–59), --> "the development and management of Project Vanguard (1956–1959)" because MOS:DOB
• composed of the Project Vanguard engineers unlink "Project Vanguard".
• Like Vanguard 3, the spacecraft was roughly spherical unlink "Vanguard 3".
• massing 19.05 kg (as opposed to Vanguard's 23.7 kg) No U.S. customary measurement system?
• via four whip-style 63.5 cm long antennas mounted No inches.
• varying from 611 to 1,046 km in altitude No miles.
• the planned 930 km circular orbit Same as above.
• less than 6x10−4 ergs/cm²/sec How much is cm² in U.S. customary measurement system?
• over a circular area 3500 nautical miles in diameter --> "over a circular area 3,500 nautical miles in diameter" and link nautical miles
• intelligence successor, Poppy, 1963–65. The final five SOLRAD satellites were stand-alone scientific satellites, three of which were also given NASA Explorer program numbers. These flew from 1965–76. --> "intelligence successor, Poppy, 1963–1965. The final five SOLRAD satellites were stand-alone scientific satellites, three of which were also given NASA Explorer program numbers. These flew from 1965–1976."

More comments

• "19.05 kg" no lbs in the infobox.
• "(42.0 lb)" the "0" isn't necessary (in the lead and the infobox).
• By WP:UNIT the U.S. customary measurement system should be primary and then metric units.
• Just let you know that cm and km in the article are written in British English (centimetres and kilometres instead of centimeters and kilometers).

• Lbs were in the infobox...
• Fixed.
• Also per WP:UNIT, in scientific articles, SI comes first. Also, mass in pounds is meaningless. :)
• I'm using the Wikipedia {convert} template. Is there one that works in Murican?

Thanks again! Are we close? Could someone support this article for FA? @CPA-5: --Neopeius (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All changes made, though I loathe the need for conversions. The scientific community exclusively uses metric. We might as well start putting in furlongs, rods, and fathoms conversions. :)

The only change I could not make is 6x10−4 ergs/cm²/sec -- there is no English conversion, and turning cm² to English while keeping the other components metric would produce a meaningless chimera unit. That said, I did find that, although the erg is still commonly used in astrophysics (the province in which SOLRAD's findings clearly reside)m nevertheless, I converted ergs to Joules for universal application.:* @Neopeius: This looks great. Here are my last comments

Thank you very much for your help! --Neopeius (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Neopeius: This looks great. Here are my last comments about issues I just found. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Neopeius: Looks good Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I have done my best to accommodate all revision requests. I believe this article is ready to go. I am pinging all those who commented; please make a final review and let me know if you support/oppose/are neutral. And thank you all so very much for the time you've put into making this article excellent. Please do not hesitate to ping me if you ever need similar assistance from me.

Thus far, I have support from CPA-5, Argento Surfer, and Dudley Miles, as well as conditional support from Mike Christie (I've incorporated Maury's suggestions as far as I feel is appopriate for this article).

@Squeamish Ossifrage: @Mike Christie: @Nikkimaria: @Kees08: @Gog the Mild: @Maury Markowitz: --Neopeius (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: It seems to have an image review, and I am assuming that Squeamish Ossifrage's effort was the source review? I have been stalking the page, and if there is any type of review that an editor who knows nothing whatsoever about spaceflight could do, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how FARs are split up -- I didn't see anything about it on the page. What are the other categories that need to be checked off, and do they all require one reviewer apiece? Thanks for dropping by! --Neopeius (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Neopeius: Hey Neopeius could you add page numbers in the PDF refs. Because they have at least 20 pages and two of the three have more than 100 pages. Thanks and Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure can. Thanks! --Neopeius (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Done! @CPA-5: --Neopeius (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To chime in on sources, since this is a first-time nominator there will have to be a spot check. Also, I have gone through them all with a fine-toothed comb and have nitpicked as much as I possibly can. There theoretically should be few issues remaining, if anyone can pick this up. I have also been spotchecking throughout. I presume my edits to the article disqualify me from source reviewing, but if that is incorrect please let me know and I will finish it up. Kees08 (Talk) 00:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remain concerned about coverage and completeness. If you want to FA it in its current form I'll vote Neutral. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Thanks for reviewing—would you have time soon to enumerate some of your concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Laser_brain! Maury has articulated his concerns in our exchange above pretty thoroughly, and I've documented what I've done in response to his concerns. In short, I feel I have adequately incorporated his suggestions in such a way as to not focus the article too narrowly. Given that another reviewer has already told me that I included too MUCH information on GRAB in SOLRAD 3, which is structurally an identical article, I think it's best exactly as it is. Maury's more detailed information is best suited to the overall GRAB article rather than an individual mission article. Given that every encyclopedic source on this topic does not go into the detail Maury is suggesting, I think my approach is the better one (which is not to discount Maury's efforts or understate my appreciation for his assistance!) @Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk)

Thanks. @Kees08: If you have the bandwidth for a source spot-check, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I will request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is SOLRAD 1's mass in this? Should we add the SOLRAD 1 NSSDC link to the end of SOLRAD 1 was slightly lighter, however, massing 19.05 kilograms (42 lb) (as opposed to Vanguard's 23.7 kilograms (52 lb)).
• For the Aviation Weekly citations, can you add the page number? I know the url links to it, but it would be good for those with a paper copy.

That's all I see right now. Sources seem to line up with the information in the article. Kees08 (Talk) 02:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both issues addressed. Thank you for the check! --Neopeius (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be all good to go on sources then (and spotchecking). Kees08 (Talk) 04:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the lack of support for promotion by those who have dug into the comprehensiveness and content, acknowledging that we do have support from a prose quality standpoint. I have this on the Urgents list because I'm hoping for some more feedback. If you can sift through relevant wikiprojects for any other SMEs who might be interested in posting a review here, that would be a more proactive way to move this forward if so desired. --Laser brain (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Laser brain:. I will see who I can get to help. We're so close... --Neopeius (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage and Mike Christie: Seeing if you all have any more comments for this? Kees08 (Talk) 20:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain, I'm not opposed to promotion, but have refrained from supporting since Maury has indicated he feels some content is missing. He hasn't opposed, but he's more of a subject matter expert than I am and I would be uncomfortable supporting while he still thinks that. Maury, do you still feel the article is incomplete? I know Neopeius has added some material in response to your comments. Other than that I have no reservations about promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this article is incomplete. The history is simply not an accurate description of how this came about, and I personally don't think the solution is to read some other article. But that's being said by something who writes 125,000 chars on a single radar. It does not seem anyone else has commented on this, so I'm unconfortable holding up the FA on my opinion only. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maury Markowitz. A theme that comes up a lot during criticism of the FAC process is that we don't have enough SMEs to really dig into comprehensiveness questions. For things that I'm personally qualified about, I could walk into an FAC that's enjoying lots of support but notice that a key source or piece of the narrative was missed (in good faith). Usually the nominator just didn't know, and it's a process to work through the issue. @Neopeius: I'm hoping we can resolve this issue as I feel this is actionable feedback and I'm uncomfortable considering promotion with this pending. --Laser brain (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened the Background even further per Balon Greyjoy's request. Tattletale and SOLRAD each now just get a short paragraph apiece. I've carefully considered Maury's objections (which I value!) and responded to them. The technical details he desired are included under Spacecraft. The developmental details are subsumed under "After Vanguard, the Navy's next major goal was to use the observational high ground of Earth's orbit to survey the locations and frequencies of the Soviet air defense radar network." Does the article really need four paragraphs describing the provenance of the Tattletale system? Does the reader really need to know Mayo came up with the idea in a Howard Johnson's? Or that it was based on crystal video technique developed for submarine periscopes? That information is completely superfluous in the context of this article.

SOLRAD 1 is about SOLRAD 1. The focus is on the satellite, its design, and its results. I think adding all that verbiage regarding Tattletale's provenance does not improve the article. --Neopeius (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entire concept of FA is to be comprehensive and engaging. This article is neither. Quite the opposite, the edits that have been carried out have removed everything interesting and reduced it to a boring collection of factoids. It gets further from what I think of as FA with every edit. I realize this is ultimately simply a difference of opinions over how to write wiki articles. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a plan for a revision of Background which I'll implement on Monday. I'll ping you when it's up, thanks. --Neopeius (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(the article has been substantially revised per the latest comments -- please review and let me know if the current form adequately satisfies the need to balance breadth with brevity.) --Neopeius (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this tardy reply, been busy IRL. I think the article is much better now. I'll support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz:, your help has been invaluable. Thank you for all the time you've put into this FAC. --Neopeius (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in good shape. I have the following comments:

• The lead should note the period this satellite was active. It would also be preferable to note earlier (preferably in the first sentence) when it was launched, given that it's main claim to fame is that it was the first to do a bunch of things.

Substantially revamped the lead for the better. Thank you.

• What was the Naval Research Laboratory's role in Project Vanguard?

"the development and management"

• "in history's first remote satellite deactivation" - bit clunky

Fixed.

• "The satellite communicated results in real-time, each pass providing just one to ten minutes of data," - this is confusing. What's meant by a "pass" (is this an orbit?), and why did it only provide data for about 10% of each orbit?

Fixed.

This is still unclear - why did it collect data for only 10% or so of the time? Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it by putting things in a better order. It only communicated in real-time, so a station had to be in range, which wasn't most of the time.

That looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "about half the time the sun was in the sky" - this seems a bit confusing in the context of an orbiting satellite.

Better?

• S band is linked twice

Fixed.

• Reference 5 needs a page number

Fixed

• I'm not a fan of the lack of page numbers for reference 3 (American Astronautical Society), given that this is a 3-page range. Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I also added a reference under Background to the dummy SOLRAD launched before SOLRAD 1.

Thank you so much for your attention to this article! :) @Nick-D: --Neopeius (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• "established itself as a player early in" I would change that to "was involved in" to flow more smoothly, and I feel like "player" is a bit of a colloquialism

Agreed.

• even though it's a backronym, I would start shorten the naming sentence for GRAB with "was called the Galactic Radiation and Background (GRAB) program"

I've now put in the entire messy lineage of acronyms, from Tattletale, to Dyno, to Grab/Greb, to Solrad. :)

• since "such cover" references the end of the previous paragraph, I would expand a bit more to say that "the study of the sun's electromagnetic spectrum was the official cover used for the GRAB program"

You got it.

• I would shorten the sentences about the reason for solar astronomy, and just state that flying above the atmosphere was required to study the sun's spectrum
• Remove "on a more practical level" as that is subjective; just state that the solar flares affected the thermosphere
• Remove "in other words, a satellite" as that sounds conversational. The reader will know what a satellite is, or can go to its Wikipedia page. "A long-duration satellite was required..."
• Instead of using a list, why not make it a paragraph to explain the NRL goals? Some of the goals are redundant with what you explain earlier in the paragraph.

Spacecraft

Boy -- condensing all of that down to two paragraphs while preserving the information was difficult, but I think I got it. What do you think?

• I would split the first sentence, as a lot happens in it. "The NRL science satellite team, lead by Martin Votaw, was composed of Project Vanguard engineers and scientists who had not migrated to NASA upon its creation. The team adapted the Vanguard 3 design for SOLRAD/GRAB 1."

Done

• Take Explorer 7 out of the parentheses, and state "Vanguard 3 and Explorer 7 had also..."

I took out Explorer 7 altogether.

• Since this section is about the design of the spacecraft, I would change the lead for the third paragraph to state that the surveillance equipment was designed to detect Soviet air defense radars

Good call

• Shouldn't "turned" be "tuned?"

Yeah. Probably. :)

• Change "would be hit by" to "detect" to indicate that it is interpreting this information

Got it.

• It's a little confusing that it discusses how the spacecraft is over Soviet territory while it rebroadcasts to ground stations below, which the sentence makes it seem as if the ground stations are in Soviet territory

Agreed. I moved the range info from results to spacecraft.

• Was it a single antenna listening on 139 MHz? If so, it should be "via a smaller antenna" If not, the plural for antenna (either "antennae" or the commonly accepted "antennas") should be used

Fixed.

Launch and orbiting

• Thoughts on changing this section name to "Mission timeline?" "Launch and orbiting" comes across as a strange title, since this paragraph covers the entire mission

The paragraph just covers the launch and orbiting. The rest is in the science results.

• Shorten the first sentence and just state the SOLRAD/GRAB 1 launched on June 22, 1960 at 05:54 UTC"

Shortened

• Rephrase front-page news, as that is a figure of speech (and it probably wasn't front page on all papers), and would be better served by saying that it was extensively covered in the news

Ok.

• Remove the sentence of "once in orbit" and just jump straight to the orbital parameters, as the rest of the information about its staging isn't included in details of the launch
• Referencing the previous comment, if you keep the sentence, make the tense consistent

Ok

• States what glitches occurred in the second stage booster.

Don't know em. :) They're probably buried somewhere in Drew's references, only some of which I have direct access to.

Scientific results

• Remove "Nevertheless" from the beginning of the sentence, and I agree with previous comments about rephrasing the satellite deactivation

Fixed the clunky. I want to keep nevertheless. Otherwise, it appears the reader is getting two contradictory pieces of information (the satellite stopped sending useful data; the satellite continued to send data).

• Make the tense consistent in the sentence about communicating the results

You're referring to the -ed followed by -ing? That's proper English. :)

• Do you have the location of the "few other isolated receivers?" I would include that

I don't, sorry.

• Combine the "1.2%" comment with the previous sentence, as that connects with the information that it could only relay info when in range of a tracking station

I understand what you're saying, but it makes the prior sentence unwieldy. I'm open to suggestions.

• Remove "(wobble around its axis) like a spinning top" as that is explained in the precess page

I understand there's a link to precession, but most people won't click it. I think the reader is better served with the explanatory parenthetical.

• It isn't clear what the sentence with "only 20% of the data" is about. Would the satellite's only data be in the ranges it could detect? This requires some more explaining, as it's not clear what that means.

Fixed

• Remove "nevertheless"

Fixed

• I would change "deleted" to "removed," as deleted tends to imply something virtual, rather than hardware not being included on future missions. Granted, this removal was probably still during the blueprint phase, so there was no actual hardware removed, but I still think the word choice could be better.

How about "excluded"? Removed suggests it was in SOLRAD 3 and then taken out.

• It should state what organization/groups hoped that the satellite could detect above-ground tests

I don't have that information. The source just says "NRL was requested to scrup its year-long Solrad data..."

GRAB results

• It's redundant to say "Nevertheless, even;" pick one word to indicate that it still had valuable information despite its limited usage

Done

Legacy and status

• Can you elaborate further on the future SOLRAD/GRAB flights. Did the failures explode during launch, fail to make orbit, not broadcast information, etc.?

Yep.

• Remove the "and its position can be tracked online" as that's not a legacy of the satellite itself

I really want it to be easy for a reader to click the link to track the satellite's position. How do you recommend this be accomplished?

Done with my comments. Nice job on this page, it has grown a lot since I first reviewed it for a B-class in January. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all of your help! @Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19 April additional comments

• I understand the rationale for wanting to explain what precess is, but I think "like a spinning top" is too conversation, and the parenthesis can say "(wobble around its rotational axis)"
• "in the wavelengths the satellite could see" reads awkwardly. I would make in "in the detectable wavelengths"
• I would cite the online satellite tracker as a reference for the sentence, but remove "position can be tracked online" I know that you want the reader to be able to track it, but I think that would be more appropriate under and external links section.

Welcome back! Fine on #s 2 and 3. I'd like to keep the top metaphor for number one, but I did put the explanation into the parenthetical, where it reads better. :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: Did you have any additional comments, and did you intend to support/oppose or just provide comments? Kees08 (Talk) 16:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: Well, I feel dumb for not following up. Whoops! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice job with the article! You addressed all points that I brought up, and while I disagree with you on some style choices, you have done an excellent job of bringing this article up from its beginning. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Captain! Your help was invaluable. :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon. Kees08 (Talk) 23:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe rephrase: It was the first satellite to successfully observe solar X-rays, the first to conduct surveillance from orbit, and SOLRAD/GRAB 1 the first to be launched with another instrumented satellite (the unrelated navigation satellite, Transit 2A). to It was the first satellite to successfully observe solar X-rays, the first to conduct surveillance from orbit, and the first to be launched with another instrumented satellite (the unrelated navigation satellite, Transit 2A).

Fixed.

• I thought I noted this elsewhere, but it would be good to list the page number for this in case anyone has the hard copy or is looking at the digital copy that is paginated. Green, Constance; Lomask, Milton (1970). Vanguard – a History. The NASA Historical Series. Washington D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ISBN 978-1-97353-209-5. NASA SP-4202.

fixed.

• What do you think of including File:Atmospheric electromagnetic opacity.svg in the background section to illustrate that Earth's atmosphere blocks X-rays?

sure

• Extra period here: had not migrated to NASA.[9].

Fixed.

• Was this because the NYT leak? On page 2 of the black vault source. Might be worth mentioning if that is the case, more interesting than a simple rebranding. Also, wasn't the project renamed to Walnut, and the satellite called DYNO? This first space surveillance project was initially called "TATTLETALE" and later renamed "DYNO".

All right. I think I've fully upended the naming can of worms. I think the resulting story is pretty good. Thanks.

• I think there is some sort of 'deactivation' parameter for the infobox

Added.

• You should talk about the batteries, and how they changed after the first satellite (page 10 of Black Vault)

I talked about the batteries. I'll describe changes in the appropriate articles.

• NSSDCA site has some interesting information on how the magnets affected the mission, and some other details that could be included

Already discussed further on (I talk about how the magnets caused precession)

Very good. The other details that could be added would be the range of the Lyman-alpha sensors (like you have for the X-ray), the nitric oxide/argon chambers. You only have one sentence on them in the spacecraft section, seems like more detail exists that could be useful to the reader. Kees08 (Talk)

Added.

• Did you read the information here or in the journal referenced?

That's recapitulation of what I have from SP-100

• The trajectory details are typically included at least in the infobox

Done.

• From McDonald, Robert A.; Moreno, Sharon K. "GRAB and POPPY: America's Early ELINT Satellites" (PDF). Retrieved February 11, 2019., it seems important to include when/why Grab was authorized. President Eisenhower approved full development of Grab on 24 August 1959; four days after the U-2 shootdown, he approved the first Grab launch. On 22 June 1960, a Thor AbleStar rocket roared off the launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida, carrying Grab 1 into orbit. The U.S. now had a space reconnaissance program.

Done.

Well, the U-2 shootdown bit is not in there, do you think that's not important? Seems like the GRAB mission was authorized to cover the gap left from U-2. Kees08 (Talk)

Added.

• I forget, is the intention of this article to cover both SOLRAD 1 and GRAB 1?

Yes, hence the consistent usage of SOLRAD/GRAB 1 when referring to the satellite as a whole. It's awkward, but the fact is, they were essentially two different missions on the same satellite. The public knew about one, the military knew about both.

• Would an image of the radio control hut be a useful addition to the data section?

sure.

Are you going to add it or should I? Kees08 (Talk)

Could you? You have a better idea where you think it should go. Thank you! :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like useful information on how the data was handled
• Needs an endash: the SOLRAD designation.[5]:301-302

I think you fixed that.

More to come later. Kees08 (Talk) 00:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that's it for now, I will go at it again after these comments are addressed. Kees08 (Talk) 02:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you {{ping}Kees08}} I will address these tomorrow. {{ping}Maury Markowitz}}, {{ping}Laser_brain}}, I think I've come up with an elegant way to satisfy all concerns. Will draft tomorrow. Thank you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I fixed it today. Take a gander? @Maury Markowitz:, @Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think overall the background section is much better now. I will take another read-through of it and see if I spot anything egregious (although would like to know your thoughts on the U-2 incident). Kees08 (Talk) 03:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks much better now. There's a narrative! I made two minor edits, a WS to separate two paras, and changed one word for GR (spell checker I bet). My only remaining issue: currently the instruments and results are in their own sections. I think it would be easier to read if the GRAB equipment were in the same section as its results. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Maury. I'm concerned about overloading the results section, especially since I describe the scientific equipment under spacecraft. If I move the GRAB equipment out of there, the SOLRAD equipment sits oddly alone. I think I'd like to leave things as is. Will that be all right? --Neopeius (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason for leaving the equipment description in spacecraft is that, after this article passes FA, I am going to update the other five articles in the series, using the same format. Several of the satellites in the series won't have results sections. Now that breadth and comprehensiveness have been addressed, are you good with the article? Thanks again for your help! @Maury Markowitz: --Neopeius (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you have quotation marks around fadeouts in the lead?

I've seen it that way in several sources, but I guess they're unnecessary.

• Same question for Fan Song

Artifact of cut and paste from Maury.

• Is there a succinct way to describe how it was a dummy SOLRAD? I don't want to make the background too excessively long, but it made me curious A test dummy SOLRAD was successfully launched on April 13, 1960 along with Transit 1B.

Rephrased for clarity, but all I know about it is that it's a dummy. Probably a hollow shell.

Why don't we call it a mass simulator then? That is a real term, and you could wikilink it. I have personally used mass simulators before, so that would make sense. Kees08 (Talk)

Fixed.

• Should sun be capitalized? MoS says when used in scientific context, which I suppose we are?

Fixed.

• Used single quotes on this one, should at least be consistent: radio 'fade-outs' occurred

Fixed.

• I think the GRAB results section could specify the reasons for only 22 transmissions, that they were afraid of another international incident because of the Gary Powers incident (Drew Ex Machina specifies as such)

Already in there: "For fear that the Soviets would discover the satellite's espionage mission, President Eisenhower insisted that every GRAB transmission be personally approved by him.^[1]: 32 Thus, though the satellite's surveillance equipment functioned from launch until their failure on September 22, 1960, GRAB 1 only returned 22 batches of data,"

• It should also include when the ELINT mission ended

Already there: "Thus, though the satellite's surveillance equipment functioned from launch until their failure on September 22, 1960,"

• Should be an endash after Vanguard, per the title, also id= can be used to add SP-4202. Constance Green and Milton Lomask (1970). Vanguard a History. Washington D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ISBN 978-1-97353-209-5.

Done

That should be all. Kees08 (Talk) 23:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also incorporated https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/april/navys-spy-missions-space per your request. There isn't much new stuff for SOLRAD 1, but some great color for SOLRAD 2, which I'll update that article with.

@Kees08: --Neopeius (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a hard habit to break, but logical quotation (comma goes outside). "NSA Data Reduction," indicating the intelligence to be derived by processing the satellite downlink

APA and MLA and every other place I've worked says comma goes inside. Is there a reference for this?

Yup, our MOS, specifically WP:TQ. I used to not like it, but honestly I am just happy Wikipedia standardized something so I can copy/paste stuff between articles and only have to memorize one style. Wish more stuff was. Kees08 (Talk)

• File:GRAB radio control hut.jpg - maybe right align this, and use the upright parameter?

I am being told inconsistent information regarding caption alignment.

• Ref goes after comma from the U-2 incident[25],

Fixed.

And then that should be all (though you have heard that before from me!) Kees08 (Talk) 03:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the background section is a complete story, detailing what the Soviet Union was doing and what the U.S. response was (U-2 flights, shot down U-2, needed replacement for U-2). The pre-SOLRAD 1 story of the mass simulator launched is included as well. Spacecraft wise, all publicly available information is included so far as I can tell, I read through all the declassified documents. The launch section is complete, containing information on the launch and the only publicly available information on the 'glitch' in it. Results show the good, the bad, and the ugly; magnets helped get better data but caused problems in pointing the satellite, the only information on UV is included, the bonus nuclear test monitoring application is included as well. The GRAB results contains all publicly available information. Legacy and status includes all information after SOLRAD 1, including what is currently going on with the satellite and what happened with the backup. This article is as complete as it can be, as far as the research I have done shows. Kees08 (Talk) 16:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboad the Good Ship SOLRAD 1!

Hi, not an expert on FA guidelines - but a space engineering/physics student - so basically the target reader. I have some questions (mostly to sate personal curiosity):

• Did the scientists know they were working with a spy sat? How separate were the projects?

Assuredly. Votaw's team were NRL employees.

• So the sat had no ability to store data? Perhaps showing my age a bit, but were all early satellites like that?

Not all. Some early satellites had tape systems

• Did the magnets cause the satellite to precess because they acted like magnetorquers? Or because they made the satellite non spherical?

The former. I've clarified this point in the article. Thanks!

• Why did the science part fail? Did the sun tracker just stop working? or did the precession mess it up?

Probably the former, but it's not said. I got that from the 1991 article (which is available online).

• Were the GRAB transmissions encrypted or otherwise disguised? Omidirectional transmitter, right?

It would have to be omnidirectional, and I didn't read anything about encryption. I've just added that the first downlink was made when the spacecraft was well out of range of Soviet eavesdropping.

--Spacepine (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the Black Vault doc, I found a couple more tidbits to add. This article is the most complete resource on the topic you'll find -- at least until the NSA un-redacts their documents... --Neopeius (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, thanks for the info! Looking at the Black Vault doc - interesting what they've redacted. Seems like a lot of it could be guessed around from context. Cool article, good luck getting it through --Spacepine (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spacepine: I can answer one bit. The GRAB part was ridiculously simple - on the reception of a signal in the S-band, it sent out a signal on the telemetry frequency with the same duration. That is all! The resulting signal was received by ground stations, turned into voice-frequency pulses of the same duration, and sent directly to tape. Everything they learned was by carefully examining the timing of the signals they received - so for instance if there were three radars hitting the sat, they could see it was three separate ones because they would hit the sat at different times as their radars scanned around and they would get three brief sets of pulses on the ground. Slight differences in PRF also helped differentiate them, at least into families. There was no attempt to hide the downlink signal, and the Soviets could easily hear if they tried, which is, I assume, why the prez retained direct control over the system's use. But I think it would not be trivial for the Soviets to figure out what was going on even if they heard it, it would just sound like random beeping and would not have any obvious pattern to any fixed location on the ground. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: I loved the line you added about the system (under Background). Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 April 2019 [6].

---

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Cardiff City, a Welsh association football club playing in the English Football League. I nominated this in late 2017 and it failed due to a lack of reviewers. It's been a while since then, I've tweaked, tuned and improved bits here and there, submitted it for a peer review and had an editor from the WP:GOCE give it the once over. Hopefully it'll get across the line this time. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading the article and think it is on its way to a shiny star. Just a few quibbles.....

• During the 1960s, Cardiff began qualifying for European competition for the first time as a result of winning the Welsh Cup. - is this because they just won the Welsh Cup for the first time or because the cup winners became eligible for the first time? - Expanded slightly

• [After dropping into the Third Division, ]Cardiff were continuously in the lower two divisions of the Football League between 1985 and 1993 - suggest bracketed bit is redundant as you've just mentioned the relegation at the end of the previous para. - Removed

• In June 2009, the club completed construction of a state-of-the-art 26,828-seat stadium on the site of the now-demolished old Cardiff Athletics Stadium at a cost of £48 million - does "state-of-the-art" actually mean anything? -Removed

• what kit did the club play in between 1930 and 1992? There is no diagram of that one...

@Casliber: Thanks for your comments, I've fixed the first three issues. In regards to the kit, I was trying to include the most significant changes in the club colours and the kit was pretty consistent in that time. Kosack (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but you haven't listed which one of the ones is it, I figured it was one of the blue shirt white shorts ones....anyway, should be easy to fix. All else is fine on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an extra one in to cover the extended time period. Thanks for the support. Kosack (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the table position graph - Done

• File:Cardiff_City_squad_1920.jpg: when/where was this first published? What steps were taken to try to ascertain authorship?

I'm unaware of the original publisher and author. The picture is not used in any of the print sources I possess, the only two uses I have found on the net are very unlikely to have any claim to the rights. I have searched the British Newspaper Archive and it appears the photo was not published in any newapaper at the time either which is why I used the license linked to the picture. Kosack (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a US PD tag, and the UK tag in use requires you to specify in the image description what steps were taken - suggest adding some of your commentary here there. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• File:CardiffCityFC_League_Performance.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this graph?

The image is the work of another editor so I'm unsure of the source they are using. I have added a source that supports the information to the caption.

• Three of the four FURs for the historical logos are quite generic, and the fourth is incomplete - these need to be stronger to warrant the inclusion of all four. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: In all honesty I'm not good with image licensing at all. If the use of the club badges is objectionable, I would have no problem with their removal. Thanks for taking a look, let me know your thoughts. Kosack (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that they're non-free, and at the moment they are not well justified. If they are to be kept, that needs to change. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I've added the US PD tag and provided a brief commentary of searches undertaken for the squad image. I've removed the older logos. Kosack (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to be using that tag, we need to find a pre-1923 publication, not just creation. That's going to be a problem if there wasn't a contemporary usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I've emailed one of the websites that have it in use to see if they have the information. Until this can be established, I've removed the image and added two new ones, both of which are much more stable license-wise. Kosack (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm satisfied that the article is good enough to meet the FA criteria. Hzh (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your thorough review, much appreciated. Kosack (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look through the article, and it looks very good. Could I have a little explination on "The team's longest period in the top tier of English football came between 1921 and 1929. Since then, they have spent a total of nine seasons in the top flight, the most recent being in the current 2018–19 Premier League season." in the lede. Could this not comment that the team were in the top flight for (presumably) 18 years, and had this run as well? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Perhaps a reword to "The club has spent 17 seasons in the top tier of English football since, the longest period being between 1921 and 1929. The team's most recent season in the top flight is the current 2018–19 Premier League season." Thoughts? Kosack (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be better. It's a little confusing otherwise. I'll scan the rest of the article in a bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed that over. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I can't see too much else that would cause me any concern. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quality and reliability

• I did the source review at the previous archived FAC. I raised questions about the quality/reliability of several sources, but concluded that I was "happy to accept the opinions of other editors with more expertise in football articles than mine, as to the reliability of these sources. If they don't object, I won't." Same applies now. The sources in question were:

• English Football League Tables
• Welsh Football Data Archive
• Historic Football Kits
• 11 v 11

• To these I will add: The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation

• Source links

• All working per the external links checker tool

• Formatting

• Ref 39: The Independent should be linked on earliest mention (it is linked in ref 69)
• Ref 62 missing publisher location: Also, ISBN should be in the consistent format used in the bibliography
• Ref 72 missing retrieval date
• Ref 76: "cricketarchive.co.uk" is not the publisher, it's what has been published. You could use "work=" and add "publisher= Cricinfo"
• Ref 104: missing publisher details

Subject to the above, sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thanks, I've fixed the issues you found above. Just to clarify the extra source, the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF) is widely accepted as a reliable source and is used extensively. The organisation's charter provides a clearer overview of the website's information process. Kosack (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty close but a couple of things:

• I'd expect to see the content under Manager history cited; likewise Backroom staff, unless the citations at the top of the Players section are supposed to cover that too.

@Ian Rose: There were sources on the table headings but the blue of the table was making them difficult to see. I've moved them under each table now to make them clearer. Kosack (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As this would be the nominator's first FA if this is successful, unless I missed something above, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC, or perhaps one of the earlier reviewers would like to take care of it.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information and sources look fine to me, and I checked a good number of the sources I can accessed when I first went through the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector did not show anything suspicious - one is a copy of an old revision of this article, another is the source of a a quote, the others also appear to be OK, although I did adjusted a sentence to remove a part that was copied. Hzh (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: Thanks for partaking in the review process! Normally for a spot-check (unless I'm quite familiar with the reviewer and their methods) I would expect an enumerated list of text–source comparisons. For example, "I checked this passage against this source" and whether it passed verification. Can you provide a list of which passages you checked, against which sources? --Laser brain (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is what you are interested in, then you'll have to disregard my reply on copyvio check. I went over the entire article sentence by sentence (twice), checking against the sources where necessary, which took a week. I'm afraid I do not have the time to do it again. Doing that here means writing a reply that's greater than the size of the article for the sources I checked, and it would be better to have someone else looking at it afresh. There are a number of tools you can use for checking, for example Earwig's Copyvio Detector which does pretty much what you wanted. Hzh (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Hzh, we don't doubt you've put in the effort. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2019 [8].

---

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Eastern Area Command and North-Eastern Area Command, I present the longest-surviving RAAF area command, which operated from 1941 to 1956 and covered most of Western Australia. Geography meant that its prime focus was maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare, so its story was never going to be as action-packed as its northern cousins but, unlike North-Eastern Area at least, it did get to control an RAAF B-24 Liberator heavy bomber squadron, No. 25, which still exists as the non-flying "City of Perth" squadron. Western Area's post-war period also closed with a bang of sorts, as the British atomic test at Montebello took place within its boundaries. I've copyedited and added some info since the article's MilHist A-Class Review a few years ago, so have at it. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Incoming Factotem (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• General

• William Hely appears in the infobox as commander, but this is not supported by anything in the main body of the article.

• Second last para of post-war section...?

Caught out by a sneaky name change from William to Bill. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Technical checks

• ISBN formats are inconsistent; mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13;

• I'm a bit dubious about converting 10-digit ISBNs just because we can. I always try to use the exact ISBN from the edition I've referenced, so if it has both 10- and 13-digit I use the latter but if it only has 10 then I don't convert. Of course I'm happy to check that I've always used 13-digit if available.

• Series/volume information is provided as part of the title for publications by Gillison, Odgers and the RAAF Historical section, but the cite book template has parameters that allow these to be presented separately. The sources can still be identified without any problem, which is what's really important, so this is somewhat picky, but I don't think it's any less picky than consistently formatted ISBNs, which FAC seems to insist on;

• Well, per above, I don't know about FAC insisting on consistent ISBNs if only 10-digit ones are used in the relevant edition. As far as series v. title goes, I don't feel that strongly about it either way, it's just that the format here is consistent with most other RAAF units articles I've brought to FAC.

• I wonder if the Pathfinder bulletin could be listed as a magazine in the bibliography (after all, you list a PhD thesis there)?

• There is method in my madness here in that Pathfinder, though organised like a magazine or bulletin, is AFAIK only available online and has no page numbers and so doesn't really benefit (IMO) from a short cite to something in the References section (unlike the thesis, which employs page numbers and may have different page ranges cited for different parts of the article).

• External link checks

• Ext link checker tool doesn't throw up any problems

• Reliability and quality of sources

• Because it is a primary source, I spent some time checking the first seven (out of a total of 13) uses of the Western Area Headquarters source. Did not see anything to suggest problems with WP:PRIMARY, except you seem to have excluded the four WAAF officers from the total number of officers stated at the end of the 5th para in the World War II section (ref #28 in the version that I reviewed). As a sidenote, I would also point out that you're mixing numbers here (247 staff, but seventy-two officers) and elsewhere in the article (I believe MOS likes us to enumerate numbers above ten and not to mix enumerated and spelled-out numbers in the same sentence);

• I have to admit I like to only use figures for numbers above 100 because there are so many digits in military articles with their numbered units and so on. That said, I think MOS does like the same style for all numbers in same sentence so "247 staff including 72 officers" is probably called for in any case. Tks also for finding that error re. the Waafs, will fix.

My mistake. I thought all numbers above 10 had to use figures, but on reading MOS:NUMERAL I see it's not that simple. Just need to be sure that styles aren't mixed in the same sentence. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked through the website and newspaper sources and found nothing to concern me.

• Survey of sources for comprehensiveness

• I completed an albeit cursory search of Gbooks and JSTOR for western area command raaf and found nothing to suggest the article isn't a comprehensive survey of relevant sources.

That's all. Factotem (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks very much Factotem, always appreciate your thorough reviews -- embedded responses above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. I've queried the ISBN format consistency thing on the TP; it's something I picked up from reading other reviews rather than something I personally care deeply about. See no reason not to Support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in great shape. I reviewed it for Milhist ACR back in July 2016, and have looked at the changes since then, and read through it again just now. The only issue unresolved from the ACR was the addition of some info about what aircraft each squadron was operating, and I note that has now been provided. I have a few pretty minor comments:

• covering New South Wales and Queensland; at the same time, Central Area" seems to beg a full stop and new sentence rather than a semicolon.
  • Done.
• "following the outbreak of the Pacific War,." has an unneeded comma
  • Done (well caught).
• suggest moving the RAAF area commands map down two paras, closer to November 1942 in the narrative
  • On my 1366x768 screen, two paras down would sandwich the image of Brownell and co, so compromised on one para down.
• is there an ORBAT available for the post-November 1942 expansion of the command?
  • Not as such, hence my simply listing operational squadrons at as April 1943 per Odgers.
    • Is that supposed to be 1943? It says 1942. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay I've confused you (or perhaps you've confused me, we'll know when you reply!)... I assumed you were talking about the beginning of the second-last para of the WWII section, the first time we mention combat strength after Nov 1942. What I meant was that I don't have an official OOB for then so I just mentioned in the text the combat squadrons as Odgers gives them at that time. The only OOB as such that I'm aware of is the one as at Apr 1942 that I list at the end of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I meant the ORBAT at the end. No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• File:RAAFAreaCommands1940.png: source link is dead. Same with File:RAAFAreaCommands1942.png
  • Updated links.
• File:An010702DeLaRue1941.jpg: if this was created by a newspaper, why would it be AustraliaGov?
  • I was probably thinking of it being exhibited by a government institution (the state library) rather than its origin. Given it's a newspaper pic that the source website clearly states is out of copyright, I'd assume PD-Australia is the way to go?
    • Yep, that should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article is missing a description. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, never done a short description for any of "my" articles, but I'll have a go... Tks for looking things over, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IR's armed forces articles have the considerable merit – from a reviewer's point of view – of brevity, but that doesn't mean they aren't comprehensive. This one is is a good read, well and widely referenced, with better illustrations than one might expect for an article about a fairly recent time, given copyright constraints (a prize might perhaps be offered for Senior Officer with Worst Shorts among the brass in the second photograph). The article is thoroughly and widely referenced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 22:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always Tim -- the RAAF is quite well served by histories of its small units, especially the flying squadrons, but much less so when it comes to larger formations (wings, groups, commands) so for better or worse I think these types of WP articles are the most comprehensive one will readily find on their subjects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't it be "1941–1942", "1942–1945", "1946–1948" and "1951–1953" in the infobox be?
  • Last time I checked MOS made this optional in infoboxes to help save space, and I like to take advantage of that as we can have lots of date ranges in military boxes.

• MOS told me that it indeed helps save some space but only where space is limited "IMO" the active years and the last commanders should have the four-digit numbers because the space isn't limited. I tottaly understand the first commanders their digit numbers are limiting the infobox. Of course this is just an opinion, what do you think about my opinion? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd agree in this instance space isn't really at a premium so I'm not that fussed if we went to the four-digit years, but I think it should be consistent within the infobox, all one or the other. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Who was the last commander between 1953 and 1956?
  • Probably not wikinotable or I would've added it in but I can double-check the unit history...
    • Double-checked and we do have a name for the last commander (Watson) but TBH I've never heard of him apart from this and if I may say so that's a pretty good indicator he's not notable in WP terms... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And how about the commander between 1948 and 1951? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Guy called Ford, again not wikinotable AFAICS. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks great support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tks CPA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have only one (actionable) comment, which may be just my ignorance:

Lead/IB

• I was a bit confused by the map in the IB until I saw the one lower down. I'm still a bit confused, however: the area that covers most of Western Australia and South Australia (and a corner of the Northern Territory) was covered by who?
  • Yeah, always thought those 1940 boundaries were pretty eccentric myself. I think they started with where units were located, then they drew boundaries encompassing those locations rather strictly by state lines, hence the lead saying "units in" Western Australia rather than just Western Australia (which was never strictly correct even later, as the second map shows). So that big area you mention was no man's land in 1940, because there were no RAAF units in there, and I guess no prospect of any at the time. It was only in 1941 that every square inch of the country was assigned to an area command.
• "Hippolyte De La Rue"? That sounds more like a name from Round the Horne, but I'll take your word for it! (And the nickname Kanga Rue?! I'm not sure I've heard anything more Australian!)
  
  • Yes, bit of a gift for air force comedians, that name! To further confuse matters he was also called Frank, though it wasn't even a middle name (a tribute to his presumed Gallic roots perhaps)...

Aside from that very small point, this appears (to my ignorant eye) to cover everything I'd expect to see. Usual cop out for ignorance, but this passes the FA criteria, as far as I am concerned. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gav, appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15 April 2019 [9].

---

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is another entry in the series of articles on German battleships - I wrote the article originally in 2010 and then rewrote it with new sources last year, after which it passed a MILHIST A-class review (here). The ship had a relatively uneventful career, missing the Battle of Jutland owing to a badly-needed overhaul. Lothringen was briefly kept by the postwar Reichsmarine and converted into a parent ship for minesweepers. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in great shape. A few comments from me:

• in the lead, perhaps mention that Lothringen is Alsace-Lorraine, which will be more familiar to most readers
  • Good idea
• link knots in the lead
  • Done
• I continue to find the mention of HMS Dreadnought out of chronological order to be rather odd. My view is it should be inserted at the chronologically relevant point, rather than in the design section where it presages future events
  • For me, it makes more sense to include it where the article discusses the ship's design, since it has more relevance there, in my opinion, than it does to the ship's activity. I read it as kind of jarring to be talking about the training activities in December 1906, then talk about Dreadnought rendering ships like Lothringen obsolescent, and then go back to training activities.
• were the 17 cm guns in casemates, have gunshields or were they in open mounts? I assume the 8.8 cm guns were in open mounts?
  • Clarified
• in the body, keel laying, ship launching and ship commissioning aren't linked
  • Fixed
• link IX Corps (German Empire)
  • Done
• "to the North Sea, and continued to the Atlantic" does this mean through the Channel or north of the UK?
  • The former - clarified
• suggest "By achieving a rough equality of forces, it was hoped that the German Navy"
  • Good point
• suggest "to retain eight pre-dreadnought battleships for coastal defense under Article 181, two of which would be in reserve."
  • Yeah, that sounds better

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM! Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No spotchecks carried out
• The sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for another good one. Minor comments as I read:

Design

• I am not sure that we need the translation of Kaiserliche Marine again.
  • A fair point.

... to 1907

• "the Kaiser's Schießpreis" - the German Kaiser looks strange with an English possessive, - perhaps "emperor's"?
  • I don't know - Wilhelm II is routinely described as the Kaiser in English.

1908 ...

• link Austro-Hungarian the first time (delink the next)?
  • Good idea
• "Kaiser Wilhelm II's" - another strange looking mix of German and English, but no solution

World War I

• "Additionally, she was in poor condition by that time and required extensive repairs. She returned to service on 14 July and replaced Hessen in the straits in late August." - not sure if repair was done? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch, clarified this.

Lead again as it came up in ERRORS: do we really need a link to battleship? Better avoid sea-of-blue, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably so. Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're coming up on a month without any support for promotion. I've added it the Urgents list but this will have to be archived in the next week if we don't gain any ground. --Laser brain (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that Gerda Arendt and Peacemaker67 do support promotion, but have not indicated so clearly enough. I only occasionally do ships, but shall take a look at this one over the next day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog, much appreciated. Parsecboy (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made a few copy edits which you will want to check.
• "She was laid down in December 1902, was launched in May 1904, and was commissioned in May 1906." Optional: the last two "was" are superfluous.
  • I've gone around and around on this, and have been told contradictory things by different people. I always wrote it this way, but Dan and others always either took it out or advised that I do, until Tony told me the opposite in a relatively recent FAC. So I'm going to avoid pulling my hair out and write this the way it makes sense to me :)

• I have been in similar situations. It is not actually wrong, which is why I marked it as optional. To me it reads clumsily, but if it works for you, then fine.

• "Like all other pre-dreadnoughts built at the turn of the century," Optional: "at" -> 'around'.
  • Works for me
• "Already in poor condition by 1916, she was withdrawn from fleet service in February." I am not sure what purpose "already" serves.
  • My point there was that the ship was only ten years old, but I suppose the average reader won't know that's a relatively short time for a ship.

• Yes, I took that, but, as you suggest, it needs explaining for the mythical "average reader". Feel free to change to 'In poor condition by 1916 after just ten years' service' or similar.

• "The fifth and final unit of her class, she was ordered under the contract name "M" as a new unit for the fleet." I am not sure about the "as a new unit for the fleet" bit; is it not already explicit?
  • I added a note on this, see if that's clear

• It is. And I now know something about pre-WWI German naval contracting with which to amaze my friends.

• "as part of an effort to increase public support for naval expenditures". "expeditures" would normally be singular.
  • Fixed
• "Admiral Henning von Holtzendorff became the fleet commander. Holtzendorff's tenure as fleet commander" I think that "as fleet commander" can be dispensed with.
  • Good point
• "Lothringen was sent out into the Little Belt in February 1912". Optional: delete "out".
  • Done
• "owing in large part due to Kaiser Wilhelm II's displeasure". Not grammatical. You can have 'owing in large part to Kaiser Wilhelm II's displeasure' or 'in large part due to Kaiser Wilhelm II's displeasure'.
  • Good point - fixed

What a well written article. I am impressed.

Thanks Gog. Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well up to FA. Looks as if a lot of work has gone into it. Good stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date ranges. MOS:ENTO "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space." (My emphasis.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, look at the example they give: 1–17 September. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. There seems to me to be a contradiction; but fair enough, your usage is compliant by extending the example. Teach me to read to the end! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yup - I think the distinction would be if the two halves of the range have multiple, spaced components (so the Battle of Jutland would be "31 May – 1 June") but if not, the dash is unspaced. Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice theory, but one example is "1492 – 7 April 1556"!

Another ship another day I only have one comment.

• Unlink Atlantic Ocean by MOS:OVERLINK. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It's odd to see this "armed with ten 12-inch (30.5 cm) guns" the rest of the article uses metric units as primary units.
  • The British didn't use metric at the time - the name of the gun was the BL 12-inch Mk X

• @Parsecboy: At the time you said!!! They barely use metric in the present-day era! :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• May I ask you to add a link about the gun unless I missed the first link. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea, done. Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The infobox doesn't uses short tons while the lead does "At full load, she displaced 14,394 t (14,167 long tons; 15,867 short tons)".
  • Fixed

@Parsecboy: Here some other comments. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gog the Mild: Hey Gog may I ask you why you pinged me? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy hadn't, unless I had missed it, and I didn't know whether you routinely "watched" review pages you have commented on; I don't. I didn't want you to have missed his responses, especially in the light of Lazer brain's suggestion that he may pull the plug. Apologies if you were already onto it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah I think Lazer brain mayn't pull this one out. This nomination has an image, a source review and 3 supports, if he replies to my comments then the nomination has 4 supports. This one is close to an FA-class. But no worries I appriciate your help and don't worry about this one. Trust me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, Lazer's concern was the fact that no one had supported promotion yet, but after Gog pinged Peacemaker and Gerda, I think we're out of the woods. Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well this one looks good here is support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2019 [10].

---

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) & Tim riley talk20:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Round the Horne is a BBC radio comedy show from the 1960s. It broke boundaries and records, and helped, in its own small way, to alter the social scene of Britain. Even now, 50 years after its last episode was broadcast, it is still considered the best radio comedy series of all. It would be bona—nay, fantabulosa—to vada your dolly old eeks with comments (that's your actual palare, that is – when trolling meant something quite different). We've tried to keep it clean, but if you see a double entendre, please do whip it out. – SchroCat (talk) & Tim riley talk20:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. My queries on this first rate article were dealt with at PR. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Dudley. Your input at PR and support here are greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 23:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto! Many thanks Dudley. - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have spladgered my grommets seeking a quibble, but have been forced to chuck in the towel (even though that has left my grommets exposed). Congrats.--Smerus (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Smerus, for your input at PR and your support here. We are much indebted. Tim riley talk 10:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we are: many thanks Smerus. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• Im not sure there is a need here: the captions do the task. Or at least I think that's the way it's supposed to work? - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• File:The_cast_of_Round_the_Horne.jpg: the unique historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself is historic - at the moment this isn't evidenced here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Swapped for a more appropriate one

• Thanks Nikkimaria, as always I'm much obliged to you. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Had minimal comments at the PR, and they were addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wehwalt. I fear the article must seem a touch odd to anyone not from these shores, and we are most grateful for the trouble you have taken in reviewing it. Tim riley talk 22:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, many thanks, Wehwalt. I'm also much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very well written and comprehensive. I hadn't heard about this show before but was happy to learn about it. I made a couple of really small edits. One more minor point for your consideration:

• There are a number of mentions throughout the article of the Hornblowers and the Fraser Hayes Four but inconsistent use of the/The and whether there are quotation marks around "The Hornblowers". Note that MOS:THEMUSIC recommends "the" (small t) but I know this is a contentious point and would never insist on this to anyone who has strong views that it should be otherwise—as long as each article as a whole is consistent in its usage. Cheers, thank you for the interesting article. Moisejp (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Moise - that's very good of you, and thanks for your time and comment. I've made the capitals on Hornblowers and Fraser Hayes, to lower case so they are all consistent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No spotchecks carried out
• Newspapers

• The link to The Independent (William Cook 7 June 2006) goes to a google search page
• The Liverpool Echo (Joe Riley 18 May 2005) does not appear to need a subscription to view
• However, the Daily Telegraph (Charles Spencer 2 January 2004) does need the subscription template...
• ...while Spencer's 3 February DT article is shown without need for a subscrption

• Websites

• "Round and Round the Horne": link goes to wrong page
• "Mary Warnock": link goes to wrong page

• Apart from these minor issues, the references are impeccably presented. All other links are working correctly. The sources themselves are of the required standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this extremely thorough review, BB. The points you mention shall be attended to pronto. Tim riley talk 11:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done – satisfactorily, I hope. Tim riley talk 11:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Brian. Tim seems to have sorted these ones already. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped nadgering my splod to review this bona effort, but I find nothing that needs changing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Jim, for your support. I hope you enjoyed reading the article as much as we enjoyed writing it. Tim riley talk 13:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, many thanks once again, Jim, we're much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst idly fangling my wurzels, I noted that there was no explanation in the article of the programme's title. If we are being encyclopaedic, we should I think give a word to the not-so-wise about circumnavigation.--Smerus (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm not sure I read anything that explained it (I think the writers of the various sources thought the joke too obvious to explain), but there will be some who don't see the connection, I'm sure. I'll have a hunt to see what there is. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly OED seems only to give 'around the horn adj. and n. Baseball (a) adj. (attributive) designating an act of throwing the ball around the infield (see around the horn at Phrases 2); (b) n. a double play in which the fielder at third base throws to second base who throws to first base, getting two outs in the process; (also, rare) a type of sidearm pitch' , and doesn't have (at first glance) 'round the Horn' (or 'around the Horn'). If there is a derivation (and there clearly is) of the title, obvious or not, it should be noted somehow.--Smerus (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks suitable to me, and I'll add it, if SchroCat and Smerus concur. In a footnote: To "round the Horn" is a traditional term for navigating the dangerous waters at the southern tip of South America, Cape Horn. Ref: NYT etc, as in link. (Afterthought: I see from the WP article on Cape Horn that the winds match our two nominators. One of us is in his Roaring Forties and not so far off his Furious Fifties, and the other is in his Screaming Sixties (Department of No Surprise). But I digress.) Tim riley talk 15:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bona by me!--Smerus (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Done - I found a good source that links the naval term to the programme, and managed not to refer to the seamen sailors at any point. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commented at the Peer review, here. Very well-written, comprehensively sourced and a great pleasure to read. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks KJP - your assistance at PR was as invaluable as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I echo my Rt Hon and Disgraceful Friend's thanks to you, KJ. Tim riley talk 17:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tricky one. Should it be "the wogglers' trade" or "the woggler's trade"? My belief is, according to standard English practice, the latter. Of course, your source may give the former - but that would then be i.m.o. an error in copyediting..........OED gives, for example, "cobbler's awl", "cobbler's punch" and " cobbler's wax "; also "cobbler's end" and "cobbler's peg", (both of which could certainly be worked at).--Smerus (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather rash to dwell on "cobbler's" in this context, me judice, and the possessive apostrophe is faithfully reproduced from the source. Rambling Syd presumably had the Gowers revision of Fowler in his gander bag; I haven't checked the current edition. It is very flattering indeed that you are inclined to revisit this review, though I hope nobody you know is aware of the fact. Tim riley talk 17:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping my pseudonym may help conceal my dark tendencies.--Smerus (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smerus: Should this be considered an open item, or are you satisfied with Tim's response? --Laser brain (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Laser brain:, I am perfectly satisfied, admittedly I should have made this clearer than just giving a laconic response.--Smerus (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2019 [11].

---

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Kim Clijsters, the first Belgian tennis player to hold the world No. 1 ranking. Active from 1997–2012, Clijsters has been ranked as the 14th greatest women's tennis player in the Open Era. She is perhaps most famous for retiring at the age of 23, only to come back and become one of the few players to win a Grand Slam singles title as a mother.

I have re-written the entire article over the past six months, and it has passed its GA review. I have written eight other GAs for the Tennis WikiProject, but this is the one I have spent the most time on. There are two other tennis FAs (Milos Raonic and the 1877 Wimbledon Championship). If promoted, the article would be just the eighth Women's sport biography FA, the first since 2014, and by far the most notable of the group. I am hoping to have this article ready to be a TFA by June 8th, and I recognize the window for that opportunity is closing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added alt text for all of the images. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hmlarson

Overall

• This is a very good article. It is really well-written and sourced. Nice work! Here are a few initial comments. I'll add some more as I go along.

Lead

• "Clijsters is a former world No. 1 in both singles and doubles..." Consider changing to something like: Clijsters ranked No.1 in the world in singles from ____ to ____ and doubles from _____ to _____, if possible.
  • This won't work because she had four brief separate reigns at No. 1 across three non-consecutive years. Nonetheless, I added in the next paragraph that she first became No. 1 in 2003, and the third paragraph already mentions she becomes No. 1 again in 2011. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Clijsters played in an era where her primary rivals..." Consider changing to something like: Clisjsters competed professionally from ____ to ___ in an era where her primary rivals...
  • I added the years. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Born to athletic parents with backgrounds in professional football and gymnastics, Clijsters was renowned for her own athleticism." Consider removing the first part of the sentence before the comma in the lead and "her own". It detracts from her accomplishments + is really more supporting info (not primary).
  • I agree. I split this sentence into two to separate each point, and removed "own". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other work

Coaching + Broadcasting career

• Her coaching and broadcasting careers seems worthy of inclusion for future expansion: ref 1 ref 2 ref 3 ref 4
  • I added both of these into her "Personal life" section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonprofit Ten4Kim

• Consider for inclusion.

ref 1 ref 2

• I added this as well as SOS into her "Personal life" section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneur

• Her website says she is an entrepreneur. Is that related to her tennis school in Belgium? ref 1
  • I think so, I can't think of anything else. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

• Consider bolding the subheaders.
  • Good idea. Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coaches

• Link 2010 US Open in this section and image captions
• Link 2002 US Open in this section
• Link 2005 US Open in this section and image caption
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

• Link 2011 Australian Open
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmlarson (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Figureskatingfan

Overall

Very well-done and thorough article about an important figure in women's tennis. I'm not at all familiar with tennis, so I'm sure I'm missing some of the nuances, but I was able to come up with a few picky points.

2003...

• Clijsters had a historic season in 2003. The word "historic" feels pidgeony to me. I suggest that you find a source that expresses the same or a similar sentiment, and if not, that you remove it.
  • I changed it to "annus mirabilis", the term used in the book. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hopman Cup

• Is it necessary to explain how this tournament is run? You don't make similar explanations for other tournaments like Wimbledon. If we can click on the link to find that information about Wimbledon, we can do the same for the Hopman Cup, right?
  • I wanted to explain the format because as a team competition, it's relatively complicated compared to the individual tournaments. I wouldn't expect even a regular tennis fan to be familiar with it, and I feel like you need to understand the format for the next paragraph to make any sense. I don't explain individual tournaments because aside they all have the same standard bracket format, which is also much simpler. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clijsters vs. Henin

• Clijsters's biggest rival was Justine Henin, who grew up in the French-speaking part of Belgium. They have been regarded as having little in common except their nationality and their relationship has varied over time. I don't see either statement directly supported by ref 172. Of course, they can be inferred by the SMH article, but I'm not sure that's enough for a FA. I suggest changing the wording to better reflect the SMH source, or any other that discusses the rivalry.
  • I'm taking the first part of the second sentence from "despite the fact the Belgians are indivisible in the public estimation in their homeland, sometimes it seems that all they have in common is their nationality." Was that what you were concerned about? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! I'm ready to support when the above points are addressed, or when you explain why they shouldn't change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Figureskatingfan! I addressed all of your comments. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, my pleasure. I love reviewing articles because I get to read about stuff I know nothing about. I'm satisfied with your response above about the Hopman Cup; it makes total sense. Nice job; I will now SUPPORT. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quality and reliability: The article is amply referenced, using a mixture of local and national news reports, on and offline magazine articles, some dedicated tennis websites, and major broadcasters such as BBC and CNN. Overall the mix is much what I would expect to find in a major tennis article, and in my view meets the required standards of quality and reliability.
• Verification: Spotchecks – I carried out a sample of spotchecks for verification and close paraphrasing. Mostly these checked out, but a few raise minor issues:

• Ref 15 - ARTICLE: "She won two junior Grand Slam doubles titles, the French Open with Jelena Dokic and the US Open with Eva Dyrberg". SOURCE: The US Open victory with Dyrberg is not mentioned in the source

• I added the source from the next sentence to this one as well. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 102 - ARTICLE: "Clijsters entered 2007 intending to retire at the end of the season, but only played in five tournaments due to injuries." SOURCE: No mention of restricting her appearances to five, or of other factors that limited her appearances, e.g. marriage.

• I moved the source to clarify it is just for the first part of the sentence, added the book source to the end of the sentence, and re-worded the second part to clarify that she only ended up playing five tournaments (which wasn't her plan). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 142 - ARTICLE: "She needed to retire from a fourth round match at the Indian Wells Open due to a shoulder injury. Then, as a result of a right ankle injury suffered while dancing at a wedding in April, the French Open was the only clay court event she entered. At the second Grand Slam tournament of the year, she was upset in the second round by No. 114 Arantxa Rus after failing to convert two match points in the second set." SOURCE: The information relating to Indian Wells is not covered in the source.

• Added the book as a source. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• External links: All links to sources are working according to the external links checker tool.
• Formatting: A few issues:

• There is a general issue around italicisation of organisations such as ESPN, CNN, CBC, ABC, Reuters and BBC (there may be others). You have used the parameter "website=" in the template, but these organisations are not websites, they are the publishers of the website and should not be in italics. In such cases use the parameter "publisher=", which will automatically de-italicise.

• Fixed these instances, as well as others (ITF Tennis, WTA Tennis, Australian Open, US Open, International Tennis Hall of Fame, etc.). I believe I understand the difference now. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the New York Times articles are only available on subscription. You need to check these and where appropriate add the (subscription required) template.

• I didn't need a subscription to access any of them (since they give you 5 free articles per month). Should I tag all of them anyway? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 10: state tha the source language is French

• Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 81: you should clarify that the publication is the New York Sun, not to be confused with the British tabloid.

• Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 214 Bodo 2010 lacks page reference. What is the significance of the added date?

• The chapters in the book are each denoted with a different date. Nonetheless, I replaced the date with the number of the chapter. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 246: source article title missing

• Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 249: What does "bekroningen" signify?

• It means "awards", and it's a list of awards in the appendix. I replaced it with "appendix" instead. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC) (For the purposes of clarification I did the review, not the responses)[reply]

Thanks, Brianboulton! I replied to all of your comments above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will post comments ASAP. Long article, so lots to read! :) ceranthor 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "Clijsters was a world No. 1 in both singles and doubles, having once held both rankings simultaneously." - think it would be worthwhile mentioning when she held both
  • Added 2003, and removed "2003" from when she first attained the No. 1 ranking in the next paragraph to avoid too many 2003s. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• " were compatriot Justine Henin and 23-time Grand Slam singles champion Serena Williams." - not sure you have to include the number of times Serena won Grand Slams; not necessary IMO
  • I wanted to say "compatriot Justine Henin and Serena Williams, one of the greatest players of all-time", but I feel like that is too subjective for the lead. I felt like writing "23-time Grand Slam singles champion" is a more objective way to say something along the same lines. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Coming from a country with limited success in men's or women's tennis, she" - obviously it's implied that you're talking about Clijsters, but since you refer to three female-identifying players in the previous sentence I'd use Clijsters instead of "she" here
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Professional career

• "Clijsters continued to excel at the ITF level, winning four more titles within the next year, two in each of singles and doubles.[9][17]" - "two in each of" is wordy; one or two of these words need to be cut but not totally sure which
  • Simplified to "two in both" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Clijsters began 1999 ranked No. 420 in singles.[18]" - in which ranking list, exactly?
  • Changed to "Clijsters began 1999 with a WTA singles ranking of No. 420 in the world". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "entering the main draw as a lucky loser after losing in the final round of qualifying." - is "lucky loser" an idiom or an actual tennis term? I have never heard it used, but if it's an idiom it should be rephrased because I think they should be avoided in encyclopedia articles
  • It is a tennis term, referring to a player who makes the main draw after losing in qualifying due to a different player in the main draw withdrawing from the tournament after qualifying already began. I added the wikilink to the lucky loser page. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "After barely getting a spot in the qualifying draw," - wait, why is this? Elaborate?
  • Changed to "After barely having a high enough ranking to get into the qualifying draw" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "With her success, Clijsters became the first Belgian world No. 1 in each of singles and doubles.[18]" - same note as above
  • I wanted to leave the year out here, since it is in the "2003" section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, sorry, should have clarified; I meant the "in each of singles and doubles." ceranthor 13:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh okay, changed to "With her success, Clijsters became the first Belgian world No. 1 in singles or doubles, achieving both feats in August." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "She extended her tour win streak to 17 matches—all of which without dropping a set[17]" - don't need the "of which" I don't think
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "she needed to retire from that match as well after twisting her ankle down a break in the third set " - is "down" meant to be "during?"
  • "Up a break" or "down a break" are tennis terms referring to when one player has more (or less) breaks of serve than the other player during a set. Practically, it indicates who is in position to win the set (since players are always expected to win their own service games). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it to "after twisting her ankle while down a break in the third set". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other sections looked fine. This is a well-written and engaging article, and I'll be happy to support it per 1a once my comments are addressed. ceranthor 19:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ceranthor! I replied to each comment above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: All fine except the one I responded to above. Support per 1a. ceranthor 13:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change above. Sportsfan77777 (talk)

23:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Overall, a great article. Well written and referenced. Will be happy to support. I have a few comments:

• "Her father Lei was a professional football defender" Can we link football here? I had no idea what code they play in Belgium.
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "world No. 1" Should "world" be capitalised? Or should "No. 1" not? I'm inclined to the latter, per the article in question, but "No. x" is used consistently throughout the article.
  • The tennis project guidelines are to use "world No. 1". In the media, both "world No. 1" and "World No. 1" are commonly used ("No." is always capitalized, at least with tennis). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Clijsters's rivalry with Serena included two of the biggest controversies in Serena's career, the 2001 Indian Wells final which led to both Williams sisters' long boycott of the tournament and the 2009 US Open semifinal which Serena lost on a point penalty." Comma after "tournament".
  • I added that comma, and also a colon after "Serena's career" to clear things up. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The word "longtime" seems a bit over-used.
  • Agreed. I removed the one in the lead. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the Career statistics, they are sourced to [12] but this does not cover all the information presented. I there a missing source?
  • I added her WTA profile as a second source. I believe they both cover everything. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WTA profile is a little better in that lists not just the titles, but also the finals (and counts both). It also has the overall W–L records for each Grand Slam. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the ITF profile, the performance timelines can be found under the "Grand Slam Singles" and "Grand Slam Doubles" tabs. The year-end rankings and a list of titles are on the default "Biography" tab. The individual match results for the Grand Slam finals (including opponents) can be found under the "Activity" tab, but you need to click on "View All". Otherwise, it just shows matches from the most recent 52 weeks (which is silly for retired players who haven't played recently...). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • From looking at her WTA profile, I caught two errors in the singles performance timeline. First, I corrected the number of finals in 1999 (and the total). Second, her total number of wins at Wimbledon was one too high (due to a walkover match win in 2006, which doesn't officially count as a win towards her W–L record). I believe everything else is correct. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional portals: Belgium, Biography, Olympics, Women's sports.
  • Good idea! I added them into a portal bar. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Hawkeye7! I addressed each of the comments above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.